After an adoption is finalized, the original birth certificate of an adopted child is sealed and a new one issued that lists the adoptive family as the child's parents. Current law allows an adopted person access to their pre-adoption records only through a court order, which is granted at the judge's discretion if the request meets a special need standard such as an adoptee facing a medical crisis. Requests are often denied.

Assembly Bill 372, authored by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, as introduced would have allowed adoptees over 18 years old direct access to their original birth certificates, and it would have dropped the requirement that the adoptee prove a need to a court. The bill, which is making its way through legislative committees, has been amended. In its current form, AB 372 would:

• Require courts to release original birth certificates to adoptees facing serious medical conditions needing familial information.

• Require the state, starting Jan. 1, 2010, and going backward, to open the original birth certificate in an "informational only copy" form to an adult adoptee age 25 or older if the birth mother has been notified and agrees to the release.

• Allow either birth parent, assuming both are listed on the birth certificate, to have their names redacted if the other parent agrees to have the information released to the adoptee.

• Notify biological parents involved in adoptions after Jan. 1, 2010, that the child shall have unrestricted access to their original birth certificate in the "informational only copy" upon their 25th birthday unless the biological parents opt out at the time of the adoption. If one opts out, but not the other, only one name will be redacted from the certificate.

Arguments for AB 372

CARE, the California Adoption Reform Effort, a coalition of adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and others, says it is working to update laws written in 1935 to protect families against the stigma of unwed pregnancy and adoption. It seeks to provide adult adoptees with unrestricted access to noncertified copies of their birth certificates and is the sponsor of AB 372.

www.ca-care.org

Arguments against AB 372

California Open also urges the state to open birth records for adoptees. Its members no longer support AB 372 because it says the bill doesn't go far enough. It insists that adult adoptees be given absolute unrestricted access to their original birth certificates "as is enjoyed by all other citizens of California."

www.calopen.org

Other voices on opening birth records for adoptees

• Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a think tank whose study of the issue in 2007 called for amending "every state's laws to restore unrestricted access for adopted persons to their original birth certificates."

www.adoptioninstitute.org.

• The National Council for Adoption, a coalition of member adoption agencies, opposes all mandatory open record requirements because they may force contact on unsuspecting members of the adoption triad. Its position states that new open record laws empower one party to adoption to receive confidential identifying information about the other without the other party's consent. While openness in adoption can be healthy when both parties choose it voluntarily, the council states on its Web site, "It's often traumatic and disrupts the lives when one side forces himself or herself on the other." The group supports the use of mutual consent registries that allow birth parents to control the timing of contact.

www.adoptioncouncil.org/resources/privacy_concerns.html

– Laura-Lynne Powell