I recently spoke with April Dinwoodie and Kim Paglino of the Donaldson Adoption Institute. It was a good discussion but, despite my pressing, I did not receive direct answers to three critical questions I had asked earlier.
Our conversation was similar to interactions I have with lawyers on cases where obvious disagreements exist but, for the most part, we agree on many of the basic facts, remain cordial if not friendly to each other, and retain a solid understanding of all of the relevant issues. Such conversations are almost always circular, people agreeing on certain fundamental things but not necessarily staking out anything more substantive. This approach, while understandable, sometimes reveals more after first glance, particularly if direct answers to posed questions are avoided. It is as if you define things by the absence of color or content, the same as if you draw a moon by coloring an indigo sky around it, leaving a blank white orb on the page. It is through the emptiness of an answer that we sometimes obtain the truth.
And here’s what I can cull from that blank white moon in front of me now:
Donaldson cannot commit to unrestricted OBC access for all adult adoptees, unequivocally, without compromise. If Donaldson could, it would just say it. But it won’t. Instead, Donaldson’s answer is purposely fuzzy and pliable. And this is consistent with how Donaldson has viewed the fight for unrestricted OBC access in the past as well as how it views its new legislative “leadership” role on the issue today: not so much as a staunch and uncompromising civil rights and legislative advocate for adoptees but instead a facilitator of a flexible approach that could resonate well with “all members of the extended family of adoption.” It is a think tank and collaboratist approach, and think tank is a phrase that April and Kim specifically used in their conversation with me and in their most recent blog post. There is nothing wrong with a think tank—Donaldson has produced solid thinktanky things, like testimony and research and policy papers that many of us have used in political and legal advocacy. But is Donaldson committing to lead on adoptee civil rights by maintaining a firm and uncompromising political and legislative stance, specifically whenever compromise is pursued? No. Donaldson is not committing to that. Not only has it never committed to that, but it can’t.
Donaldson’s specific interest in adoptee civil rights is facilitating compromise. I don’t doubt that adoptee rights is within the scope of Donaldson’s interest—it’s part of its mission, along with serving all people involved or affected by adoption. But what is its specific interest in this project? That’s somewhat hard to say, unless you talk about “deliverables.” For deliverables it relates to two primary things: 1) creating a “free, technologically advanced online hub” for advocates and 2) “uniting” advocates and allies around a broad rights-based understanding of adoptee rights. That all sounds great for deliverables, the things that you promise to do. But getting at those deliverables, at least for Donaldson, necessarily means diminishing the voice of one large group of advocates: those who are rightly and adamantly opposed to any compromise on OBC access rights. If Donaldson cannot itself commit to an uncompromised rights-based legislative position but nevertheless defines its interest as uniting all advocates around such a framework, then what is the unifying factor? Access within context? Rights but not rights?
After all, DAI staff, projects, and operations are approved by and accountable not to adoptee rights activists but to the Donaldson board of directors, one that is made up specifically to represent all interests in adoption. Again, nothing wrong with a broad umbrella of interests; perhaps it can lead to more collaboration, particularly with those outside of adoption and involved in equal rights advocacy.
But what does collaboration look like, ultimately, if the bottom line on OBC access legislation remains wide open and fluctuates according to “contextual factors” and “complications?” It looks like this: compromise is acceptable because it fits within the interests of those specifically acknowledged at the table or, more specifically, to those whose interests are about getting something done, no matter the real and lasting impact that the actual something may have on adopted people. Donaldson’s specific interest is to open a safe space for that sort of compromise. There’s really no other way to interpret its commitment, especially when you look closely at the language from its most recent response.
Bastards in the Room. The most revealing paragraph in Donaldson’s recent response to my questions—and the one most worth unpacking— is this:
We will never turn our backs on advocates who strive to reach the goal of unrestricted access to OBCs yet are stymied by a variety of contextual factors that have made this challenging in many ways. We choose not to be ignorant to the complications that exist, respond with support, and seek to work in encouraging ways with our brothers and sisters in adoption to provide tools that can aid advocates in reaching the goal of unrestricted access. There is enough bullying going on in the world these days; the adoption community need not participate as this only further complicates the work that we all so deeply believe in.
First, there is little mistaking that this paragraph cleverly does one thing: throws shade on a large number of adoptee activists who identify as vocal, adamant, uncompromising, in-your-face, no-backing-down bastards. And without saying so specifically, the paragraph obviously refers to Bastard Nation, the national adoptee rights organization that Donaldson keeps wholly and deliberately unacknowledged in all of its campaign rhetoric. Bastard Nation, and all those who believe strongly in uncompromised OBC access rights, are the real and actual bastards in the room.
Donaldson has another subtle message, also political and also addressed to adoptee activists who may agree with or find common ground with Bastard Nation. And that is this: if you believe staunchly and unequivocally in adoptee equality around access to an OBC—without compromise, without diminishment—then by definition you are “ignorant to the complications that exist” and have effectively “turn[ed] your back on advocates” who will accept access through compromise. That’s because Donaldson defines compromise—whether in the form of redactions, vetoes, date-restricted access, or any other tools that directly diminish adoptee civil rights—as valid responses to the “variety of contextual factors” that make adoptee rights legislation complicated. Finally, strongly disagreeing with compromise by opposing it—in online forums, in direct work with or against local advocacy groups, or by working steadfastly to defeat compromised legislation—is considered “bullying” within the adoption community.
