609-989-1120
February 14, 2007
STATEMENT BY PATRICK R. BRANNIGAN
IN OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLY BILL 2557
In the near future, the Assembly Human Services Committee will be considering A2557. This proposal would permit adults who had been adopted as children, as well as the guardians or adoptive parents of a child who is currently a minor, to learn the identity of a biological parent.
The New Jersey Catholic Conference opposes A2557 as currently written.
We need to be clear that the New Jersey Catholic Conference certainly does not oppose adoptees’ having full access to their biological parents’ medical histories; this information can often prove helpful in dealing with medical difficulties that they – and their own descendents – might confront. While it is currently fully available, the Legislature’s formally mandating such availability would be advisable.
Neither does the Conference oppose revealing the identities of their natural parents to adoptees in cases where the natural parents have affirmatively consented to the release of such information. However, to do so without the birth parents’ actual consent is a callous betrayal.
In re Mills, the court reviewed at length the interests that are involved in placing adoption records under seal. Judge Gruccio noted that the purpose of the Adoption Act is to protect the child placed for adoption, the adopting parents, and the biological parents. Analyzing each of their respective interests, Judge Gruccio first addressed those of the biological or natural parents, and the adoptive parents:
The assurance of secrecy regarding the identity of the natural parents enables them to place the child for adoption with a reputable agency, with the knowledge that their actions and motivations will not become public knowledge. Assured of this privacy by the State, the natural parents are free to move on and attempt to rebuild their lives after what must be a traumatic and emotionally tormenting episode in their lives.
The adopting parents also have an interest in having the birth records placed under seal. They have taken into their home a child whom they will regard as their own and whom they will love and raise as an integral part of their family unit. It is important to these adopting parents that they may raise this child without fear of interference from the natural parents and without fear that the birth status of the illegitimate child will be revealed or used as a means of harming the child or themselves. The State has an active interest in protecting and nurturing the growing family relationship it has statutorily created.
[148 N.J.Super. at 307-08, 372 A.2d 646.] Next and especially significant in this case, Judge Gruccio placed special emphasis on the interests of the adoptee, aptly observing that:
The child, who is the third and ultimately most important party to the adoption, has no voice in the proceedings. He or she is not represented as an individual by legal counsel. The child's only protection at the proceedings is the thoroughness of the report of the Division of Youth and Family Services and the perceptiveness of the presiding judge. The State has an obligation to protect the interests of this voiceless party. In re P., [114 N.J.Super. 584, 277 A.2d 566 (1971)]; In re B., 63 N.J.Super. 98, 164 A.2d 65 (App.Div.1960). Sealing the birth records serves the interests of the child. It protects the child from any possible stigma of illegitimacy which, though fading, may still exist, and insures that the relationship with his or her new parents can develop into a loving and cohesive family unit uninvaded by a natural parent who later wishes to intrude into the relationship. The statute requiring that the records be sealed clearly serves the interest of all three parties in the adoptive triangle: adoptive parents, natural parents and the child.
There is a myriad of birth mothers who placed their children
for adoption through the
Certainly, a birth parent might object to being contacted by his or her child; however, the right of their children to contact them – and birth parents’ right to contact their children – is a momentous decision with which both parties must agree. Furthermore, the method for reaching that decision should be meaningful, and that precludes any “presumption” that, because birth mothers failed to formally register their objection to having their names revealed, their consent can somehow be presumed. This simply ignores the great number of reasons – including their out-of-state location or their simple unawareness of the legislation – that might underlie their failure to register. It is unfair and unjust to place this burden on birth mothers who were assured that their anonymity would be protected at the time they agreed to place their children for adoption. So, too, with the provision in A2557 for the release of this statutorily-protected information merely when an attempt to locate the birth mother has proven unsuccessful.
The issue of access to this information is an extremely sensitive one for all parties involved with an adoption. It is an issue that is of concern also to the Catholic Charities agencies statewide which for decades have had the privilege of sponsoring adoption services. Those agencies and the New Jersey Catholic Conference are opposed to the legislation in its present form, which would enable the one-sided pursuit of a reunion between biological parent(s) and an adult adopted person. The New Jersey Catholic Conference requests that the proposed legislation be amended.
It is important to note that for those adopted persons who desire a reunion, agencies make this possible when the biological parents have also agreed to it – mutual consent is the key principle.
A2557 would in effect open adoption records. This would cause harm to some of the parties that entered into an adoption under the assurances of confidentiality and also threatens the integrity of past adoptions in our State. The assurances of confidentiality for each party and their right to privacy are principles that should be preserved in the law.
Therefore, the New Jersey Catholic Conference requests that A2557 be amended to fulfill the desire of adopted persons and biological parents through the implementation of an enhanced mutual consent registry system which would link biological parents and adult adopted persons when the parties have requested and consented to such a reunion.
This enhanced mutual consent registry must be a robust system that would use a qualified individual or agency to function as an Intermediary. This Intermediary, while respecting each party’s right to confidentiality, would be charged with the responsibility to locate adopted persons and biological parents, certify contacts, and assess those interested in reunification. In the case where a birth parent is unwilling to reunite, the Intermediary would obtain family and medical history for the adoptee.
Prospectively, we recommend that the birth parent of an adopted person be allowed to file with the State Registrar a completed document of contact preference indicating their preference regarding contact with the adopted person, although they should be given the opportunity to change their preference at any time by submitting a revised document of contact preference to the State Registrar.
Birth parents should be advised of their right to file a contact preference form prior to the entry of any judgment of adoption. If the birth parent indicates a desire for no contact, the State Registrar shall not disclose the birth certificate or contact preference form, but can provide medical history forms on file. If the adult adoptee still desires the birth certificate, he or she can seek the intervention of a court which could act to release the information upon a showing of irreparable harm to the adoptee if the requested information is not released.
Many years ago Justice Brandeis in his 1928 opinion in Olmstead v. U.S., described “the right to be let alone” as “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” In Mills, the court said, 148 N.J.Super. at 311, that the natural parent “has a right to privacy, a right to be let alone, that is not only expressly assured by the provisions of [the adoption statute] but has also been recognized as a vital interest by the United States Supreme Court.”
In many cases the birth mothers’ spouses, families and friends may have no knowledge of this episode in their lives. Surely, their own privacy – especially when they acted in reliance on the Legislature’s assurance of their privacy and confidentiality – ought not to be disregarded. Simply put, if the right to privacy means anything then it means that one ought to be free from the perhaps unwanted visitor whose arrival was made possible by the Legislature’s ex post facto about-face.
A realistic protection of the concerns of all parties who were involved in the adoption process ought to be the hallmark of any legislation in this area. A2557, as written, does not meet that standard.
Mr. Brannigan is Executive Director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference which represents the Archdiocese of Newark, Diocese of Camden, Diocese of Metuchen, Diocese of Paterson, Diocese of Trenton, Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic and Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese.