• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Adoptee Rights Law Center

Adoptee Rights Law Center

Legal representation and advocacy for adult adopted people

  • Adoptee Rights Law Center
  • Birth Records
    • FAQ
    • Laws
    • Legislation
    • Maps
  • Citizenship
    • FAQ
    • Legislation
  • Latest
  • About
    • Press
    • Contact
  • Show Search
Hide Search

When Something is Nothing and Nothing is Something

First published on October 24, 2017 • Last updated on November 3, 2018

What do you get when you introduce a bill powered by inequality?

A new compromised bill in Florida (HB357/SB576) will give some but not all adoptees unrestricted access to their original birth certificates. Because the bill proposes an inequitable solution right out of the gate, it will likely lead to further compromise and will undermine access equality for all adoptees, whether in Florida or in other states.

Here’s a quick summary of what the bill proposes to do, followed by a more lengthy look at its language and context. Bear with me as I discuss some of the provisions. The bill is riddled with significant drafting errors and ambiguities, and I assume certain things in order to make full sense of them. Given this is current pending legislation, assumptions are not typically a solid bet.

My Thirty-Second Summary

Florida’s HB357 creates an inequitable system of OBC access that requires a forty year period to pass after adoption before most adoptees can obtain their original birth certificates upon request.

At its core, the bill creates two inequitable classes: a lucky first class and an unlucky second class. The first class is made up of adoptees whose adoptions are finalized after June 30, 2018. These adoptees, some of whom are not even born, will get their OBCs upon request when they turn 18. If you do the math, access for these lucky kids begins, at the latest, in 2036.

The unlucky second class is basically everybody else. This coach class of adoptees will get their OBCs—presuming errors already in the bill are interpreted in their favor—if ONE of the following applies:

  1. you were adopted prior to June 30, 1977, or the adoption was finalized at least 40 years ago;
  2. the adoptee knows the name of a birth parent;
  3. both the birth parent and the adoptee consent to the release of the OBC;
  4. a birth parent is deceased;
  5. a birth parent “can reasonably be presumed to be deceased based on the known or estimated date of birth of the birth parent”; or
  6. the adoptee or birthparent gets a court order.

Doing a bit more math, access for those in the unlucky second class either get it as early as February 1, 2019, or as late as 2058, presuming they can’t meet any of the other compromised bill requirements I’ve listed above.

Analysis and Commentary

History of Florida OBC Access ReportThe core of the bill is its forty-year waiting period for access. This waiting period specifically applies to all adoptees whose adoptions are finalized after June 30, 1977 but before July 1, 2018. Pre-1977 adoptees are treated somewhat differently though somewhat the same, as they have obviously been adopted for more than forty years. The bill appears to recognize the OBC access rights that pre-1977 adoptees held for decades, reflecting research the bill drafters took from my recent Florida OBC access report, available here.

Nevertheless, access for the pre-1977 adoptees comes with inexplicable confusion: the bill does not actually provide a clear mechanism for access. It merely states the following:

For adoptions finalized on or before June 30, 1977, nothing in this section or s. 63.162 shall abrogate, limit, or change the holding in or affect any rights affirmed or created under State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Health Program Office v. Mullarkey, 340 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st D.C.A., 1976).

Accordingly, pre-1977 adoptees—who under Florida law have retained access to their OBCs for at least the last seven decades—are left with a big bag of nothing. They can certainly request their OBCs upon enactment of the bill (or sue for it right now if they are denied the OBC) but there’s no way to know where or how to do that, particularly when there is no provision for direct and unequivocal access. Ultimately, under such an empty provision, they’ll likely be shown the same forty-year queue that nearly all others slog through, though that 40-year-queue specifically does not apply to them. Confused? I would be too, and it will likely take a legal challenge to hash it out. If you are a pre-1977 adoptee, I wouldn’t wager that you’ll get anything out of this bill other than confusion.

Wait, I know. I hear you. You are wondering why this is so complicated and what happened to Florida’s clean bill from last session, the one that provided unrestricted access upon request at age 18? It’s a good question, particularly when we are a year wiser and have a comprehensive report containing historical analysis and significant legal leverage in favor of most Florida adult adoptees. Instead of capitalizing on this and pursuing unrestricted access for all adoptees, however, the sponsors and their supporters—whomever they may be—have punted while it’s still second down. Or, to use a non-sports explanation, the world didn’t fall apart during the 70+ years of unrestricted access in Florida. Why are we going backwards now and compromising on equality for everyone else? Ask the bill sponsors and supporters and they’ll typically reply “at least it’s something.” Wow.

The Really Unlucky Class

The bill ultimately pits pre-1977 adoptees against adoptees who are in an even more unlucky subclass: those adopted between 1977 and 2018. For these “donut hole” adoptees, the waiting starts right away and keeps on going, all the way to 2058. While there are likely far fewer adoptees in this subclass then among pre-1977 adoptees, that’s likely because it is a calculated and cynical political gambit that will divide adoptees for the benefit of some but not all. After all, many but certainly not most of these donut hole adoptees are minor children today or in open adoption arrangements and either don’t currently care a hoot about OBC legislation or, more likely, do not have significant political clout or awareness—at least not right now. Throw them up against pre-1977 adoptees who stand to benefit the most from the bill and guess who gets sacrificed? The youngsters. In fact, I’m already seeing older adoptees on social media state that they like the bill because it gets them something, even though it gets others next to nothing. Again, it’s a classic divide and conquer strategy, except that the folks doing the political dividing hold themselves out as adoptee rights advocates.