One thing that Bastard Nation does—and is relentless in doing so—is refuse to give in to compromised legislation, at the beginning, at the end, at any point. Bastard Nation has been crystal clear about this position for more than two decades, and yet people go apoplectic when Bastard Nation actually holds fast to its compass and works hard to defeat compromised legislation. Does Bastard Nation always play nice in its own room? No, and I’ve been at the garbage end of that myself, calling them out before and vowing at least once that I would never interact with them again (ha, as if that mattered).
But where it counts—with legislators, with strategy, with political analysis, with positions, with the dogged and uncompromising pursuit of actual undiminished civil rights for all adoptees—Bastard Nation plays right. And playing right does not mean giving in and saying things that sound awesome but aren’t true. It means remaining dedicated and tough, calling to task advocates who mislead and obscure the truth or who sell out “adoptee rights” by marketing the language of those rights but delivering something far different. It means being involved in every debate, whether supportive or oppositional, and calling to task advocates who fuzz up the issues mushing medical history, search and reunion, and all the other extraneous and irrelevant factors into OBC access.
Bastard Nation has been the only national advocacy group to do this. Except now, and that’s perhaps what Donaldson and its yet unidentified allies are ultimately trying to do: without acknowledging Bastard Nation, it seeks to create a safe and alternative legislative space in an attempt to deter (and actually insult) all of the unwholesome, uncompromising, and ignorant bastards in the room. That is, the DAI approach is intended to weaken the strength of a no-compromise solution by throwing the legislative net wide open, discrediting the bastards, and remaining agnostic to damaging compromised solutions that result.
Donaldson’s fuzzy compromised message on unrestricted OBC access—in conjunction with a call to advocates and adoptees to rally around such a message—has real-world impact. Take Texas and Indiana, both interlinked. Advocates in Texas, consistently “stymied by a variety of contextual factors” otherwise known as “Donna Campbell,” appeared to shift course toward the end of the Texas legislative session by consistently floating an Indiana solution, one that involves birth parent consent and all the resulting vetoes and redactions. STAR, the advocacy group currently leading the efforts for OBC access in Texas, does not commit unequivocally to adoptee equality—i.e., like Donaldson, STAR refuses to commit up front to a no-compromise solution. This is not only something important to Bastard Nation but it is something all adoptees deserve, particularly when we are asked repeatedly to throw in our support.
When STAR’s bill began to languish in the Texas Senate late last month, STAR sent out a plea that asked people to sign a petition to bring Donna Campbell to the negotiating table. STAR did not reveal the specific why or whatfor of such a move, and it characterized it as a request for Campbell to join the bill’s sponsor and pass an unrestricted OBC access bill. Donna Campbell, however, is never going to agree to unrestricted access in Texas. Ever. But she has done one thing: speak positively about birth parent veto power, particularly the one in Indiana’s new law. So when STAR repeatedly floats an Indiana solution on Twitter for weeks and then announces a petition that seeks to convince Campbell to work with the bill’s sponsor on legislation, there’s really no other conclusion that compromise is likely being placed on the table.
Except that’s not how it’s sold, and that’s not what advocates are given up front. It’s also why I didn’t sign the petition. Because STAR does not commit unequivocally to a no-compromise solution, advocates who adhere to such a principle are naturally if not wholly reluctant to provide last minute support. Signing a petition in such a context means you are open to if not fully supportive of the resulting compromise, for the simple fact that there is no commitment from advocates up front to kill such compromise. Had STAR made that commitment up front, unequivocally, I would have readily signed the petition. But we are instead asked to have faith in STAR’s commitment to adoptee rights without STAR having to make such a public commitment itself.
That’s the Donaldson approach. For all its messaging and all its promise, the Donaldson approach is the same today as it was ten or fifteen years ago: be OK with compromise because such thinking allows for complications and context and nuance and also satisfies the interests of the entire “family” of adoption.
And that’s what this OBC2020 stuff all comes down to. Donaldson, in a snappy and well-crafted advocacy campaign, relies on a fuzzily appealing message that may potentially have a disastrous impact on adoptee rights across the country. Bastard Nation, unacknowledged in all of this, nevertheless sticks to a real and undaunted message, rooted in its own history and deep experience. It is an approach that could move adoptees to unrestricted access with no exceptions. Not tomorrow, not by 2020, but realistically within a number of years.
Though I’ve been one to criticize Bastard Nation in the past for its churlishness (and I’ve also used “nuance” against them as well), I have a much better understanding today about its bastard principles. I readily join Bastard Nation in rejecting compromise, unequivocally. I’m moving forward in a rights-based reality, for adoptee civil rights, for access to what is ours. I choose to be one of the many proud bastards in the room, whether we are acknowledged by others or not.
When I was born being illegitimate allowed discrimination against you, it was legal to deny federal benefits to the surviving illegitimate child but not to a legitimate child, and that was not just the only area. This right to discriminate against you based on your status as birth was added to all sorts of laws by noting legitimate child, rather than child. Imagine if when the drive to change the laws to stop this discrimination was allowed compromise, there’d still be specific types of illegitimate people legally discriminated against…
If anyone has the ability to explain how a mother (or father) who gave up their parental rights to that child, can then dictate (often decades later) the redaction of information from that child’s official birth certificate – and it makes logical and legal sense – then we can talk.
Thank you for writing this! I’ve been fighting for adoptee civil rights most of my adult life. So good to have you on board.
Dear Greg,
Thank you again for the recent conversation. We were so encouraged after the call but your recent blog recounting our conversation causes us concern. It appears you still remain unclear about our stance on unrestricted access to original birth certificates and DAI’s OBC2020 project overall.
