ISSUE: In the near future, the Assembly Human Services Committee will consider A-2557. This proposal would permit adults who had been adopted as children, as well as the guardians or adoptive parents of a child who is currently a minor, to learn the identity of a biological parent. These birth parents had surrendered children for adoption with not merely an expectation of confidentiality but with actual statutory assurance that his or her identity as the child’s parent will be shielded from public disclosure.
Every one knows that the Catholic Church loves its secrets and its lies. Look at the way that they have treated those that have been abused by their Catholic priests. They have done everything to discredit them. The adults have had to go through being rehumiliated by the Church's attitudes. Fortunately these adults have stood strong. Recently I posted a story of two men who are suing a priest for past child support. This priest raped their mothers. All the Church has to say is that this man doesn't have the money to pay them. The Church does not want to held accountable for any of its corrupt antics by its priests.
The Catholic Church did the same to many of the mothers of the Baby Scoop Era. They want to discredit them to the hilt. It probably doesn't help that these women are standing up now. Most of these women do not want that confidentiality. Most did not ask for it. All these groups want is to hide their secrets. To hide what they did to our mothers.
NJCC POSITION: The New Jersey Catholic Conference opposes A2557 as currently written. NJCC does not oppose adoptees’ having full access to their biological parents’ medical histories; this information can often prove helpful in dealing with medical difficulties that they – and their own descendents – might confront. While it is currently fully available, the Legislature’s formally mandating such availability would be advisable.
Okay medical history is fully available. No its not fully available. If it were, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. We would be discussing them with our parents. We would not be having a social worker coming between us deciding what information is valuable and what information is not. We would not have someone deciding for us. I love how they put it as descendants ~ hmmm aren't they family? I think so and so does a few others of us. For me, I don't have my father's side of the health issues. The adoption agency feels that I don't need that information because she supposedly refused.
Neither does the Conference oppose revealing the identities of their natural parents to adoptees in cases where the natural parents have affirmatively consented to the release of such information. However, to release that information without the birth parents’ actual consent is a callous betrayal.
I like their definition of callous betrayal. What about the callous betrayal of what they did to our parents? What about the sparse meals they fed our mothers? What about the times that they refused our mothers time to spend in Church? What about the humiliation that they put our mothers through? They called them bad girls, whores, and such. They have left them with that title for eternity. They sent them to basements and the attics in labor until they were ready to deliver. Then they denied them the right to hold their children, denied them the right to love their children, denied them the right to name their children, and many other things. They denied them the right to decent medical care. It was either too much medication or none. They left them to suffer.
Birth mothers have relied on an assurance of privacy not based on some private contract or agreement between themselves and the adoption agency; no such contract or agreement was needed in light of the specific public law – which the court has called “the statutory shield of confidentiality.”
The state is not responsible for the actions of adoption agencies, the social workers, the priests, the nuns, and others. The law was established to cover the illegal activities of adoption agencies that dealt in black market babies, to remove the stigma of bastarddom from the children, and to keep first parents from interfering in the adoptive parents lives. It was not established to "protect" the first parents from their children.
A2557 should be amended to include an enhanced mutual consent registry system which would link biological parents and adult adopted persons when the parties have requested and consented to such a reunion. This enhanced mutual consent registry would use a qualified individual or agency to function as an Intermediary
Of course they don't want us making our own decisions. They don't want us to communicate with our parents. They want to make more money off us. When CIs make 1,000 bucks and more off adoptees and their first parents, its a deal that keeps getting better. They took our parents' families. They took our adoptive parents. Now they want to take us. It adds up after a while. They keep profitting while we keep being treated like criminals who have done nothing wrong. We have been made guilty just by either being born to an unwed mother or being an unwed mother or by being an adoptive parent.