Other Drafting Issues

I’ve already discussed the ambiguous and empty provision related to pre-1977 adoptees. But there are other problems with the bill. One, it’s unclear whether an adoptee in the donut hole group (those adopted between 1977 and 2018) must meet all contingencies to get their OBCs or whether they must meet just one. Basically, the drafters forgot to include either an “or” or an “and” at the end of the list of requirements. With an “or” it would be clear: you must meet one requirement. With an “and” you must meet all. Having forgotten or overlooked such a crucial term, it creates an unnecessary drafting and political dilemma, one that can only be corrected through amendment. That in itself will probably bring in other amendments. And there we go, through an already open door in the bill to include even worse amendments and provisions.

Another incredibly vague provision is one that allows an adoptee to obtain an OBC if a birth parent “can reasonably be presumed to be deceased based on the known or estimated date of birth of the birth parent.” How do we do that? Evidence of bad living in the region? Actuarial tables? Because this provision is so ambiguous, it is a recipe for either 1) litigation; or 2) unnecessary bureaucratic regulation. Whatever the outcome, it’s something that could have easily been avoided, most easily by a clean bill that did not require mental gymnastics and guesstimates on a birthparent’s birthday and presumed death.

The Florida bill also allows some adoptees to obtain an OBC if they provide “written evidence of knowledge of the name of a birth parent named on the original birth certificate.” As with provisions like this in a few other states, this again only creates problems and additional bureaucracy. Presumably, if the name on the birth certificate is not one of the actual parents you find elsewhere or through DNA, you are out of luck—unless you happen to know the false or incorrect name listed on the birth certificate, something that is not uncommon in adoptions. Ultimately it is yet another one of the many familiar bones thrown at adoptees who seek equality. Worse, this provision as well as the other contingencies in the bill (e.g., birth parent consent, dead birthparents, etc.) ultimately accomplish a single thing: reinforcing a false assumption that birthparents are given anonymity with respect to an adoptee’s original birth certificate. One convenient reminder of this false assumption is Florida law itself, which provides that:

Upon receipt of the report or certified copy of an adoption decree, together with the information necessary to identify the original certificate of live birth, and establish a new certificate, the department shall prepare and file a new birth certificate, absent objection by the court decreeing the adoption, the adoptive parents, or the adoptee if of legal age.

The contingencies, as well as the requirement of a forty-year waiting period, are the most damaging aspects of this bill, for they undermine adoptee advocates who for decades have fought for equality and against the assumed but false notion that birthparents have confidentiality in and veto rights over the contents of an adoptee’s own birth record. How any legitimate adoptee rights advocate can pursue legislation like this in 2017 is beyond me. I hope it is beyond you as well, and that you are willing to work to defeat the bill in its current form and pursue better legislation.

Bonus Content: Who Gets Access and When?

Under the bill’s forty-year waiting period, access for many adoptees becomes a tiered year-by-year climb. Presuming folks in the unlucky class are not able to meet criteria that generally exist in other restricted or compromised states (e.g., consent-based access, knowledge of birthparent names, deceased birthparent, court order, etc.), adoptees must wait until forty years have passed after the adoption before obtaining an OBC. Note that this is after the adoption, not after birth. For those in the unlucky class who were adopted years after birth, which is not uncommon, the waiting period may extend well beyond a fortieth birthday. Here’s how it breaks down, and I’ve highlighted the gallingly inequitable years that the bill creates, particularly in 2018 when the two classes begin to separate more noticeably.

Date/Year AdoptedDate/Year OBC Available
Before July 1, 1977Bill is ambiguous, but it’s likely pre-1977 adoptees won’t get access until the issue is litigated.
1978February 1, 2019
1979Earliest is February 1, 2019, based on date of adoption
19802020
19812021
19822022
19832023
19842024
19852025
19862026
19872027
19882028
19892029
19902030
19912031
19922032
19932033
19942034
19952035
19962036
19972037
19982038
19992039* *released to an adoptee who is at least 18 years old today
20002040
20012041
20022042
20032043
20042044
20052045
20062046
20072047
20082048
20092049
20102050
20112051
20122052
20132053
20142054
20152055
20162056
20172057
June 30, 2018June 30, 2058
July 1, 2018July 1, 2036† at age 18
20192037† at age 18
20202038† at age 18
20212039† at age 18

†likely earlier based on an adoptee’s date of birth, which is typically 3 months to several years before finalization of the adoption. Under the bill, adoptees whose adoptions are finalized after June 30, 2018, need only be 18 years of age to request their original birth certificates. All other adoptees must meet different requirements that are specifically related to the date of adoption, not birth.

Note: In an earlier draft of this post I stated that the 40-year waiting period also applied to pre-1977 adoptees. This is not correct. While I view all of the unlucky class of pre-2018 adoptees as in the same common class—with access to the OBC if the adoption was at least forty years ago—the bill very specifically excludes pre-1977 adoptees from such a 40-year waiting period. The bill actually keeps pre-1977 adoptees in somewhat of a legal limbo. It recognizes their existing legal right to unrestricted access to the OBC but gives them no practical mechanism to obtain it. As Shea Grimm said to me when she pointed this out, they have been “status quoed.”

Filed Under: Latest News Tagged With: Florida, Richard Stark

About Gregory D. Luce

I am a Minnesota lawyer, born and adopted in the District of Columbia, and the founder of Adoptee Rights Law Center PLLC. I've been practicing law in Minnesota state and federal courts since 1993, and have been the executive director of Adoptees United Inc. since 2021. I also have a sense of humor.

Get Involved with Adoptees United Inc.

Logo of Adoptees United Inc.Did you find this post interesting? Then get involved nationally with Adoptees United Inc., a national tax-exempt non-profit organization dedicated to securing equality for all adult adopted people in the US. Find out more here, and join me and others in working for equality.

