A Girl Like Her: New Adoption Documentary by Ohio Adoptee Ann Fessler

Ann Fessler, with author Craig Hickman, Boston 2007

I've been involved in adoptee rights on a very active level for about 20 years and much longer in a less active way.  During that time I've seen a continued unawareness--even incredulity--among some adoptees that out of wedlock pregnancy was once a shame and a scandal; that often girls and women with an unmarried pregnancy had no "choice" other than adoption. Unfortunately,  this has caused a lot of misunderstanding for some adoptees about the reasons they were surrendered for adoption. Instead of  looking at the status and role of women during what is now called The Baby Scoop Era--the patriarchal control of  family, church, school, and state that proscribed women, especially sexually active women, to limited opportunities and options--they place individual blame for genuine adoption grievances on their natural mothers.  I'll  write more about this some other time, but I'm mentioning it now by way of introduction to the new documentary A Girl Like Her by my friend Ann Fessler.

Ann Fessler is an Ohio adoptee (and OSU grad!), filmmaker, author, and professor of photography at the Rhode Island School of Design.  For the last few years her work has focused on adoption, especially its effect on first mothers.  Her book The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v Wade (2006), a collection of  birthmother oral histories with historical analysis, received strong reviews from The New York Times , Mother Jones, Newsweek, and other major media.  The book was  a 2007  finalist for the National Book Critics Circle award, and  last year made the Ms Readers" Top 100 Best Feminist Non-Fiction Books of All Time. It's  a very important book, and essential reading for anyone who wonders how we (adoptees and birthparents) got to where we are today, still entangled in sexual, gendered, and cultural stereotypes, state  sponsored adoption secrets and lies, and the continued confiscation and sealing of our birth records in Ohio for "your own good"--or somebody elses.

Last month Ann released a new documentary A Girl Like Her,  I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on it.  Here,  is a description of it though, from the film's website:

A GIRL LIKE HER combines footage from films of the time period about dating, sex, “illegitimate” pregnancy, and adoption—that both reflected and shaped the public’s understanding of single pregnancy during that time—with the voices of these mothers as they speak today, with hindsight, about the long-term impact of surrender and silence on their lives...

...Between 1945 and 1973, an unprecedented 1.5 million women in the United States surrendered children for adoption due to enormous social pressure. They were expelled from high schools and colleges and forced to leave jobs as teachers and nurses because they were pregnant. They were sent away to distant relatives or to maternity homes to make the “problem” disappear. These women gave birth to their first child, left it behind and returned home, where they were expected to keep their secret, move on and forget. Many of these women have remained silent and as a result their collective story has remained untold. The space created by this absence has been filled with myths and stereotypes that continue to affect them, their adopted out children (now adults), and current adoption policy. A GIRL LIKE HER brings this hidden history to light as the women’s stories collide with the authoritative voice-overs and images from films that purported to represent them...

and the trailer

A GIRL LIKE HER film trailer_Fessler from Ann Fessler on Vimeo.

The only scheduled screening at this time is at the American Adoption Congress' annual conference in Denver at the end of April. I'm sure it will get around, and maybe even to Ohio . I hope so.

Ohio Adoptee Rights Historical Archives: HB 419 (1995-1996)

I will be posting documents and news articles pertaining to Ohio's archaic three-tired original birth certificate access system of  Yes. No. Maybe.   The documents will not be  posted in chronological order, but I"ll tag them "Ohio Adoptee Rights Historical Archives" with a date of issuance if known,  so they can be found easily under "labels" in the sidebar.

****** 

 In 1995, HB 419, (not online; in my personal possession)  an omnibus bill to reform Ohio adoption and foster care law was heard in the Ohio Legislature.  One very short section of the bill restored the right of all Ohio adoptees to their original birth certificates by rescinding the post-1963 prohibition. If passed, the state  would have once again  recognize the right of all Ohio adoptees to equal  treatment and due process under state law. 

Unfortunately, this didn't happen.  Instead of eliminating the two-tier system  which had plagued post-1963 adoptees for over 30 years , by making those OBCs available by court order only, the bill was amended to create a third tier which not only kept post 1963  adoptees in their  black hole, but gave adoptees born on or after September 18, 1996 the ability to access their OBCs  as  pre-1964 adoptees can--unless a birthparent had filed a "disclosure veto" with the state to bar access.  