1. Under my leadership, DAI does not endorse compromise legislation. This is evident in a recent letter written in collaboration with the Adoptive and Foster Family Coalition of New York (AFFCNY) to the New York State Assembly Health Committee surrounding A05036A, a compromised bill that does not appropriately address the rights of adopted people to access their original birth certificates. The letter details our specific and significant concerns. In addition to this letter, there is ample evidence on our website of our position on OBC access which is that DAI believes adopted people deserve unrestricted access to their OBC’s. [link to letter]
2. Our board of Directors fully vets and approves all of our projects including OBC2020 where our ultimate goal is to ensure that by 2020, every state without access has an active campaign to restore unrestricted access to original birth certificates. As stated in our communications, part of OBC2020 will also support states currently working on reform as well as those that have achieved access. We plan to do this by providing educational, research-based resources in support of unrestricted access to OBC’s.
3. DAI’s comment in our recent blog regarding bullies was not directed at one specific person or entity; we ask that you not mischaracterize our communications. If we had wanted to speak to one entity or organization we would have certainly done so. Our comment was general with regard to bullying that has gone on and does go on, in our community and outside of it, that we feel doesn’t help our collective cause but rather hurts it revealing to political leadership a lack of professionalism and solidarity.
4. We remain confused as to why DAI’s OBC2020 project is creating concern for you. This is a project that will provide resources, education and tools that are based in research to help individuals and organizations in states advocate for unrestricted access to OBC’s. Given how difficult this issue is, how long and hard many have fought and are still fighting and how few resources are out there, we thought this kind of support would be of use to the community.
5. The resources and tools we develop will be informed by research as well as an advisory council (which we will announce, proudly, once it is assembled) and also feedback from the community via our survey and other mechanisms people use to be in touch with us. Many times we are contacted by individuals looking for help, guidance and support for advocacy activities in their state, which is in part what informed OBC2020. We saw a distinct need for user-friendly, professional tools to help the movement, while also ideally unifying the community.
6. We do not turn our backs on advocates in states that are having a difficult time passing unrestricted legislation. It is these states that we think need the resources, tools, and research offered by OBC2020 the most. If legislatures pass laws that are compromised we will continue to be there for advocates should they wish for help in the future in advocating for unrestricted access.
7. In addition to blogging, please always feel free to ask us to clarify directly by calling us. DAI felt we were being clear in our call and in our materials, however we welcome the opportunity to clarify and are open to reworking our communications to avoid any confusion.
8. As we stated on the phone DAI is not a one-issue organization. We appreciate organizations that do solely focus on the issue of OBC access and know how much they are helping move the cause forward. If there are ways we could better highlight the work of such organizations we are happy to consider doing so and welcome suggestions. DAI is tasked with responding to other issues related to the adoption and foster care experience. We do that by providing research, education, advocacy and information on a variety of issues impacting our community (such as adoptee citizenship and ethics for first/birth parents and expectant parents) and we will have conversations with all members of our community regardless of their connection as we work to respond to issues and areas of concern. Our commitment to OBC2020 and support of unrestricted access will enhance our overall work to make needed changes in adoption.
I hope we have continued to clarify our position on unrestricted access to original birth records and our OBC2020 project. We keep the door open to conversation with you (and others) on this and hope there is a way for us to work together. DAI is excited about this new project and will continue to focus our energy on bringing OBC2020 to life.
Best,
April & Kim
Thanks for the response. The issue is not whether a group or entity such as DAI “endorses” compromised legislation. That misses the boat and oversimplifies the issue.
The issue is about whether DAI will commit unequivocally to reject compromised legislation–i.e., not let it either in the door or out the door. At a minimum that means publicly withdrawing support or, as Bastard Nation does, working actively to defeat such legislation whenever and wherever it appears. Why? As we are witnessing once again, compromised legislation normalizes what is perceived as acceptable “adoptees rights”—i.e., rights that are not rights. And by passing compromised laws that provide some benefit to many but no benefit to some, advocacy groups end up being dishonest about what rights are actually being protected or even fully recognized.
Though I think this no longer needs saying, compromised legislation also greatly affects clean legislative efforts in other states. That’s one of the primary reasons behind committing up front and unequivocally not to support compromised bills at any time. Otherwise, while a group like yours may commit not to “endorse” compromised legislation, it doesn’t mean that you have also committed to “unendorse” legislation when it becomes dirty later. That’s an agnostic approach that simply enables compromise to happen, as if it’s inevitable and happens naturally. Not only will that harm adoptees in specific states but it will continue to reverberate to adoptees in other states that follow. It’s what Bastard Nation has been saying (and has been right about) for nearly two decades.
As to other issues raised in your response, it may be best for others to weigh in on those, particularly in how your campaign is being interpreted or seen by advocates other than me.
Thanks, Greg, for writing this important and awesome critique of the DAI’s plan to be a relevant. I have a lot to say, but am saving most of it for Bastard Nation’s response–maybe this weekend.
To be honest I was quite surprised when I read DAI’s plan–especially since it follows closely to its For the Records schemes in 2007 and 2010, plus the Hard Rock event where Bastard Nation members including myself, were told to shut up and sit down during the Q&A. Our bad bastard behavior? Objecting to compromise “solutions” put forth by the DAI and the deformer crowd. At one point Daryl McDaniels called one of our members a “bitch” for demanding voice time, but I can’t remember if it was on mic or to me personally later in a private conversation. Either was quite uncool.
Those of us who have actually done the incredibly hard work, with basically no money, of passing clean legislation or ballot initiatives hold no belief that an adoption think tank–founded by the adoption industry that takes funds from the likes if Debra-lee Furness, Hugh Jackman, adoption industrialists, the Bank of America, Bloomberg, Goldman Sacks, and known slacktivists that push restricted access of records– even comprehends the politics of adoption much less open records.
Bastard Nation and unaffiliated groups and individuals have seen repeatedly how the DAI has disregarded their rights and thrown them under the bus “to get something passed.” New Jersey and Illinois (and the California fiasco) come to mind, but there are others. Even the National Council for Adoption has been surprised at the lengths DAI has gone to people please.
If DAI wants to be an ally fine, but learn what that means–and don’t try to lead the pack. And for God’s sake, stop erasing those of us who know what we are doing and actually win. Many more states would be open today if deformers and obstructionists willing to take compromise and reunion over rights, would just get out of politics and back into their cubicles.
Oh come on, DAI, how disingenuous and sanctimonious can you possibly be? DAI has been publicly and privately castigating Bastard Nation (when it isn’t just outright ignoring us) for many, many years. Kam Paglino in particular. Everyone already knew what Greg just concisely and effectively called you out on.
As Marley says, this project is just a rehash of failed attempts in previous years. Why are we supposed to believe it would be any different now? There is not a single person to my knowledge that is involved with DAI in this effort that has been involved in successfully passing unconditional open records legislation. Nor, to my knowledge, did you ask any of them to be. It’s a pretty small group compromised almost entirely of Bastards. You didn’t reach out to the only people who have a history of multiple successes in passing open records legislation, the largest (and really only) adoptee rights group in the country, and ask them what they thought was needed. Instead, you decided to throw the entire organization and anyone who supports them under the bus in your launch.
Had you actually sat down and talked to people who have led by example, you would have learned what we’re doing, what we see as obstacles in a number of states, and what we believe is needed to overcome that. In some states, that is simply time. An approach with artificial deadlines and vague messaging, giving cover to deformers, many of whom actually want vetoes and have simply taken up the banner of “adoptee rights” for the sake of expediency, is going to have disastrous consequences. It is hard to overstate what deep and lasting damage the efforts in Ohio and New Jersey have done to adoptee rights. Deeply offensive redaction efforts that DAI supported. And the leaders of those efforts not only refuse to acknowledge the damage they did, they continue to promote themselves and those efforts, and, it is noted, *are part of DAI leadership*.
We all see you for who you are. The new DAI, same as the old DAI. Talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to use adoptee rights to further your agenda, which has never been about equality and certainly has never been adoptee-centered. We’re not going to silently stand by while you attempt to make yourself the focal point of an effort to just get something, anything, passed in every state at the expense of adoptees everywhere.
Shea Grimm
“If legislatures pass laws that are compromised we will continue to be there for advocates should they wish for help in the future in advocating for unrestricted access.”
That line in the response from DAI says it all. They are fine with deformers and compromisers using their resources to pass compromise legislation, and they will wait patiently for the day that some compromiser reverses course and decides to try and undo the damage they’ve done.
As Mr. Luce pointed out, it is not enough that you refrain from vocal endorsement. You must also be prepared to vocally oppose, otherwise it’s tacit approval.
The DAI states that we should be “one community.” That means we should be one community standing vocally and resolutely in favor only of clean legislation. Adoptees are the ones who should lead, with others as allies. The DAI should offer guidance in the form of conversations with adoptees who have passed clean legislation (yes, this is possible). Putting a deadline on OBC legislation in all 50 states (2020? Really?) assumes a cookie-cutter model and most likely–yes–compromise!
Will the DAI vocally oppose and withdraw support when bills turn to vetoes and redactions? If not, then the DAI has no business advising people on how to legislate “adoptee rights” that aren’t. It is disingenuous to call this advocacy when there are loopholes to allow for vetoes and redactions. As Greg said, the DAI had better be prepared to “unendorse” if this is about “endorsement.”
This cannot be about promising a slice of pie to everyone at the table. It is not about pie. An OBC can’t be sliced. Rights can’t be apportioned. They either exist for all or they aren’t rights. Compromise spreads like disease. It has to stop. Ohio, New Jersey, and now Missouri and Arkansas. These are terrible laws. They aren’t models for anything except bad decisions and inequality masquerading as progress.
I agree that the community should come together on this issue: it should be under the banner of clean legislation (with rejection of vetoes and redactions), and adoptees should lead.
Dear Greg,
Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt comments. I agree with you that the goal should always be for adopted citizens to have unfettered access. It is certainly the goal of every group I have seen fight for the right for adopted citizens to have their birth certificates.
But this isn’t as simple as you make it out to be – and the reality is, if your no-compromise stance were adhered to in Ohio, Illinois, and New Jersey, thousands of adopted citizens would still not have their OBC. There is no question – one more legislative session wasn’t going to change things. So…
Let’s be clear. Compromise isn’t a ‘disease’. Its a reality of legislation. Why were ‘clean’ bills passed in Oregon, New Hampshire and Maine? They were small states – and each one has their own recipe for how the legislation passed (Oregon was a state referendum, New Hampshire had Janet Allen in the legislature, Maine had Paula Benoit in the legislature). There are also other ways to effect change, through the judicial branch. In California, where I led an effort in 2009, change through the court system is most likely the only option. Ever. To understand why that’s the case, you need to study the California Constitution. Saying something should be a certain way, even if you’re right, doesn’t mean that what you want is feasible. If you want a post mortem of the situation in California, I’d be happy to provide it.