Did I Miss Something?

I work hard to get the laws and facts straight in every state---and to keep them regularly updated. If you see something that's not quite right or doesn't fit your experience, let me know with either a quick comment or an email.

 

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Emm Paul says

    October 24, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    Thanks, Greg.

    Reply
  2. Richard Uhrlaub says

    October 24, 2017 at 11:49 pm

    Thank you for your comments Greg. Readers are welcome to view an alternate perspective on the Florida Adoption Reform and Education (FLARE) Facebook page. It appears that you favor the existing law — which already allows both birth and adoptive parents to “veto” release of the OBC to an adoptee — over this bill. Like others in the “all or nothing NOW” camp, your desire to leave no one behind actually leaves everyone behind.

    Reply
    • Gregory D. Luce says

      October 25, 2017 at 7:08 am

      I appreciate the comment and obviously disagree with you on the bill and its approach. You refer to FLARE, but that’s a closed group on Facebook, so it’s impossible for many of us who are not allowed into the group to view or discuss your “alternate perspective.” Why not be more open about what you are trying to do and who is specifically behind it?

      Reply
  3. Richard Uhrlaub says

    October 25, 2017 at 8:20 am

    The focus of FLARE is getting the bill passed– not debating its merits. As you know we have pointed people to your website. Opponents of the bill threaten to (and do) block and ban those with differing viewpoints, or have secret FB pages that not only regulate membership but prevent outsiders from viewing comments. By comparison, dissenters have been allowed to voice their opinions on FLARE, within certain limits. Florida law currently treats everyone equally by giving adult adoptees nothing without the consent of someone else (recently uncovered case law notwithstanding – nice work!). What if a little inequality today might help leverage a different, more desirable equality tomorrow? It has been known to happen. Reasonable minds can disagree, and there is more than one path to the top of the mountain. One thing is certain: for whatever reasons, the current “all or nothing now” approach is not getting the job done.

    Reply
    • Gregory D. Luce says

      October 25, 2017 at 8:47 am

      Honestly, your first sentence sums it up perfectly. Pass something, merits notwithstanding. Adoptees deserve transparency as to who is behind the effort. I’ve always made this an issue and have gotten grief about it from many corners when I make a stink about it, whether it was Donaldson or Bastard Nation in the past. This applies more potently to a group that is pursuing a cause directly but does not disclose its leadership or its leadership’s specific interest in a bill.

      Reply
    • Mary Ellen Gambutti says

      October 25, 2017 at 8:15 pm

      Rich: “What if a little inequality today might help leverage a different, more desirable equality tomorrow? It has been known to happen.”
      Really now. Equal=Equal in my book. This is horrendous speak defending an equal rights nightmare.

      Thank you, Greg.

      Reply
  4. Richard Uhrlaub says

    October 25, 2017 at 9:52 am

    I do take issue with your allegation that the 40 year time frame is the core of the bill. The core of the bill is eventual access to original birth certificates for all adult adoptees. Some would gain immediate access; future adoptees have to wait a maximum of 18 years; and those who aren’t in open adoptions (which comprise a significant percentage of the 1977-2018 adoptions) , don’t learn or already know their mother’s name, would have to wait a maximum of 40 years. Keeping the law the same means everyone waits until they get a court order or die.

    Reply
    • Gregory D. Luce says

      October 26, 2017 at 5:28 am

      It is unmistakably the core aspect. It is the only factor that is common to every adoptee except the “lucky” post-2017 adoptees. All the other factors you cite are run-of-the-mill contingencies that you find in most dirty OBC access bills out there.

      Reply
  5. Richard Uhrlaub says

    October 25, 2017 at 10:47 am

    On a related strategic and philosophical note, I would like to ask your opinion about something as an attorney: The foundation of the “all or nothing ” approach seems to be the assertion that access to OBCs is a fundamental right. But, given that federal and state courts have rejected that argument, isn’t this strategy rooted in a legal fiction? If not, why is no one pressing the argument through the courts? Wouldn’t that be the more direct avenue to a “clean” solution? How would you overturn the previous court rulings to win adoptees this alleged right?

    Reply
    • Gregory D. Luce says

      October 26, 2017 at 5:25 am

      This issue is one that can’t be covered here. It’s too large and complicated to do within the context of a blog comment, plus it’s something that is developing and I hesitate to lay out a legal strategy and tip off folks or get folks excited and running haphazardly in the wrong direction. That said, it is something that has to bubble up from states, and it takes development of local attorneys who understand the issue or can work with attorneys who do. Are there solid legal theories of equality of access based on rights? Yes. But a fundamental right as is defined today? That’s a legal term of art and there are few fundamental rights recognized by the courts. All I can say is that this issue is my main focus and it is under development.

      Reply
      • Shea Grimm says

        October 26, 2017 at 3:04 pm

        The notion that one needs judicial recognition of a right in order to believe in it, hold it dear, and fight for it, is not only ahistorical but intellectually bankrupt. There are countless examples of discrimination where the oppressed, be they women, people of color, or LGBTQ, fought for decades or centuries for legal recognition of their rights, often winning local victories along the way, before judicial recognition of their rights occurred.

        Moreover, the case law on this issue is extremely limited and old.