Willke and Folger Porter 2011, Coumbus

Although the original records access section of HB 419 had wide support among the adoption reform and legal communities,  state agencies, and adoptees, birth and adoptive parents, it was opposed by Ohio Right to Life (Janet Folger  (now Porter) and Dr. John Willke--founders of the current Ohio Pro-Life Action) which claimed that OBC access for adult adoptees would drive women to seek abortions.  Conflating "confidentiality" and '"anonymity," OBC access and abortion, and implying, as Pat Robertson did a few years later,  that adoptee rights advocates are stealth "choice" advocates, Folger Porter wrote in her autobiography True to Life:

...we fought the effort to make "open adoption records" the women's only choice.  We didn't want those women who felt they needed confidentiality and wanted their records to remain closed to be driven to abort their child, and so we fought the very strong 'open records" adoption lobby and won.  Women were given an option to choose, something my opponents from NARAL fought against.

Folger Porter fails to note that her demand that new records be sealed by default and open only by in opt-out "permission" was replaced with an open default and an opt-out disclosure. 

The end result was the name, though.  Adoptees remained second class citizens.

With a desire to "get something passed" Ohio adoption reformers agreed to the ORTL compromise and pushed for the opt-out disclosure to 'save" what they could.  The result was the creation of a new access tier, a new level of OBC bureaucracy, and a strengthened  status quo, The compromise, with its "special rights" for third parties, has made it virtually impossible for Ohio adoptees ever to regain full and equal access that HB 419 offered.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer covered the  HB 419 hearing at which I testified.  If only wish I  knew then what I know now!  The article is not available on line, but the text is below:

Bill would drastically change adoption laws  

By Mary Beth Lane (Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 11, 1995)

---

COLUMBUS - A sweeping bill aimed at improving Ohio adoption laws by speeding up children's placement in permanent homes is expected to he on the house floor for a vote next month. 

The House Family Services Committee is continuing to hold hearings on adoption, an emotional subject that evoked tears yesterday from some of the Ohioans who told their stories and from others who listened"Anything to reduce the wait is good," said Terri Kowaliw, a Galloway woman who adopted one of her foster children, now 12, after enduring a long wait. "We have tried to fill a hole in him left by 5 1/2 years in and out of the foster-care system." She wiped away tears as she spoke. "I'm sorry" she said. "It's a very emotional thing for me." 

Marley Elizabeth Greiner, a 49-year-old-Columbus woman who was adopted as a child, told the committee of her prolonged search to learn her birth roots. She strongly supports provisions of the bill to open more records to adult adoptees. "Is there anyone here today who can look me in the eye and say I do not share the right of the rest of the people of Ohio to know who my mother, father, sister and brother are?" she asked. 

The bill. sponsored by Rep. Cheryl J. Winkler, a Cincinnati Republican, and drawn from a report issued by an adoption task force named by Gov. George V. Voinovich, has drawn broad support from a variety of groups involved in adoption. 

Among its key elements are:

• Reducing the four years it now commonly takes to remove children from foster care and other publicly funded placement and give them a permanent adoptive home. Public children's services agencies currently have custody of about 3,300 children who could be adopted.

• Hastening the process by ordering courts to render a decision in permanent-custody cases within 200 days.

• Helping foster parents who decide to adopt by counting time spent in foster care toward the six-month probationary period before an adoption is considered final..

• Prohibiting public agencies from delaying adoption based solely on the race of the prospective adoptive family..

• Opening adoption and birth certificates to adopted children when they turn 21 unless birth parents deny access.

Currently, adoptees have no access to adoption records unless they and their birth parents have registered with the state. 

Although there is general agreement on opening adoption records, if the birth parent approves it, the issue of how to open them has created a dispute that may put substitute provisions in the bill. 

Adoption groups now support a process, now in the bill, by which the birthmother would have to specifically decline to release the records. If she didn't decline, the records would automatically be open. 

The Ohio Right to Life Society wants to substitute a "yes" or "no" box the birthmother would check off. Voinovich aide Jacqui Romero Sensky said the governor has not decided which process he would support. "I don't think anyone is backing away from open records," she said. "The trend is to more and more openness. We just want the birth mother to make a conscious informed decision."

The Simplicity of Language: Don't let your rights be hidden behind legalized special interest gobbledygook.

 In the United States, nearly every bill  that is introduced to restore the right of adoptees to access their original birth certificates is full of convoluted, confusing language that lets some adoptees receive their OBCs as a state-granted favor--not a right--and excludes access to others 

Some of these convoluted bills have been over 60 pages long!  They  serve no purpose other than to divide the adoptee rights movement and to further the agendas of certain elements of the multi-billion dollar a year adoption industry, as well as  special interests, across the political spectrum  usually not directly involved in adoption,  Depending on who you talk to, these interests view adoptees and their birth families as expendable,  ungrateful, vaguely disturbed, and even dangerous. (Lock up your axes!) Politicians  may throw a sop to pretend they care and hopefully make the issue go away.  Remember though, once that sop becomes law, it will not be revisited.and repaired.  In Ohio, OBCs were sealed in 1964, and they are still sealed despite several attempts to rescind. Even Ohio's "new" access law, passed in 1996, extends OBC access favors for some, but makes that access dependent on third party consent Unlike the not-adopted our  birth records are dependent on the kindness of strangers.