But lets move this to your own backyard. This year, 2017, marks the 100th anniversary of Minnesota’s sealing of its adoptees birth records. Minnesota was the first state to ever seal records – purportedly to protect children from the ‘stigma’ of illegitimacy. So I need to ask – with your legal background and your talent with a pen – what are you doing to change the laws in Minnesota? It is easy to throw stones from the sidelines, to suggest that you would do things differently. Then do them differently. Roll up your sleeves and show us how its done. Because its just not as simple as saying ‘reject any compromise’.
I began filming in New Jersey in 2005. By then, advocates had already been working for over 25 years on access legislation. Every session they were beat down. In 2012, after Governor Christie had vetoed their bill, NJ-CARE proposed a clean bill for the next session. They fought to keep it clean all the way to the end – when compromise became the only way to get the bill through. Was that what they wanted? No. Did they want redactions included? No. But after 34 years of fighting without success, after 34 years of driving to the Capital, weekly meetings, paying for the effort out of their own pockets, putting their lives on hold, their families on hold, getting slammed in the press, getting slammed by folks like you – they chose to compromise. Because the bottom line is – most adopted citizens that they were trying to help were going to DIE without ever getting their records. Thousands and thousands had already died during that 34 year fight.
In taking the stance of never entertaining compromise, you have to accept that is a choice that NO ONE will get their OBC. Its not a question of ‘if we just dig in harder and never accept compromise, we’ll finally get this through’. It’s a numbers game Greg. Here are the facts: New Jersey’s effort (34 years), Ohio’s effort (24 years), Illinois’ effort (14 years).
The day you get to say you’re right and those who’ve had to accept compromise are wrong is the day you have done THAT kind of work – and managed to succeed. You are painting every access legislation leader who’s had to stomach compromise with a brush of failure – but what have YOU done to find a way through the maze? You are accusing the DAI as being weak when they are on your side. They WANT access for all. We all do.
Roll up your sleeves and step into the trenches. When you come home from the war, I will want to hear how you won the battle. We all will.
Why do people think I’m just a guy sitting on his bed who weighs 400 pounds and is typing out shit and doing nothing?
Seriously, Jean, I ask one thing. Please look around this site to realize what I actually do and what priorities I have for myself and for anyone else who wants to join me. I’d start with reading this, and then read this to understand what I know about Minnesota law and its forty-year legacy for adoptees, not only here in Minnesota but nationally.
I’m an adoptee rights lawyer. I’m probably the only attorney dedicated full-time to pursuing adult adoptee rights—for free. While my efforts are legally focused, my work is critically influenced by what happens within state law. And in states where compromise has already occurred—especially where access is eviscerated by redaction or disclosure vetoes—any work to undo such damage is likely permanent (again, you may want to catch up with Minnesota, which didn’t actually seal birth records in 1917—it sealed court records, and only to the public at that).
The work to challenge OBC access laws in court will take years to develop and it will depend on convincing other lawyers to help, particularly in those 26 states that continue exclusively to require a court order for release of an OBC. It means working to find the right cases and the right clients, with a focus on those states that originally sealed birth records for reasons that had nothing to do with birth parent privacy. But with one appellate case we may be able to change the course of how a state approaches OBC access.
I understand completely that it may fail, and you may think I’m barking up the wrong tree. There may be missteps and cases may go awry and clients may end up too nervous or too beaten down to challenge the system. But it’s what I’m doing.
Working full-time for free on an issue that is critical to my being is, I hope, within someone’s definition of rolling up your sleeves. I have no doubt your work and others’ work on legislation means just as much, and I credit anyone who works as hard as muster on adoptee rights, even if we disagree and even if I think you are dead wrong. It’s too bad you could not suspend similar doubts about me.
I’m a pragmatist. Some in the adoption reform community assert that records access is a fundamental right. TN and OR courts have disagreed, viewing such access (and, thank goodness, birth parent privacy as well) as a “legitimate interest.” Starting from that legal position, rather than throwing a tantrum about our rights having been violated, helped tremendously in Colorado. Some assert that only adoptees are allowed to carry the banner, while, in state after state, we’ve seen that the testimony and support of birth and adoptive parents, as well as adoption professionals also carries great weight. Some assert that “compromise” legislation prevents/precludes the possibility of coming back later to pass full unrestricted access bills. Hawaii and Colorado, both of which started with Confidential Intermediary/mutual consent laws, have debunked that theory — though it did take some time. Not one of the thirteen bills introduced around the nation this past legislative session was driven by BN. In fact, nothing introduced in the past decade has been primarily driven by BN. Talk is cheap. I don’t care who gets it done, or how it gets done in our lifetimes…just that it gets done. It’s time to move beyond this territorial, doctrinaire waste of energy, rethink our talking points and start accomplishing the goal.
Richard,
That’s the problem. There isn’t consensus. You are willing to give away my rights, and were happy when they were given away in Missouri. You were happy that “something” was done, even though that meant redactions and vetoes in perpetuity for some adoptees. That’s not equality, though. It enshrined *new* rights for birth parents and set precedent.
Now we have precedent for birth parent rights in more states. If laws pass that say adoptees less than 40 years old who don’t know their birth parents’ names don’t deserve OBC access (that was a bill being considered this year), that sets precedent. You understand precedent, right? But in your mind, that’s progress? That’s like burning a house down and saying, “Oh, the foundation is still there and someone can rebuild it later using the burned wood.”
I suppose it’s all well and good for those who have theirs to say tant pis.
It comes down to some people having patience and some people wanting anything at any price immediately. And no, I don’t want people who have absolutely no skin in the game deciding that anything right now is “good enough.” I wouldn’t decide for any other marginalized group what is “good enough” for them.