        It’s not been an uncommon strategy in other social justice movements to take a multipronged approach to eventual judicial recognition of rights, where advocates started with local and state governments. As a wave is produced, the judiciary often comes along. This is precisely why veto or tier bills or similar are such a problem and equality activists oppose them – they implicitly and sometimes explicitly reinforce the notion that it is birthparents’ right to anonymity that controls. And that is ironic in light of your argument that a right without judicial acknowledgement is no right at all, because courts like Oregon and Tennessee explicitly rejected the right of a birthparents to anonymity,

        Reply
        • Gregory D. Luce says

          October 26, 2017 at 4:49 pm

          Honestly, I wish I had been articulate enough to say what Shea has said here. It captures exactly what I’m after and pursuing. And I fully understand failures but I also understand small victories come first and that those small and perhaps even unexpected victories may ultimately become the wave Shea mentions. For that, it is alway worth trying.

          I will say, though, that it is doubtful this work, our legal work, will be successful anytime soon in compromised states. For those states, where vetoes and disclosures and an often complex legislative framework has now been fixed, there is probably little to do for many years. For those states, rights have been compromised and deformed and are unlikely to change. I wish more people understood this at such a fundamental level, and I appreciate Shea for articulating that notion so clearly.

          Reply
  6. Rudy Owens says

    October 26, 2017 at 11:43 pm

    Richard: Your views are very distressing to read as an adoptee whose dealt with laws that discriminate terribly against adoptees by year of birth (in Michigan). First, I would encourage you to revisit/visit Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Enshrined in that declaration, it states: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

    A multitude of countries from Australia to New Zealand to the United Kingdom allow adoptees when they become adults to access their identity documents without differential treatment prescribed in discriminatory laws that we see in a majority of states. (Go here to the UK’s page to see how simple it is to enshrine an adoptee’s rights into national law: https://www.gov.uk/adoption-records). The USA is the outlier, and a bad one, in this area of law.

    Your arguments remind me of comments from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, whose “officials” denied me my birth certificate for nearly three decades, even after I submitted a signed consent by my birth mother allowing the state to finally give me what I was always entitled as a human right. The “law” wasn’t on my side, even then, they claimed.

    But my “rights” to my birth certificate and my past, as were the rights of all who were born in Michigan, were not something MI state law or the MDHHS, or the courts for that matter, had any authority to give or take away. In my case, I never acknowledged their non-authority. I asserted my rights, and I never “compromised” on that, ever.

    Bottom line, this isn’t about ” all or nothing.” I hope you get that, and perhaps also see how badly misaligned our state laws are compared to national laws of countries that acknowledge the full legal and human rights of all adopted people.

    Reply
  7. Richard Uhrlaub says

    October 27, 2017 at 1:21 am

    So, attorneys, find a state where you can win or successfully appeal a case. All the theorizing in the world is meaningless unless we are making progress on the multiple fronts referred to. And waiting for the perfect moment in which the perfect bill will pass on the first attempt is a painfully slow strategy which has proven not to work with any kind of consistency. On the legislative front, at minimum, every state can and should start by passing clean prospective bills to help the next generation. It is inhumane and unethical to hold them hostage in the name of “equality,” particularly since the majority of modern adoptions are open to one degree or another.

    Reply
    • Gregory D. Luce says

      October 27, 2017 at 8:30 am

      You and Rep. Stark are obviously impatient. I’m not, and I’m also not just sitting around twiddling my thumbs. If it takes three years to get a case and develop it and pursue it, with the result that it supports a framework that opens records, then it is worth the effort and time. Same goes with legislation. Pushing through legislation in order to get “something”—especially sloppily drafted legislation like this that will undoubtedly get worse—is a panicked and unnecessary response to the notion that we’ll never have access. I guess, in many ways, it’s also a pessimistic outlook.

      Reply
    • Shea Grimm says

      October 30, 2017 at 5:14 am

      I am not actually opposed to the concept of passing prospective only clean bills in states that have already passed veto or redaction legislation, as long as it is done concurrently with a strategy to, even if over the long term, legally challenge laws that have given birthparents veto and redaction rights. But that is not the strategy you’re actually attempting to implement, Rich. You’re promoting far worse bills, including bills that CREATE vested rights for birthparents, as well as bills that leave at least some adoptees worse off than if you would just do nothing. And worse, you are outright misrepresenting what the Florida bill in particular will actually do.

      Furthermore, your absurd argument that fighting for adoptee rights instead of the eyrollingly meaningless “balance of interests” is a better legislative strategy is just laughable.

      Reply
  8. Gratia C. Engle (born ????) says

    November 13, 2017 at 4:56 pm

    What about us “robots” in Ca. I’ve waited fifty+ years, does this have any effect on receiving a OBC, or do all us adoptee’s have to keep wandering around like we know who we are?

    Reply
    • Gregory D. Luce says

      November 14, 2017 at 4:45 am

      Well, what Florida does will not directly affect California, but what other states do will affect the overall fight for unrestricted access to an OBC. For example, it now seems fairly clear that the horrendous bill in New York is very much related to how this bill in Florida is being pursued. Imagine that. Inequality begets more inequality.

      Reply
  9. Karen Shaw says

    September 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm

    What about those of us who were born and adopted before 1977? I was born in 1965 and adopted the same year. What am I allowed to have?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

  • Bluesky
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Adoptee Rights Law Center

The Adoptee Rights Law Center PLLC is an adoptee-driven law firm founded by Gregory Luce, a Minnesota lawyer who was also born and adopted in the District of Columbia.

Contact Me

Legal representation limited to issues involving Minnesota law and federal immigration law.

Latest Posts

  • Name Changes and an N-565
  • Q&A: US Citizenship and Immigration Issues for Intercountry Adoptees
  • Thank You! Funds Raised for a Filing Fee for Intercountry Adoptee
  • It’s My Birthday. Let’s Celebrate.
  • Ask an Adoptee Rights Lawyer

Contact Info

Adoptee Rights Law Center PLLC
Minneapolis Minnesota 55419
T: (612) 221-3947
E: [email protected]

Legal representation limited to issues involving Minnesota law and federal immigration law.

Florida

Report: What's at Stake: A Brief History of Adoptee Access to Original Birth Certificates in Florida

The Florida Adoption Reunion Registry is the registry created by the Florida legislature in 1982.

The OBC: Maps

Alabama. Adult adoptees have the unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates, beginning at age 19. Read more.
Alaska. Adult adoptees have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their original birth certificates, beginning at age 18. Read More.
Arizona. Arizona implemented a "donut hole" provision in a new law, which became effective on January 1, 2022. It allows only some adoptees to request the OBC--- based on their date of birth---but denies the right to obtain the OBC to the vast majority of Arizona-born adopted people. Read more.
Arkansas.While Arkansas law allows adult adoptees to request their adoption files, the request is subject to a birthparent's ability to redact their names on the original birth certificates. A FAQ with information about the law and its requirements and discriminatory limitations is here.
California. Adult adoptees do not have a right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates, except by court order. Adoptees must petition the court and show “good and compelling cause” in order to obtain a copy of their own original birth record. Read more.
Colorado. Colorado-born adult adopted people have a right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. An adopted person who is at least 18 years of age may apply for and receive a non-certified copy of their original birth certificate through the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Read more.
Connecticut. Connecticut-born adult adopted people have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. The right also extends to the adult children and grandchildren of the adopted person. Read more.
Delaware. While Delaware-born adopted people who are at least 21 years of age may request a copy of their OBCs, birthparents may legally veto their release, otherwise known as a "disclosure veto." Read more.
District of Columbia. District of Columbia courts control all aspects of releasing an OBC or any identifying information, whether from court records or from vital records. A court order is required and, depending on the date of adoption, may involve federal court or the D.C. Superior Court. Read more.
Florida. While Florida-born adult adopted people may apply for a copy of the original birth record, it takes signed affidavits of consent from birthparents---or death certificates showing that birthparents are deceased---to compel release of the OBC. Otherwise, release is allowed only by court order. Read More.
Georgia. Georgia-born adult adopted people must secure a court order to obtain a copy of their original birth certificates. Read more.
Hawaii. Adopted people born born in Hawaii do not have an unrestricted right to obtain their own original birth certificates. People adopted in Hawaii may request and obtain their court adoption records, which may include an original birth certificate. The law does not apply to people born in Hawaii but adopted in a different state. Read more.
Idaho. An OBC is available only by court order or conditionally through a state-operated “voluntary adoption registry.” Disclosure of an original birth certificate through the registry is subject to consent of the parties and may require the consent of both birth parents. Additional rights through the registry are available to people adopted on or after July 1, 2022, but those adoptees must also be at least 18 years of age. Read more.
Illinois. The state has implemented a complex tiered date-based system to request and obtain a birth record, using the adoption registry to facilitate release of OBCs and other information. The date of birth of an Illinois-born adopted person determines who has a right to an OBC or who may be subject to a birthparent’s request to redact identifying information on the OBC. Read more.
Indiana. The state has a complex and discriminatory framework that may allow release of specifically defined "identifying information," but a birthparent may prohibit release of that information at any time, even after the parent's death. Read more.
Iowa. While Iowa-born adopted peoole who are at least 18 years of age may apply for a copy of their own original birth certificates, release of the record is subject birthparent redaction requests. Read More.
Kansas. While original birth certificates may be sealed after an adoption, Kansas-born adult adoptees who are at least 18 years of age have always had an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. Read more.
Kentucky. A court order is required for an Kentucky-born adult adopted person to secure a copy of their own original birth certificate. Read more.
Louisiana. All Louisiana-born adopted people, at age 24, have an unrestricted right to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. Read more.
Maine. Adult adoptees have the unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. Maine-born adopted people must be at least 18 years of age before requesting the OBC. Read more.
Maryland. For all practical purposes, Maryland should be defined as a "restricted" state: there are so few current Maryland-born adult adopted  people who may qualify under its law, which gives preference to adoptions finalized on or after January 1, 2000. Because the adopted person must also be at least 21 years of age to request the OBC under the date-based qualification, the law effectively applies only to those adopted people who are recently turning 21 (or were older at the time of their adoption). In addition, birthparents under current law may at any time veto disclosure of birth records or identifying information. Maryland-born adopted people whose adoptions were finalized before January 1, 2000, must secure a court order to obtain a copy of their own original birth records. Read more.
Massachusetts. The Bay State in 2022 became the 12th state in the U.S. to affirm or restore the right of all Massachusetts-born adult adopted people to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. Read more.
Michigan. Michigan requires the use of a “Central Adoption Registry” to process information and to determine whether an adoptee should or should not get “identifying information,” which does not initially include an original birth certificate. Depending on the date of terminatuion of a birthparent's parent rights, a birthparent may deny access to identifying information or withhold access by saying nothing. In most cases (those in the donut hole years) no identifying information---or the OBC---may be released to the adoptee, except by court order or if the birthparent is deceased. Read more.
Minnesota. All Minnesota-born adult adopted people have a right obtain a copy of their own original birth records. This also applies to the spouse, children, and grandchildren of the adopted person if the person is deceased. Read more.
Mississippi. Mississippi-born adult adopted people do not have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. It takes a court order to obtain the record. Read more.
