August 3, 2015
Pennsylvania Act 101 and Other Adoption Intermediary
Horror Stories – The Case for Unfettered Adoptee Access to Original Birth
Certificates Without Government Interference
One of the most satisfying
parts of my work is helping adoptees who have been emotionally abused and
traumatized by overbearing government intrusion into their personal and private
lives by forcing them to go through court-appointed search agents/intermediaries
to get information about their pre-adoption history and to search for and contact
families. In PA, we have Act 101, which
was passed by the legislature in 2010 in a knee-jerk reaction to increasingly
determined adoptee demands to restore access to original birth certificates
(OBCs), the same as they had prior to 1985.
There are a few other states that have these forced intermediary programs—most
notably Maryland, Arizona and Michigan—and their rates of positive conclusions
are abysmal, the same as Pennsylvania, about 50% according to written reports
and legislative testimony. Needless to
say, Act 101 has done nothing to quell the demands for Adoptee Rights—justice,
equality and respect for adopted citizens, the same as enjoyed by PA-born
people who were not adopted. In fact,
the indignation over these intermediary programs is growing daily.
Here in PA, several counties
have contracted out these “post-adoption intermediary services” to Catholic
Charities (CC), which charges the adoptee up to $500 per search, and has
absolute authority and discretion (even superseding a judge’s order) as to what
they will do and whether and how much information will be given to the adoptee
at the end of the search. This means
that ALL post-adoption services, regardless of whether the adoption was handled
by Catholic Charities or even if the parties are or ever were Catholic, are
handled by an agency under the direct control and supervision of the
Pennsylvania Catholic Conference. Can I
hear a chorus of “Separation of Church and State, Conflict of Interest, Abuse
of Power, Exploitation and Manipulation of Tax-Paying Adult Citizens!”? Amen!
Carol’s Bungled Search
This was the case with
Carol. Born in Clinton County in 1978
and adopted to Centre County two years later, Carol dutifully went through the
Centre County Court to ask for her non-identifying information (especially
family health history) from the adoption file and the County CYS office and to
initiate a search for her mother. The
search aspect was referred to CC-Altoona.
Thus began an almost year-long bureaucratic nightmare of stone-walling,
non-communication, rudeness, and disrespectful dismissal of Carol’s needs and
concerns (including serious medical conditions with her and her children). The CYS worker (who, incidentally, had known
Carol and her adoptive family for many years) lied straight to her face,
telling her “all the records have been destroyed, and I can’t tell you
anything.” The CC-Altoona agent who
conducted the search actually sent a letter to the WRONG woman (a much-younger
cousin who had the same name as Carol’s mother), questioned this lady about her
knowledge of the mother’s personal life and history, then called the 79-year-old
mother at the nursing home where she is a resident to ask her—over the phone,
mind you—about very detailed, private things.
Are you as incensed as I am yet?
Just wait, there’s more!
As you can well imagine,
Carol’s mother was alarmed and intimidated by this intrusion by a religious
organization into her personal life--she’s not even Catholic! Of course she denied to the CC worker that she
had a child in 1978 who was given up for adoption! So CC decided, in their “who died and
appointed you God over all adoptees and their families” attitude, that Carol
would receive no information whatsoever—not even family medical history. Nothing!
The file was closed, and they stopped responding to Carol’s emails and
phone messages.
Thank Goodness For DNA—The Ultimate, Accurate “Birth
Certificate”
The old adage “Nature abhors
a vacuum” and its spiritual corollary “God abhors secrets and lies” have never
been more apropos for adopted persons than in the past few years since the study
of genetic genealogy was made easily and cheaply available to the general
public [see my blog post Exciting New World of DNA Family Matching]. By the time CC and CYS were through with Carol,
as you can well imagine, she was very distraught and traumatized. It makes me furious when I realize that
criminals are actually treated better than adoptees in this state! Trying to project a positive, hopeful aura
for her, I encouraged Carol to put her DNA in the Ancestry.com site. As a result, two months later, within a half
an hour after the results were posted, I knew her mother’s name, complete
genealogy (parents, grandparents going back 200 years, siblings, cousins,
etc.), as well as the name and whereabouts of her sister.
