Adoption confidentiality: What should the policy be?

And now we have the case in the UK where twins, separated and adopted at birth, met later in life and married, not realizing they were twins. (The law allowed the evidence of a twin to be expunged for each person's birth certificate to protect the confidentiality of the adoption.) STORY HERE

Foxfyre wrote:

And now we have the case in the UK where twins, separated and adopted at birth, met later in life and married, not realizing they were twins. (The law allowed the evidence of a twin to be expunged for each person's birth certificate to protect the confidentiality of the adoption.) STORY HERE

Of course, the reported case is complete BS. Nobody's been able to find any record of it actually happening, other than the statement by the politician trying to get his legislation passed.

How do you know? It is being reported by numerous news sources--it was one of AOLs lead stories this morning--and so far no source seems to be questioning the validity of it.

The details:



Twins, a brother and a sister, were adopted shortly after birth by different parents. They later accidentally married each other. They later found out and got a divorce.

David Alton, a member of the House of Lords (UK parliament), told a story as an argument that people who are adopted should be able to later find out who their parents are.


That's it. Alton doesn't name the people, he doesn't name the high court judge involved in their subsequent divorce, he doesn't give a timeframe when this happened. He's also a politician pushing a pet issue through a lawmaking body of government.

Politicians lie to get laws passed, folks. Yes shocking I know. This "news" story is complete crap.

Judging from the article CNN ran, the big media folks think so too. CNN's article pins all the details on the UK Press Association. The CNN article in it's distilled basic form is: "UK Press Association says stuff." The UK Press Association's information, distilled to basic form, is: "David Alton says stuff." Both articles are therefore factually correct, these things were said. It's a hedge used often by media companies use to get around taking blame later on for accidentally reporting unsubstantiated facts as news. You see it fairly often in gossip articles, quoting unnamed sources for juicy celebrity details.

I have yet to see any article about these supposed married twins that did any fact checking to see if there was any truth to this story. No one bothered. Why? Because it's sensational. Brother and Sister Hardcore Action. It's a top story on every major international news outlet today.

...

I have adopted, and my child knows she's adopted, yet, her biological
parents have no knowledge of where she is, for very good reason. However,
should my child be interested in looking for her biological parents when
she's an adult, she will get all information that were made available to me.

I do feel it is wrong to leave children in the dark, and not tell them
that they're adopted (age appropriate of course)

Foxfyre wrote:

How do you know? It is being reported by numerous news sources--it was one of AOLs lead stories this morning--and so far no source seems to be questioning the validity of it.

Do some critical reading.

"British Twins separated at birth who later married" - I'm calling BS

Quote:

The details:



Twins, a brother and a sister, were adopted shortly after birth by different parents. They later accidentally married each other. They later found out and got a divorce.

David Alton, a member of the House of Lords (UK parliament), told a story as an argument that people who are adopted should be able to later find out who their parents are.


That's it. Alton doesn't name the people, he doesn't name the high court judge involved in their subsequent divorce, he doesn't give a timeframe when this happened. He's also a politician pushing a pet issue through a lawmaking body of government.

Politicians lie to get laws passed, folks. Yes shocking I know. This "news" story is complete crap.

Judging from the article CNN ran, the big media folks think so too. CNN's article pins all the details on the UK Press Association. The CNN article in it's distilled basic form is: "UK Press Association says stuff." The UK Press Association's information, distilled to basic form, is: "David Alton says stuff." Both articles are therefore factually correct, these things were said. It's a hedge used often by media companies use to get around taking blame later on for accidentally reporting unsubstantiated facts as news. You see it fairly often in gossip articles, quoting unnamed sources for juicy celebrity details.

I have yet to see any article about these supposed married twins that did any fact checking to see if there was any truth to this story. No one bothered. Why? Because it's sensational. Brother and Sister Hardcore Action. It's a top story on every major international news outlet today.

...

The general slant is that the story is true along with mentions of similar incidents in which other siblings did not know they were related and were attracted to each other. These I think might be more credible than some blogger posting on FARK.

But whether this particular story is true or not, the issue of adoption privacy and rights is not in the least diminished.

Foxyfire, mine is an only child, so she has no comparison.
As a parent you always try your best, and put your child's best interest
at heart first, so these parents who haven't told their children that they
are adopted, did mean well, thought it might be less of a friction to the
child while growing up and who knows, how it would have turned out
if they knew.

In retrospect, we can criticize and question everything, can't we?

I also have a friend who was adopted (the oldest of three) and she
knew about it early on. As an adult she never had the urge to look for her
biological parents, and never did.

Foxfyre wrote:

The general slant is that the story is true along with mentions of similar incidents in which other siblings did not know they were related and were attracted to each other. These I think might be more credible than some blogger posting on FARK.

As usual, you will believe the craziest voice of authority rather than using your brain.

In Oregon, where I live there is no such thing as a "closed" adoption - the records are available to any adult who seeks their own record.

It caused quite a stir when the law was passed; mostly among people who had surrendered children and didn't want to be found.

Our laws don't adress sperm donation and the like though because, really, that isn't adoption.

I don't see a problem with providing a medical history from a "genetic parent" (for lack of a better description) while maintaining the persons privacy. Sibling privacy might be a bit more complicated.

I don't think accepting some bloggers opinion that the story is false is using my brain, nor do I think drawing any firm conclusions without having all the facts is necessary or intelligent, which is why none of the sources I mentioned do that. But knock yourself out.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think accepting some bloggers opinion that the story is false is using my brain, nor do I think drawing any firm conclusions without having all the facts is necessary or intelligent, which is why none of the sources I mentioned do that. But knock yourself out.

That "some blogger" is Drew Curtis... He's written a book about how the media manipulates stories in this way.

PM me if there's ever any evidence that Lord Alton didn't just fabricate the whole story.

Ideally, each party involved can submit personal information (and contact details if they wish) to a central agency which can then be accessed by the rest of the parties. That way, the info is there voluntarily. If bio mom doesn't wish any contact, she still has the option to provide medical and other history for the child to access, but she can retain her privacy. Child will then have to be satisifed with that. And if child doesn't want to know bio mom, she doesn't have to contact her.

I am against retroactive opening of previously closed files in any other format because the agreement all parties (both sets of parents) agreed to would now be breached. That could have devastating consequences (ie birth mom's present husband and children may not be aware of adopted-out child).

As to whether or when to tell adopted child, that's entirely up to the family. As someone said, you can be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Only the people involved should be involved.

Just my opinion.