This afternoon, Asmb. Fiona Ma issued a letter listing her new and improved amendments she’ll offer to the alleged records access AB 372 pimped by the California Adoption Reform Effort aka Adjunct Ma for Assembly Fundraisers. (see previous entry). The new bill form has not been printed yet so we can’t check it for accuracy. Asmb. Ma informs us however, that the new and improved AB 372 will include the following humiliations, insults, and assaults on bastard rights and autonomy.
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.
According to Asmb. Ma, these amendments (my emphasis) “do not guarantee approval in committee, but provide AB 372 with a better chance to succeed. Should the bill not pass, it will not be eligible to be heard again this year. (Bastardette note: Thank goodness for small favors). Asmb. notes that she came to these proposed amendments after weeks of meeting with “stakeholders, committee staff, and members of the Legislature.” She did not name the “stakeholders.” So, who is this bill really for?
This is the kind of bill that puts a knot in my stomach, especially when it comes from putative “friends.”
*The infantalization of adoptees to the age of 25.
*A disclosure veto expanding forwards and backwards that lets parents deny access to the obc for not only rape and incest but religious and personal reasons. Veto is the default.
*A privacy-obsessed state tracking down thousands of women to warn them that their own 25+ years old offspring are on the loose and want their birth certificates.
I’m surprised Asmb Ma and her party throwers didn’t add a penalty for a “birthmother” (there’s no mention of cowering “birthfathers”) disclosing the name of the other parent to the poor bastard. Oh, shut my mouth! That might give them an idea.
Bastardette can’t wait to learn CARE’s reaction to these changes–if indeed CARE has a reaction. Of course, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the CARE’s self-aggrandizers won’t support this abomination. CARE brandied AB 372. It’s theirs.
An Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing is scheduled for April 28.
I’ll be writing more about this. Right now I just wanted to get the information out.
Bastard Nation will issue an official statement soon and information on how you can help kill this sucker if the amendments go forward.
How these proposed amendments are beneficial to adoptees and their rights is a mystery. Some doors already open, in fact, could be slammed shut. CARE has said that California is an “experiment,” with the hint that it would serve as a model for other states. If by some awful chance NuAB372 passes, it will kill any chance Calilfornia’s adopted will ever have of achieving equality. If California blows, the consequences for the rest of are potentially devastating.
Please spread this information far and wide. Do not let this proposal get out the gate.
Be polite, but tell Asmb. Ma how you feel about this bill:
Statehouse: 916-319-2012
San Francisco District Office: 916-319-2112
Go to her webpage to contact her by email
Here is the complete text of the letter from Asmb. Ma. The official letter is here.
April 15, 2009
To: CARE and Cal-Open
From: Assemblywoman Fiona Ma
RE: AB 372
I want to start by thanking all of you for the hard work and time spent to
help craft AB 372. After many weeks of meetings with stakeholders, committee
staff and members of the Legislature, we have come to a pivotal point in the
legislative process. I understand the issues which adoptees face in their pursuit
to obtain their identity, as well as the concerns which will be raised in
committee. After hearing from all of the stakeholders, it is clear that in order to
provide adoptees with greater access than what is already allowed by law,
compromises will have to be made.
In order to keep the bill moving and do as much as possible to provide
greater openness, I have decided to draft the following amendments:
-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.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee has noted that this bill will be heard on
April 28, 2009. These amendments do not guarantee approval in committee,
but provide AB 372 with a better chance to succeed. Should the bill not pass,
it will not be eligible to be heard again this year.
I fully understand the concerns of those directly affected by this legislation. I
have stated in previous meetings that I believe that adoptees do have claim to
this information. Knowing that, understand that this legislation, if amended,
has the best chance of moving further through the process. We hope your
organizations will continue to support our effort to allow as many adoptees to
access their original birth certificate. My Office is attempting to do the most we
can to assist adoptees using all the tools at our disposal.
Thank you for working with me and my Office. Your input and stories have
painted a fuller picture of the landscape we are embarking upon and provided
for legislation that will greatly improve adoptees’ access to their original birth
certificate.
In Peace and Friendship,
Fiona Ma
I find this sickening to say the least. It makes me think of greediness/monetery gain being involved like it is in so many other things today.
I’d love to know who the “stakeholders” are. I that term,but hey. Think of the adoption industry and its collaborators as Dracula and it takes on a whole new meaning. I know the Cal AAA has been mucking around in this. And who else? Bastards are the only one with a “stake” in this. Everyone else is irrelevant.
Don’t have time to go into detail on the the problems with this, but who needs details, eh?
I was struck, however, by the fact that adoptees aren’t even considered adults at 18, like the rest of us. I wonder who pulled age 25 out of the air?
J.
… adoptees aren’t even considered adults at 18,
now what is that sells pitch of adoption industry?
oh yea, adoption is forever
This just gets worse and worse. How many birthmothers have any connection to the address where they were living when they gave birth 25 or more years later?? How many gave their address as the Home for Unwed Mothers where they were staying, or other temporary housing during the pregnancy? How many were living with parents who have long since moved or passed away? The post office only forwards mail for 6 months.
There is so much wrong with this legislation, I don’t see how any adoptee or birthparent could support it now.
But Maryanne, it’s part of their secret plan. We’re just all too stupid to see it. The One True Voice speaks the truth.
J. Said ” I wonder who pulled age 25 out of the air?”
It wasn’t air from which it was pulled.
It was from whoever’s lower orifice.
Jacquline Rutheiser of http://www.cacfs.org/StaffResources.html 916-449-2273 ext. 21
the brains behind the age 25 thing, I know who but not why.
My source is Anthony “I don’t get the whole discrimination thing” Pico, staffing the bill on behalf of Ma.
Thanks, Joy.
Ya can’t make this stuff up. I’ve heard that the 25-year old deal came out of “concerns” that people adopted out of foster care had been “traumatized” and need years to get their act together. I also wonder if “somebody” is concerned about 18-25 year old adoptees contacting first parents (or adoptive parents if kids have been split up) with underage children and screwing up their fairytale existence. Adoption has more BS than the Republican and Democratic parties together.
I know a 25 year old adopted out of foster care at age 11. When he inquired about contacting his mother, the courts called the ap’s to get permission. So much for 25 years old.