Missouri. The state has a complex framework that makes the original birth certificate subject to birth parent disclosure vetoes, some of which may extend beyond the death of the parent. Read more.
Montana. Montana maintains a somewhat complex tiered system that uses an adoptee’s date of adoption as the determinant of whether an adopted person may obtain their own original birth certificate. While an original birth certificate may be available more easily to adoptees who are at least 30 years of age, court orders may be required for younger adoptees. In all cases, if a birthparent requests that a court order be required, the OBC will not be released without a court order. Read more.
Nebraska. Nebraska law is incredibly complex and confusing. Generally, any right of a Nebraska-born adult adopted person to obtain a copy of their own OBC depends on the date of an adoptee’s relinquishment and also whether a birth parent—and in some cases an adoptive parent—has affirmatively consented to disclosure or has filed a “nonconsent” form objecting to the OBC’s release. Read more.
Nevada. Nevada-born adult adopted people must secure a court order to obtain a copy of their own original birth certificate. Read more.
New Hampshire. Adoptees who are at least 18 years of age have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. The state also allows birth parents to file a contact preference form and/or health history questionnaire, neither of which will restrict the right of adult adoptees to obtain their OBCs. Read more.
New Jersey is best described as a "limited time redaction" state, as the law in 2016 provided birthparents a limited amount of time to request redaction of their information from the adoptee's original birth certificate. Thus, while most New Jersey-born adult adopted people now have a right to obtain their own original birth certificates, approximately 560 birthparents filed redaction requests, leading to redaction of the parents’ identifying information on the OBC. Those 560 adoptees have no right to obtain an unredacted original birth certificate except through a court order. Read more.
New Mexico. A New Mexico-born adult adopted person must demonstrate good cause to convince a court to release a copy of the adoptee's own original birth certificate. Read more.
New York. Since 2020, adult adopted persons and their descendants have an unrestricted right to request and obtain a certified copy of the adopted person's own original birth certificate. Read more.
North Carolina. A court order is required for the release of any identifying information, including an OBC. A North Carolina-born adult adopted person must specifically request the OBC in a court action that seeks the release of identifying information. Read more.
North Dakota. Adult adopted people who were born in North Dakota do not have a right to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. It takes a court order to release it. Read more.
Ohio. Not all Ohip-born adult adopted people are treated equally. While legislative reforms in the last decade removed a number of discriminatory provisions, significant restrictions remain, including birthparent redaction and disclosure vetoes. Read more.
Oklahoma. Currently, nearly all Oklahoma-born adult adopted must obtain a court order and show good cause for release of the OBC. While Oklahoma-born adopted people whose adoptions were finalized after November 1, 1997, do not require a court order, requests for such OBCs are subject to birth parent disclosure vetoes and redaction. Read more.
Oregon. Oregon-born adopted people who are at least 21 years of age have an unrestricted right to obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. Oregon law also allows adoptees at age 18 to obtain specific records in the court adoption proceedings. Read more.
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania-born adopted people who are at least 18 years of age—and who must be high school graduates, possess a GED, or are legally withdrawn from school— may request "summary information" from their original birth record (but not a copy of the original record itself). Birthparents, however may redact identifying information on the OBC by filing a “name redaction request.” Redaction requests may be filed or withdrawn at any time and do not extend beyond a filing parent’s death. Read more.
Rhode Island. Adult adopted people and their descendants have an unrestricted right to request and obtain the adopted person's own original birth certificate at age 18. Read more.
South Carolina. South Carolina-born adult adopted people must either obtain a court order or birthparent permission to obtain an unredacted original birth record. Read more.
South Dakota. South Dakota-born adult adopted people have an unrestricted right to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificate directly from the state's vital records department or from the local register of deeds. In July 2023, South Dakota became the fourteenth state to affirm or restore such a right. Read more.
Tennessee. Nearly all adoptees who are 21 years of age have a right to request and obtain their their own “adoption records,” which typically include original birth certificates. The only exception to this right is for an adult adoptee whose birth parent was a victim of rape or incest—in such cases the written consent of the birth parent is required for release of records. Read more.
Texas. Release of the OBC to a Texas-born adult adopted person requires a court order, with one significant exception: adoptees who are at least 18 years of age and who know the names of their birthparents listed on the record may obtain a non-certified copy of their own original birth certificate upon request. Read more.
Utah. Adult adoptees do not have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. While adoptees 18 years of age or older may request their birth records, release depends on participating in a voluntary registry as well as obtaining the consent of birthparents, unless a birthparent is dead. Read more.
Vermont. Vermont-born adult adopted people and their descendants have an unrestricted right to request and obtain a copy of the adopted person's own original birth certificate directly from the state's vital records department. In July 2023, Vermont became the thirteenth state to affirm or restore such a right. Read more.
Virginia. Release of an OBC to a Virginia-born adult adopted person requires either a) a state agency’s decision, upon good cause shown, to release identifying information from the adoption records; or b) a court order upon good cause shown. Read more.
Washington. Adult adoptees do not have an unrestricted right to obtain their own original birth certificates. An OBC is available through the Department of Health but release is subject to birth parent disclosure vetoes as well as to corrupt contact preference forms that allow birthparents to deny release of the OBC. Disclosure vetoes and contact preference forms expire on the death of the birth parent. Read more.
West Virginia. Adult adoptees do not have an unrestricted right to obtain their own original birth certificates. A court order, requiring good cause, is required before the release of an OBC. Read more.