For Carol, the search is over;
she can finally say “I know” instead of “I wonder.” She has been warmly welcomed back into the
family; she visits her mother and aunt in the nursing home frequently (and, in
fact, has become the preferred contact for the nursing home staff). Most importantly, she knows her truth—some
good news, some bad news—but it’s her
personal history, her truth and hers
alone. She learned, for example, that
her adoption wasn’t finalized for two years because her birth family (especially
one aunt) was fighting desperately to keep her in the fold. She has seen for the first time pictures of
herself as a baby in their care. More
importantly, when she ventures around Centre and Clinton Counties, she doesn’t
have to scan the faces of everyone she meets – Are you my mother? My cousin?
My sibling? The relief has had a
profound effect on Carol’s health and outlook.
She can finally lay down her nagging worries and put behind her the emotional
trauma she has suffered as a result of her mistreatment at the hands of the
state and CC and move forward with a lighter, happier prospect.
Michael Learns His History Despite Officious
Incompetence
All who learn their history
describe this same euphoric relief. Another
adoptee for whom I completed a search that was botched by CC is Michael, born
in Pittsburgh in 1959. His mother was an
inmate of Catholic Charities Rosalie Hall home for unwed mothers. Michael had been trying to work with
CC-Pittsburgh for several years and always came to a brick-wall refusal to give
him any meaningful information. Not
seeing any other option, Michael decided to take the chance to have CC conduct a
search for his mother. He paid the $500
fee and waited, and waited. Finally the
CC worker reported that she “thought” she had found his mother, but wasn’t
positive; she had called and spoken with this woman’s son who said she had
dementia, that he didn’t know what CC was talking about, and “do not call here
again.” So, instead of making sure they
had the right woman and giving Michael medical history and options, CC simply closed
the file and told Michael, basically, “Tough luck, fee is not refundable, so sorry,
have a good life …” Again, at my urging,
Michael submitted his DNA sample and, like Carol, was matched with a second
cousin. I was able to send him a
complete family tree. Michael learned that he has
lived for many years just blocks from his aunt and cousins and, most incredibly, that he had been acquainted with one of his cousins—his
daughter had even babysat her children! I
have encouraged Michael to file a formal complaint about CC-Pittsburgh’s inept,
inconsiderate, unprofessional staff and demand his money be refunded.
Just Two of Dozens of Case Histories
Michael’s and Carol’s
experience is, sadly, typical of the treatment adoptees receive at the hands of
these legislatively-mandated, court-appointed intermediaries. There are probably a dozen or more cases like
these that I have had to resolve, including Grace (1981, Butler County), who
was strung along and put off for years by CC-Pittsburgh. Fortunately, Grace’s adoptive mother was smart
to get a copy of her OBC before they were sealed in 1985, so Grace always knew
her mother’s name, age, place of birth and last-known address. Even with all this information, and
additional notes in the file, the CC worker was incapable of locating her. I found Grace’s mother, Karen, within a month
of her contacting me. Karen was
delighted to be found and wrote to me personally thanking me for my
perseverance on her daughter’s behalf.
Mari-Rose (1959, Luzerne
County) contacted me when she was matched on DNA with a half-sister, Laurie,
another adoptee (1961, Florida) from the same mother. Mari-Rose had previously gone to the county
court-appointed search agent who said she was unable to find her mother. This agent must not have looked very hard,
because, once we learned the mother’s name, I found her within a half-hour even
though she had been married four times.
Their mother has spurned reunion; we understand, she has multiple health
and life issues, and Mari-Rose and Laurie have respected her wish to be left
alone. While Mari is enjoying a good
relationship with her father and his side of the family, we are moving forward
to find Laurie’s father.
Cindy (Philadelphia, 1962)
was refused identifying information by CC-Philadelphia when she had requested a
search for her mother because CC indiscreetly contacted the grandmother instead
who ordered them not to pursue it.