TN most certainly did not say that. The Sundquist ruling in District court specifically found that there had never been a vested right to privacy, no privacy had been promised, and previous courts had never asked consent before opening records.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed and said that protecting those rights as fundamental would require elevating the right to avoid disclosure above the right to know the identity of one’s parents, and would require a Constitutional amendment.
The TN Supreme Court said that the Constitutional right to privacy did not extend to identifying information in birth records, and that there had never been “even a reasonable expectation” that records were permanently sealed.
Only the TN Court of Appeals felt there was a vested right to privacy based on a state rule, (not a Constitutional right), and they were overturned. That “legitimate interest” only extended to the need for the courts to examine it, which they did, and they disagreed it existed.
The vetoes were not put into place by the courts to protect birth parents, they were already in the legislation and at least one court remarked that the vetoes nullified any question of birth parent privacy if such a thing had even existed. Had compromise not been made early on, there is every possibility that the courts would have found the law valid without the heinous contact veto that criminalizes us and violates due process.
Absolutely no court in Sundquist found that there was a Constitutional right to privacy for birth parents, and the lone dissenting court specifically spoke to a *vested* right… the very thing you so often argue it is okay to create.
Rich: Courts are courts, and as a lawyer I’m not giving up on a rights-based framework. DAI isn’t either for that matter, though they are a bit dodgier about the meaning of those rights. To be honest, I’m actually interested in what DAI may be able to bring forward from folks outside of adoption, particularly those involved in “equality-based advocacy.”
Legislatures are obviously different melons. I just don’t see “we deserve our legitimate interests” as a rallying cry for legislative change, or for organizing.
Thanks Greg. Every state is different, and a number of factors should go into state-by-state strategies. Colorado’s incremental changes (prospective access in 1999, then the COA ruling in 2009) actually set up the final push, allowing us to point out that similarly situated people were being treated differently under the law. One surefire way to elicit the compromise-driving question “What about birth parent rights?” is to stand up and demand adoptee rights. Legislators are generally interested in finding balance, considering the interests of all parties concerned, and arriving at compromise. This is why I’m suggesting a revamp of talking points. In Colorado, we took the position that access to OBCs and records was not a question of “if” but “how” adult adoptees had access, given “good cause” provisions in the law. That, combined with the fact that courts (thanks, TJ and Mirren, for rightly correcting me for lumping the two together) have said that birth/first parent have no vested right to anonymity/or may have a legitimate interest but not a fundamental right to anonymity. Therefore, truth and transparency in adoption is simply good policy, and much healthier than shame and secrecy for all involved. The makeup of the legislature, of course, drives which way your talking points lean. As I understand it, DAI does not appear to be planning to actively lobby any state legislatures. If that’s the case, and the goal is simply to provide resources to those who do, why all the angst and why would anyone feel the need to back them into a corner?
So you don’t ask for what you want. You play word games.
Seen that one before, (1) New York: the NY bill page is out of date and they won’t fix it. we know what the bill really says. Guwss what. It didn’t) . 2) (California. CARE’S LATEST GAFF: “WHEN I USE A WORD…IT MEANS JUST WHAT I CHOOSE IT TO MEAN….” http://www.dailybastardette.com/cares-latest-gaff-when-i-use-a-word-it-means-just-what-i-choose-it-to-mean/
I know at least one other state (Texas?) that tried this strategy, and we see where that went.
The “word games” we employed in CO resulted in unanimous votes on four bills in 2014-2015, and a rousing round of applause on the House floor. It might not work in every state, but the outcome deserves some serious consideration as a viable option.
And all of this by Ron Morgan: http://bbchurch.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html
I’m outta here for tonight. I have work to do.
The angst is not about resources, which DAI already provides and for which I’ve been very clear about.
And it’s not “angst” either, which implies some sort of unfocused misgiving. I’ve been focused on the issue of compromise and its problem of normalizing what adoptees should accept. And, bigger picture, it’s ultimately about honesty and commitment in advocacy. Just up above in April and Kim’s response, April says this: “Under my leadership, DAI does not endorse compromise legislation.”
That’s demonstrably false, and in some ways it pains me to say so directly and point to the evidence here, as if my intention is to embarrass. It’s not. But we cannot continue to be misled on what someone says is a commitment to rights when that commitment is actually something much less.
Rich has been misrepresenting the TN and OR court decisions for years. In addition to TJ’s corrections, as I told him more than a year ago, the TN and OR decisions were challenges brought by birth parents as to the constitutionality of open records, not challenges brought by adoptees as to the constitutionality of sealed records. Therefore neither case rejected (or accepted) any constitutional claims with respect to adoptees. The “legitimate interest” language isn’t a rejection of potential constitutional claims.
Asserting rights isn’t “throwing a tantrum”, and such disparaging language when it comes to fundamental issues of equality and civil rights movements really calls into question one’s ability to “rethink talking points” or even to be an effective activist at all. Nearly ALL of the testimony and legislators’ comments in the Hawaii effort revolved solely around an adoptees rights to the records of their birth and adoption. Far from accusing us of “throwing a tantrum”, legislators responded positively to rights language, and that’s been my experience with legislators around the country.
Lastly, the notion that Hawaii is some sort of model to point to in favor of incrementalism is absurd. The CI/consent system which was put in place almost *thirty years ago* no doubt delayed the passage of open records legislation by decades. Those of us actually on the ground here know that. Its presence was constantly raised in later failed efforts as a reason why open records couldn’t and shouldn’t happen. One of the CIs repeatedly lobbied against open records with horror stories of the numbers of birth parents she contacted who didn’t want contact. In MN, as Greg knows, the veto system in place is a clear obstacle to open records. If you can’t understand the concept of vested rights then you have no business attempting to chart a course forward.