Wisconsin. The original birth record is only available by court order or through successful completion of a complex and lengthy "adoption records search" process, which depends upon consent or death of the parties to release any records or information. For these reasons, it is considered a "Restricted State." Read more.

Wyoming. Adult adoptees do not have an unrestricted right to obtain their original birth certificates. It takes a court order for release of an OBC, with no specific standards or procedures outlined in seeking such an order. Read more.
US OBC Rights 2024 Placeholder
US OBC Rights 2024
Alabama. Adult adoptees have the unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates, beginning at age 19. Read more.
Alaska. Adult adoptees have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their original birth certificates, beginning at age 18. Read More.
Arizona. Arizona implemented a "donut hole" provision in a new law, which became effective on January 1, 2022. It allows only some adoptees to request the OBC--- based on their date of birth---but denies the right to obtain the OBC to the vast majority of Arizona-born adopted people. Read more.
Arkansas.While Arkansas law allows adult adoptees to request their adoption files, the request is subject to a birthparent's ability to redact their names on the original birth certificates. A FAQ with information about the law and its requirements and discriminatory limitations is here.
California. Adult adoptees do not have a right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates, except by court order. Adoptees must petition the court and show “good and compelling cause” in order to obtain a copy of their own original birth record. Read more.
Colorado. Colorado-born adult adopted people have a right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. An adopted person who is at least 18 years of age may apply for and receive a non-certified copy of their original birth certificate through the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Read more.
Connecticut. Connecticut-born adult adopted people have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. The right also extends to the adult children and grandchildren of the adopted person. Read more.
Delaware. While Delaware-born adopted people who are at least 21 years of age may request a copy of their OBCs, birthparents may legally veto their release, otherwise known as a "disclosure veto." Read more.
District of Columbia. District of Columbia courts control all aspects of releasing an OBC or any identifying information, whether from court records or from vital records. A court order is required and, depending on the date of adoption, may involve federal court or the D.C. Superior Court. Read more.
Florida. While Florida-born adult adopted people may apply for a copy of the original birth record, it takes signed affidavits of consent from birthparents---or death certificates showing that birthparents are deceased---to compel release of the OBC. Otherwise, release is allowed only by court order. Read More.
Georgia. Georgia-born adult adopted people must secure a court order to obtain a copy of their original birth certificates. Read more.
Hawaii. Adopted people born born in Hawaii do not have an unrestricted right to obtain their own original birth certificates. People adopted in Hawaii may request and obtain their court adoption records, which may include an original birth certificate. The law does not apply to people born in Hawaii but adopted in a different state. Read more.
Idaho. An OBC is available only by court order or conditionally through a state-operated “voluntary adoption registry.” Disclosure of an original birth certificate through the registry is subject to consent of the parties and may require the consent of both birth parents. Additional rights through the registry are available to people adopted on or after July 1, 2022, but those adoptees must also be at least 18 years of age. Read more.
Illinois. The state has implemented a complex tiered date-based system to request and obtain a birth record, using the adoption registry to facilitate release of OBCs and other information. The date of birth of an Illinois-born adopted person determines who has a right to an OBC or who may be subject to a birthparent’s request to redact identifying information on the OBC. Read more.
Indiana. The state has a complex and discriminatory framework that may allow release of specifically defined "identifying information," but a birthparent may prohibit release of that information at any time, even after the parent's death. Read more.
Iowa. While Iowa-born adopted peoole who are at least 18 years of age may apply for a copy of their own original birth certificates, release of the record is subject birthparent redaction requests. Read More.
Kansas. While original birth certificates may be sealed after an adoption, Kansas-born adult adoptees who are at least 18 years of age have always had an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. Read more.
Kentucky. A court order is required for an Kentucky-born adult adopted person to secure a copy of their own original birth certificate. Read more.
Louisiana. All Louisiana-born adopted people, at age 24, have an unrestricted right to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. Read more.
Maine. Adult adoptees have the unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. Maine-born adopted people must be at least 18 years of age before requesting the OBC. Read more.
Maryland. For all practical purposes, Maryland should be defined as a "restricted" state: there are so few current Maryland-born adult adopted  people who may qualify under its law, which gives preference to adoptions finalized on or after January 1, 2000. Because the adopted person must also be at least 21 years of age to request the OBC under the date-based qualification, the law effectively applies only to those adopted people who are recently turning 21 (or were older at the time of their adoption). In addition, birthparents under current law may at any time veto disclosure of birth records or identifying information. Maryland-born adopted people whose adoptions were finalized before January 1, 2000, must secure a court order to obtain a copy of their own original birth records. Read more.
Massachusetts. The Bay State in 2022 became the 12th state in the U.S. to affirm or restore the right of all Massachusetts-born adult adopted people to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. Read more.
Michigan. Michigan requires the use of a “Central Adoption Registry” to process information and to determine whether an adoptee should or should not get “identifying information,” which does not initially include an original birth certificate. Depending on the date of terminatuion of a birthparent's parent rights, a birthparent may deny access to identifying information or withhold access by saying nothing. In most cases (those in the donut hole years) no identifying information---or the OBC---may be released to the adoptee, except by court order or if the birthparent is deceased. Read more.
Minnesota. All Minnesota-born adult adopted people have a right obtain a copy of their own original birth records. This also applies to the spouse, children, and grandchildren of the adopted person if the person is deceased. Read more.
Mississippi. Mississippi-born adult adopted people do not have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. It takes a court order to obtain the record. Read more.
Missouri. The state has a complex framework that makes the original birth certificate subject to birth parent disclosure vetoes, some of which may extend beyond the death of the parent. Read more.
Montana. Montana maintains a somewhat complex tiered system that uses an adoptee’s date of adoption as the determinant of whether an adopted person may obtain their own original birth certificate. While an original birth certificate may be available more easily to adoptees who are at least 30 years of age, court orders may be required for younger adoptees. In all cases, if a birthparent requests that a court order be required, the OBC will not be released without a court order. Read more.
Nebraska. Nebraska law is incredibly complex and confusing. Generally, any right of a Nebraska-born adult adopted person to obtain a copy of their own OBC depends on the date of an adoptee’s relinquishment and also whether a birth parent—and in some cases an adoptive parent—has affirmatively consented to disclosure or has filed a “nonconsent” form objecting to the OBC’s release. Read more.
Nevada. Nevada-born adult adopted people must secure a court order to obtain a copy of their own original birth certificate. Read more.
New Hampshire. Adoptees who are at least 18 years of age have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. The state also allows birth parents to file a contact preference form and/or health history questionnaire, neither of which will restrict the right of adult adoptees to obtain their OBCs. Read more.
New Jersey is best described as a "limited time redaction" state, as the law in 2016 provided birthparents a limited amount of time to request redaction of their information from the adoptee's original birth certificate. Thus, while most New Jersey-born adult adopted people now have a right to obtain their own original birth certificates, approximately 560 birthparents filed redaction requests, leading to redaction of the parents’ identifying information on the OBC. Those 560 adoptees have no right to obtain an unredacted original birth certificate except through a court order. Read more.
New Mexico. A New Mexico-born adult adopted person must demonstrate good cause to convince a court to release a copy of the adoptee's own original birth certificate. Read more.
New York. Since 2020, adult adopted persons and their descendants have an unrestricted right to request and obtain a certified copy of the adopted person's own original birth certificate. Read more.
North Carolina. A court order is required for the release of any identifying information, including an OBC. A North Carolina-born adult adopted person must specifically request the OBC in a court action that seeks the release of identifying information. Read more.
North Dakota. Adult adopted people who were born in North Dakota do not have a right to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. It takes a court order to release it. Read more.
Ohio. Not all Ohip-born adult adopted people are treated equally. While legislative reforms in the last decade removed a number of discriminatory provisions, significant restrictions remain, including birthparent redaction and disclosure vetoes. Read more.
Oklahoma. Currently, nearly all Oklahoma-born adult adopted must obtain a court order and show good cause for release of the OBC. While Oklahoma-born adopted people whose adoptions were finalized after November 1, 1997, do not require a court order, requests for such OBCs are subject to birth parent disclosure vetoes and redaction. Read more.
Oregon. Oregon-born adopted people who are at least 21 years of age have an unrestricted right to obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. Oregon law also allows adoptees at age 18 to obtain specific records in the court adoption proceedings. Read more.
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania-born adopted people who are at least 18 years of age—and who must be high school graduates, possess a GED, or are legally withdrawn from school— may request "summary information" from their original birth record (but not a copy of the original record itself). Birthparents, however may redact identifying information on the OBC by filing a “name redaction request.” Redaction requests may be filed or withdrawn at any time and do not extend beyond a filing parent’s death. Read more.
Rhode Island. Adult adopted people and their descendants have an unrestricted right to request and obtain the adopted person's own original birth certificate at age 18. Read more.
South Carolina. South Carolina-born adult adopted people must either obtain a court order or birthparent permission to obtain an unredacted original birth record. Read more.
South Dakota. South Dakota-born adult adopted people have an unrestricted right to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificate directly from the state's vital records department or from the local register of deeds. In July 2023, South Dakota became the fourteenth state to affirm or restore such a right. Read more.
Tennessee. Nearly all adoptees who are 21 years of age have a right to request and obtain their their own “adoption records,” which typically include original birth certificates. The only exception to this right is for an adult adoptee whose birth parent was a victim of rape or incest—in such cases the written consent of the birth parent is required for release of records. Read more.
Texas. Release of the OBC to a Texas-born adult adopted person requires a court order, with one significant exception: adoptees who are at least 18 years of age and who know the names of their birthparents listed on the record may obtain a non-certified copy of their own original birth certificate upon request. Read more.
Utah. Adult adoptees do not have an unrestricted right to request and obtain their own original birth certificates. While adoptees 18 years of age or older may request their birth records, release depends on participating in a voluntary registry as well as obtaining the consent of birthparents, unless a birthparent is dead. Read more.
Vermont. Vermont-born adult adopted people and their descendants have an unrestricted right to request and obtain a copy of the adopted person's own original birth certificate directly from the state's vital records department. In July 2023, Vermont became the thirteenth state to affirm or restore such a right. Read more.
Virginia. Release of an OBC to a Virginia-born adult adopted person requires either a) a state agency’s decision, upon good cause shown, to release identifying information from the adoption records; or b) a court order upon good cause shown. Read more.
Washington. Adult adoptees do not have an unrestricted right to obtain their own original birth certificates. An OBC is available through the Department of Health but release is subject to birth parent disclosure vetoes as well as to corrupt contact preference forms that allow birthparents to deny release of the OBC. Disclosure vetoes and contact preference forms expire on the death of the birth parent. Read more.
West Virginia. Adult adoptees do not have an unrestricted right to obtain their own original birth certificates. A court order, requiring good cause, is required before the release of an OBC. Read more.

Wisconsin. The original birth record is only available by court order or through successful completion of a complex and lengthy "adoption records search" process, which depends upon consent or death of the parties to release any records or information. For these reasons, it is considered a "Restricted State." Read more.

Wyoming. Adult adoptees do not have an unrestricted right to obtain their original birth certificates. It takes a court order for release of an OBC, with no specific standards or procedures outlined in seeking such an order. Read more.

View More Maps

OBC: State Status & Numbers

15 UNRESTRICTED
19 COMPROMISED
17 RESTRICTED
51 VIEW ALL
What do these mean? Some maps and an explanation.</>

Legislative Tracking


 
I also monitor federal legislation related to intercountry adoptees.

Adoptee Rights Law Center

Copyright © 2025 · Adoptee Rights Law Center PLLC · Home · About · Contact