Today California Asmb. Fiona Ma announced amendments she proposes to AB 372, the alleged records access bill pushed by the alleged adoptee rights group California Adoption Reform Effort.
According to Asmb. Ma’s memo, these are the changes she plans to offer. Note that these amendments include a blanket default disclosure veto plus a mandatory state-run “birthmother” track-down system.
NuAB 372 will:
-Amend the Health and Safety Code section 102705 to require the courts to release the original birth certificate contingent upon the finding of a serious medical condition requiring familiar information.
-Starting Jan 1, 2010 and going backward, the state shall open the original unamended birth certificate in an “Informational Only Copy” form to an adult adoptee age 25 or older if all of the following conditions are met:
1 -A certified, return receipt letter is sent to the best-match address of the biological parent notifying them of the change in law and allowing them to keep their record confidential by signing an enclosed form and returning to the Department of Health.
2 -A period of six-months from the time of the biological mother receiving notice is given for them to respond with the opt-out notice. -Should the Department not receive a return receipt, the record shall remain confidential/sealed (per status quo).
-If both biological parents are listed on the certificate and one, but not both choose to remain confidential, the certificate shall released with the name of the bio parent who wishes to remain confidential redacted.
-Prospectively, starting Jan 1, 2010, all adoptions completed shall have notification to the biological parents that the child who is being adopted shall have unrestricted access to their original un-amended birth certificate in the form of an “Information Only Copy” upon their 25th birthday. This notification shall require signature from both biological parents that they understand this and agree to the provisions stated, so long as both are listed on the birth certificate.
-This notification shall include an opt-out form, allowing either of the biological parents to keep the birth certificate confidential and sealed and shall state: For reasons including but not limited to rape, incest, religious or personal reasons, I decline to allow the record of birth to be released -If both biological parents are listed on the certificate and one, but not both choose to remain confidential, the certificate shall released with the name of the bio parent who wishes to remain confidential redacted.
Now there could be a number of reasons Asmb Ma added these clunkers to a “clean” bill (which everybody knew wasn’t really clean). She actually believes that the State of California needs protected from adoptees. She believes compromising the purpose of the bill right out of existence is the only way to get it passed. Or maybe she’s just wants out from under it and has decided to nuke it with language.
So, Bastardette has set up a little poll here. Actually 2 polls. we want to know what YOU think.
Why is Asmb. Ma offering insulting compromises to California AB 372?
Will CARE pull their own bill: California AB 372?
You have until midnight, April 28, 2009 to vote. The second poll will stop earlier if CARE pulls the bill.
The polls are at the top right.
Happy voting!
Please see another blog post on this important issue, its broader ramifications, the AAC and how it all relates to family preservation:
http://tinyurl.com/cq3duy
United we stand!
I would think that birthmother’s would be more afraid of the state’s trying to keep track of them and finding them than their own children…but what the hell do I know?
Very little about the majority of natural mothers, KL. This is the very reason that we are against the mandatory disclosure of medican records. Just as adopted people seek the right to be treated as competent adults with a right to know their roots, we mothers feel we have a right to share with our children what needs to be shared without the state placing demands on us.
We are also tired of the industry speaking for us. For most of us, the opening of records is a desired goal. No, we don’t need nor were we ever promised “protection” from our own children. This is a red herring thrown in the path of open records by the adoption industry with the help of a tiny, minority group of “good beemommies” who drank the adoption Kool Aid. For every one of them there are hundreds of us.
Blame the ones who are really blocking this….the industry….the ones who profited from our pain.
I tell you, the more I read about this, the more I shake my head. And who came up with the magic age of 25? Whazzup with that? Decades from now, as open records become the norm, such amendments will look so foolish.