Bottom line, I’m really confused as to what message we are supposed to be getting here. DAI is claiming they are moving forward with an unrestricted access agenda (even though, as Greg points out, they clearly are not being truthful about their recent endorsement of veto legislation and misuse of the term “equality” as applied to that legislation) yet from what I can tell, their entire “team” consists solely of those with a lengthy, documented history of being unapologetic proponents of veto and redaction legislation, and hostility towards the only people and groups who do not support such legislation. Given these facts, is it any surprise that this announcement is being met with a healthy dose of skepticism and pushback?
Lol. You’re misrepresenting ting my misrepresentation.
“In fact, nothing introduced in the past decade has been primarily driven by BN.”
I don’t care one whit who introduced a bill, if that’s what “primarily driven by” means, but I (and, by extension, Bastard Nation) were frontline advocates for and significantly responsible for the open records bill that passed in Hawaii in 2016.
You guys are so transparent. You puff up your own sketchy credentials in the area of open records while systematically attempting to discredit the people actually getting things done. You, Rich, actually tried to lead a smear campaign against my significant other who was solely responsible for neutralizing the legislative opposition to the Hawaii bill. Whatever your agenda is, it doesn’t appear to be open records or adoptee rights. Everyone that matters has seen this pattern happen over and over again.
Again, we see you. No one should want a culsterfuck like what happened in Colorado to occur in their state. On the other hand, clean efforts like BN was responsible for or contributed to in Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Alabama, and Oregon should be duly noted by anyone who actually cares about adoptee rights and not about getting their names on plaques or using adoptee rights to settle petty personal grievances no one else cares about.
Shea, if by a “smear campaign” you mean investigating claims about whether or not your SO’s law practice includes performing adoptions, then I am guilty as charged. We found two sites on which he was listed as such, though you continue to deny it. Yes, you jumped on the moving train in HI, and I’m sure offered some help. Well done.
Seriously? You investigated whether Shea’s partner “performed adoptions?” In a campaign that involved unrestricted access? Wow.
I don’t want a response to this. This is now way off topic and unnecessary. The fact is that Hawaii, obviously with Shea’s help, became the ninth state to get OBCs unrestricted (and adoption court records to boot). Like I told Jean Strauss in an earlier comment, I don’t give a flying hoot how much your sleeves are rolled up or in what direction. Credit is due where credit is due, for whomever is involved.
As Shea’s “s/o” in question, I am compelled to respond:
I graduated from Columbia Law in 1967 and will be attending my 50th law school reunion next week. I served as the Director of the Legal Services Fdn of Mendocino and Lake Counties and then as the California State Chief of Legal Services in the 1970s. I have been in private practice with an emphasis primarily in family law and criminal defense in Hawaii for more than 35 years.
In 2016, I was approached by a fellow family law attorney who is also a Hawaii legislator as to her concerns about the open records bill then pending in the Hawaii legislature. Being familiar with Shea’s work in this field, of course she was also aware of the bill. Together over the course of several months, we visited legislators and testified at committee hearings in support of both the senate and house versions of the open records bill. I also had meetings and communications with legislators and members of the family law division of the Hawaii State Bar, (who have historically opposed open records in Hawaii) to address their concerns.
After one committee hearing, I was approached by a member of Adoption Circle Hawaii, who introduced herself as Katalina, and who asked if I was an “adoption attorney”. I thought perhaps she was looking for legal help with an adoption. Shea was present and was aware of the likely intent of the inquiry. Shea stated that I had never handled an adoption case, which is true, and to which I promptly confirmed. I am most certainly not an “adoption attorney” and have never represented anyone in an adoption proceeding.
I received a strange number of phone calls to my law office for several weeks in 2016 claiming to be seeking an adoption attorney, which was not typical of calls I have received in all my years of practice in Hawaii. Thereafter, I learned that a Rich Uhrlaub had admitted to making calls and inquiries to try to confirm that I was an “adoption attorney”.
My on the record written and oral testimony speaks for itself with regard to my unconditional support of unrestricted open records access for adult adoptees. Any attempt to distract from that or otherwise engage in a campaign to discredit me calls into serious question the intent of those who might think such a smear campaign would be a worthy endeavor. With Shea’s guidance, I have become informed about a wide variety of adoptee issues, including not only records access, but also the pending Adoptee Citizenship Act. As a field representative for U.S Senator Brian Schatz, I can confirm that Shea’s efforts contributed to both Hawaii U.S. Senators sponsoring the ACA, the only state for which that is true. I have remained in regular communication with the Senator and his staff about the ACA. Shea also has worked to defend the Indian Child Welfare Act, including launching social media projects to promote accurate information about ICWA and pending ICWA court cases. She has devoted much of her adult life to working for free on a wide variety of adoptee rights and adoption-related issues.
Any implication that either I or Shea are not wholly committed to adoptee rights is misplaced, has absolutely no factual basis, and is false. The record is clear. Anyone who claims to be committed to adoptee rights should be reaching out to those who have a proven track record of fighting for those rights – not alienating them by engaging in false personal attacks or attempting to dig up dirt on their families, partners, or spouses.
Michael S. Zola
To clarify, Greg (and I agree that Shea raising this is way off topic and out of context):
1. Long before the HI bill was introduced, certain BN leaders were receiving screen shots from a “mole” who had pledged confidentially in a private online group discussing legislation
2. Someone other than me had raised the unsubstantiated point that Shea’s significant other included adoptions in his legal practice.