But getting back to language... Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island passed short, readable, inclusive bills, only a few pages long, that restored the right to access for every adoptee born in their respective states.  (Kansas and Alaska never sealed). In other words, in those states, our birth records are not hidden behind legalized special interest gobbledygook.

Oregon passed Ballot Measure 58, which is as simple as it gets, U an posting  it below, but also in the sidebar.

Upon receipt of a written application to the state registrar, any adopted person 21 years of age and older born in the state of Oregon shall be issued a certified copy of his/her unaltered, original and unamended certificate of birth in the custody of the state registrar, with procedures, filing fees, and waiting periods identical to those imposed upon non-adopted citizens of the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 432.120 and 432.146. Contains no exceptions


To illustrate the simplicity of language,  read  a piece I wrote  in 2008, The Simplicity of Language: Successful Records Bills  a response to an egregious bill promoted by so-called friendly legislators in Illinois and passed in a slightly different form two years later with virtually no support from state of national  adoptee rights and adoption reform organizations. I've read this bill at least a dozen times and still find it incomprehensible. At times, even the sponsor seems confused about what her bill does.

Simplicity of Language  includes the text of each successful bill except  Rhode Island's which was not introduced and passed until 2011.  Unfortunately  it is problematic in that the age of access is 25 not 18 or 21.  Otherwise, the language is  nearly identical to that of New Hampshire and Maine. We hope the age differentiation will be fixed soon.. 

Over the next couple weeks  I'll be posting pieces I have written about the last two attempts to unseal records in Ohio as well as as other documents of historical interest.  

Welcome to Ohio Adoptee Searches News and Views!

Welcome to Ohio Adoptee Searches: News and Views on Adoptee Rights, Search, and Support!

Ohio Adoptee Searches has served the adoption community for nearly 45 years with expert search services. Started with a single personal search in 1967,  OAS has grown to locate and reunite thousands of Ohio adoptees and first families.  We are an independent company with no professional or financial  ties to the state or the adoption industry. YOU control your search, and we will never do something you don't want us to do. It's YOUR information , you have a right to it, and you're our boss!

 Although our name is Ohio ADOPTEE Searches, our clientele is not limited to adoptees. Many of our clients are birthparents, and grandparents, adoptive parents, and birth and adoptive siblings, all of who want information and relationships with family members separated by secret adoption laws. None of us are state secrets, no matter what archaic adoption laws, passed decades ago, claim. 

OAS is currently in a transition stage and will become much more visible and accessible to the Ohio adoption community. This blog is part of our growth.  I'll be posting commentary and fact sheets about current records access laws in Ohio (and sometimes other states), support group events and information, news articles about adoption in Ohio, and any other adoption topic that you (or I) find interesting. .

  ******

As some of you know from bitter experience, the Ohio legislature has, over the last 48 years, divided its adoptees into three nonsensical classes.

Those adopted before January 1, 1964 can obtain their OBC and adoption decree by submitting a notarized Affidavit of Adopted Person , sufficient identification, and $20.00 to Vital Statistics.  Those whose adoptions are finalized between January 1, 1964 and September 18, 1996 cannot receive their OBC without a court order, which is extremely difficult to get.   The state  runs an alleged family reunion registry for these folks, but it  is near useless.  In over two decades of adoptee rights activism I've only heard of two people who made a hit on the registry, one a birthfather, and the other an adoptee who did her own search successfully and learned later that her birth dad was on it. At the moment, I can't even find a link for it. Those adopted after September 18, 1996 can receive their OBC at the age of 18 if their adoptive parents request  it,  and at the age of 21, in their own name--UNLESS a birthparent has filed a disclosure veto with the state which authorizes the state to bar release. This veto goes straight into the state-locked up adoption file without any tracking  so no one, not even official Vital Statistics bean counters, knows how many vetoes have been filed. The number, however,  appears to be small.. I'll be writing about disclosure vetoes and how they harm us all, in a future entry.

In the next few days I'll be posting some news articles and opinions/blogs from previous legislative campaigns to restore the right of OBC access to all Ohio adoptees.  Some are my own work; some the work of others.The last attempt to fix Ohio's broken access system  took place in 2008 ,but the bill died in the Ohio House Health Committee.  Although  no opposition as voiced publicly--plenty was said behind closed doors. These pieces will appear as blog entries, and also be linked to the original sources (if possible) in a sidebar.

Thanks for joining us here  If you have any questions about Ohio law, activism, search and support, please drop me a line at marleyoas@gmail.com or post them here as a comment.