Fortunately, the non-identifying information Cindy received was enough
for me to find the family even before the DNA came back.
David (1965, Pittsburgh) –
David’s father, an immigrant from Lithuania was so happy to be located and have
David back in his life he took him on a month-long visit to Lithuania to meet
all of the relatives back home. David
met his mother on Mother’s Day 2015, and she is taking the next step to
introduce him to her extended family. So,
tell us again, just who is being “protected” by this bureaucratic meddling in
people’s private lives?
The case of Rosemary (1940,
Warren County) is particularly compelling.
Rosemary had been trying for decades to get any information she could
about her birth and adoption. She found
out too late that she could have gotten her OBC before 1985; outrageous, when
we think about it, that it was available for the asking before then. Rosemary was continuously put off by the
court clerk, who didn’t even know about Act 101, and told all of the adoption
records were “destroyed in a flood” many years ago. I could feel and completely understood the frustration
and anger building in Rosemary at the cavalier, dismissive treatment she was
receiving. With my help, she devised one
last plea to the judge to order her OBC to be released. It worked.
Rosemary will be coming to Pennsylvania next month to meet her brothers
for the first time. She’s 75 years old
and finally knows her history and who her people are!
Intolerable Treatment By Government Bureaucrats
Unfortunately, these cases are
typical of what happens when the government tries to insert itself into
people’s private lives and micro-manage their personal family relationships
through these mandatory intermediary programs—I won’t even dignify them by
adding the prefix “confidential” when their insensitive intrusions into
people’s affairs are about as indiscreet as it can get! In no other area of life would we tolerate
this level of government interference in our personal lives. These programs are
* Demeaning and demoralizing, treating adult men and
women, most of whom are educated, professional, successful members of society,
as though they were perpetual children, incapable of handling their own
personal information.
* Insulting by pre-judging all adoptees as somehow a
threat to their own mothers and fathers, or presume them to be stalkers bent on
“destroying” their mothers’ lives, when, in fact, it is the intermediaries who
are the only ones wreaking havoc on birth families and innocent bystanders
alike. Little wonder they have an appalling
success rate (whereas when mothers and fathers are contacted by the adoptee,
privately, respectfully, and discretely, we have a 95% success rate).
* Setting up the adoptee for continued intimidation,
manipulation and concomitant emotional abuse by giving the intermediaries
complete control over whether and what type of search will be done, and what
information, if any, will be given to the adoptee.
* Placing the adult adoptee at the complete mercy of the
intermediary as to their skill level in searching, how contact is made, what is
said to the family, the attitude of the search agent towards the mother. When contact is refused, the adoptee is left
bereft and will wonder forever what the outcome would have been if they had
been in control of their own information, search and contact.
* Assuming that every adoptee wants reunion, which, in
fact, is not the case for many who simply want their facts, their truth. It should be their prerogative alone as to whether,
how, when, and to whom contact is made.
It’s their personal business.
* Imposing an extraordinary financial burden on the
adoptee that is not required of anyone else who wants his or her own personal
information. Only adoptees are denied
access to their birth records.
The Truth Will Out
My husband has a favorite
saying he tells people when they learn of my work as a Search Angel: “If they breathed, walked, spent time on this
earth, Prissy will find them!” I’d like
to think that’s true. It certainly
underscores my firm belief that every human being is entitled to know their
identity, family history, heritage, and the identity of their blood relations,
and my fierce determination to make that a reality for every adopted person who
is unfairly deprived of their birth information. Now, thankfully, with the advent of genetic
genealogy and ever-expanding DNA databases, this is becoming a reality for more
and more people every day.
Still, I am powerless to lift
the oppression and eliminate the discrimination inherent in sealed records
laws. I cannot restore to these adoptees
the simple piece of paper chronicling their birth. Only the state legislators can do that. Let us continue to enlighten them, appeal to
their common sense, their ideals of justice and equality, and hope that this will
be accomplished soon. #AdopteeRights