3. I challenged the lack of evidence, which resulted in a simple Google search.
4. The alleged “smear campaign” never left the private group, except to the extent that BN themselves broadcast it on their own page.
5. I let Shea know that I didn’t care whether or not her SO performed adoptions, as long as he wasn’t selling babies.
6. This is how she and a few other BNers operate: If you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.
I am closing the comments on this post.
Jean: “In taking the stance of never entertaining compromise, you have to accept that is a choice that NO ONE will get their OBC. Its not a question of ‘if we just dig in harder and never accept compromise, we’ll finally get this through’.”
Well, we have gotten it through, and state size has nothing to do with it. Principled activism has. Why in the world would any organization claiming to support “adoptee rights” do anything less? If they do, they do not support rights. Would it have been OK if only women who had the permission of their husbands, fathers. and sons to vote be granted the female franchise 100 years ago?
How do you propose to revisit a law that has created a special right for birth parents such as DVs, CVs and redactions that did not exist before the interference of deformers to “get something passed?”
How do you propose that those of us who reject restrictive compromises work with deformers, who have neither history nor interest in seeing through clean bills work, together? You are simply untrustworthy.
All of Bastard Nation’s partners sign a No Compromise Agreement before we partner with them. Here is the Michigan Open Access agreement http://bastards.org/bastard-nation-michigan-open-access-partnership-announcement/
“It closes with:
“WE HEREBY DECLARE that under no circumstances will we accept the addition of veto, redaction, intermediary, or registry provisions, or any conditional provisions to our legislation that would be less than unconditional access for adult adoptees to the original record of their birth. All legislative sponsors and members of this organization will be informed of our policy on this matter to ensure that the bill is pulled promptly in the event of such revisions.
“By agreeing to this resolution we understand that Bastard Nation will support our efforts, politically and financially, to lobby for clean bills and to kill dirty bills.
“We understand that failure of Michigan Open Access to follow any of these provisions will constitute a breach of our agreement and the withdrawal of all Bastard Nation political and financial support of Michigan Open Access.”
Once you have made such a promise, it is difficult to break it without public repercussions.
Who are the “radicals.” The one who continue to sell adoptees down the river or those who stand the course, prevail, and win?
The question at hand: Does the Donaldson Adoption Institute, which recognizes that best adoption practice and policy includes openness to the adoptee, position themselves thusly in state legislatures and hold that standard to the vote.
Speaking to California, the DAI once upon a time was a strong partner within California Open. The clearly stated mission is to restore the unrestricted right of adult adoptees in California to access their own birth records.
http://calopen.org/noveto.shtml
In 2009, Jean Strauss, a California born adoptee, spearheaded a movement to seek adult adoptee access with restrictions. That organization of partners was called CARE – California Adoption Reform Effort.
http://www.cacare.org
(Note: The site has been abandoned by Strauss’ CARE and is now a Malaysian cancer treatment page.)
Those restrictions within the bill amended a number of times, as AB 372 (Ma) wound its way in the State Assembly. By the April 21st amendments, it appears the DAI stepped away from the bill… as did EVERY partner organization, except the American Adoption Congress, and 10 individuals.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_372_cfa_20090424_155907_asm_comm.html
(Scroll down to page 10 for a listing of on the record bill supporters and opponents.)
But as AB 372 amended, the DAI did not OPPOSE the bill. They just went dark. Absent. THAT is the point Mr. Luce is making.
For the relationship of the DAI and California Open, you have elsewhere stated: “We will never turn our backs on advocates who strive to reach the goal of unrestricted access to OBCs yet are stymied by a variety of contextual factors that have made this challenging in many ways.” You did turn your back on us. You partnered with CARE and, for a time, provided resources to an alternate group. I understand you have new leadership today. I also understand you have a new program to roll out. Please understand, your organizational history has placed your mission and intent in question.
Let me show you how CARE defamed California Open directly into the official record of the California State Legislature. This is a public record document, which I personally secured from the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
http://calopen.org/CARELtrAsmJudy20090420.pdf
If there is concern and talk about “bullying”… it should remain out of the state legislature. Agreed? Be informed about the conduct of some who may approach the DAI to advise in your OBC 2020 Campaign.
It is clear to me, and to most Bastards In The Room, that a “national view” of states would best serve the restoration of adoptee rights movement. It is also clear to me that a national platform to support individual state movements is the right course. We understand that many legislative advocates have lost their national platform in the American Adoption Congress. Instead, they have been floating out at sea for the past sixteen plus months trying to Right the Ship. Now, it appears they have convinced the Donaldson to create a new national platform for them. OBC 2020. From whom does the DAI seek counsel regarding successful unrestricted access legislation?
Thank you Mr. Luce. Thank you for seeking clarity on intent through an independent web presence.
Jean M. Uhrich
California Open
http://www.calopen.org
Thanks, Greg.
I really think that any so-called Rights Movement should be led by and answerable to the persons most affected by it—ie; adoptees. The DAI is neither. They have a board with a mixed agenda to answer to.
The word is out that unfortunately the adoptees involved in this are known deformers—not content with screwing up the legislation in their own states, are now trying to find relevance on a national stage, and for what purpose? A job? Cookies? They’d be more effective and credible if they had concrete plans to go back to their own states and clean up their own messes before throwing more adoptees under the bus. At least Access Connecticut made an effort. Let’s see if they will continue to do so.
Those who elect themselves to represent adoptees damn well better be sure they are careful to respect the rights of ALL of them. Leaving some of them in a worse legal position than they started with has nothing to do with equality, and if the DAI is committed to rights advocacy, then they better get in front of it from the start.