HB61 House Judiciary Committee Sponsor Hearing Report

Wednesday (February 20, 2013) I attended the Ohio House Judiciary Committee Sponsor's Hearing for HB 61, which would restore the right of OBC access to Ohio adoptees  born between January 1, 1964-September 17, 1996.  Those born after that date currently have access at the age of 21 (at 18 their aparents can access), unless a birthparent has filed a  Disclosure Veto with the state. Ohio Vital  Statistics does not know how many DV's are on file (!), but the number is probably minuscule   Washington State, which has a similar law, reports only four DVs submitted since 1993, and all of them last year. Lawyer dirty tricks?

 Senate Bill, 23 is HB61's companion bill. . Both have bi-partisan support. Ohio Right to Life, opposed for decades  to OBC access for 1964-1996s, due to its belief that access to those old records would compromise "the state's promise of anonymity" in adoption; thus causing women  to seek abortions now,  has dropped its opposition. ORTL President Mike Gonidakis told the press recently, "Historically, Ohio Right to Life has opposed efforts to disclose identities of birth parents.That position has thawed, for lack of a better term.." Goindakis credits the Internet with some of the change saying that "you can find out information that you couldn't in the past." (paid access, Columbus Dispatch, January 27, 2013). 

Rep. Antonio

As of this writing, HB61  has 25 sponsors and the Senate Bill has 12. Lead sponsors of HB 61  are  Rep. Dorothy  Pelanda (R-Marysville), an adoption attorney and adoptive mother and  Rep Nickie J Antonio (D-Lakewood), a birth aunt.   Rep Antonio's  sister and her son were reunited several years ago through a search done by Adoption Network Cleveland.  Now that ORTL has dropped opposition, many of the General Assembly's staunchest anti-aborts, including anti-abortion heavyweight  Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, have signed on as co-sponsors  Likewise, ORTL stalwarts  Sen Bill Seitz and Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) co-sponsor on the Senate side.  (Sen Bill Beagle (R- Tipp City)) and  Sen. Dave Burke (R-Marysville)  are lead sponsors). With anti-abort support I believe the bill(s) has a good chance of passage.  So far there is no public opposition.

Rep. Pelanda and Antonio each addressed the Judiciary Committee..  They pulled on their combat boots.focusing strictly on the legal aspects of OBC access.  Only a drop or two of Primal Wound oozed out, but was quickly staunched. Pelanda focused on the legalities of access while Antonio dealt with the details of the bill, calling it a direct mechanism to OBC access that contained parity and fairness.  The Judiciary Committee for the most part seemed to be bothered by the ridiculous and hideous three-tier system.

Frankly, I was surprised at the presentation..  I've attended OBC hearings in Ohio, California, Massachusetts  New Hampshire and Maine (and listened to others on the 'net) and testified in all but California, and I've never attended a hearing so devoid of PWing, medical .history angst, and poor-little-me whinging.  Past Ohio hearings held in the Health Committee, and have been  particularly painful.with witnesses dismissed like naughty children. The Judiciary Committee was a whole new ballgame; members showed respect, were well-prepped, and showed genuine interest in what was being said..  Pelenda and Antonio kept  focused on rights and equal treatment and how adoption really works, not how people think it does..

Rep Pelanda

For the most part members remained on track, not derailed by the therapeutic yabber  that  bogs down records debate. Some concern was raised on how the law, if passed,  would be advertised. to the public  (Me:  Q:  how are changes in other laws advertised?  A:  They're not.) and how the Contact Preference Form, would be distributed to birthparents. One member voiced concern over about how OBC access would pertain to donor insemination (it doesn't).  Another, of course, worried over "birthmother privacy rights."  Rep Pelanda, clapping  on her adoption lawyer hat, explained quite carefully adoption processes and paperwork, and  that no legal "promises of confidentiality"  could ever have been made to birthparents.  She assured the committee that  a review of relinquishment papers taken from various Ohio Probate Courts  backed her up.  (Educational packets yet to be distributed to the House will contain details and documents.) Pelanda (I think) added that no "side deals" had ever been legal.  Of course, we've been saying  all this for years, but the committee seemed to sit up and take notice when it came from an adoption attorney who has no proverbial ax to grind, like we must.

Of course, the sticking point with HB61/SB23, is the retention of  already on-file vetoes and veto language  post-1996. I can't tell you how many activists and legal experts in the field I've discussed this with , and nobody can come up with any hopeful conclusion. DV language was new territory for activists in the early 1990s  and for some reason no one seemed to grasp the legal consequences then for future bastards or legislation. But, it is unconscionable that 20 years later veto restrictions are still being pimped as something new (New Jersey, Missouri, and the new Washington  House  bill come to mind)  when we've proven in five states (not to mention Kansas and Alaska where records were never sealed) that clean bills can be passed with little controversy and no "social disruption.".

Unfortunately, those in-place vetoes stand as a legal agreement between the state and birthparent(s) to keep the OBCs  of a handful sealed--an agreement which simply did not exist before under a general sealed records system, which made no promises or addressed future changes in law and custom.  The DV  creates a special right for a tiny number of parents  that no other individual, including a parent,  enjoys:  the right to bar the release of a birth certificate to the person to whom it pertains. Why is this still permissible?

 If Ohio abolishes its three--tired system of OBC access, a tiny number of adoptees will continue to be sealed and screwed, and  no amount of well-intentioned legislation can fix that.  To be honest, I can't imagine the Ohio Legislature triggering a lawsuit by  attempting to vacate vetoes already in place, and re-writing the 1996 law is not in the purview of the current biill(s).  The only remedy that any of us see for Ohio at this point is legal action filed by the adoptee at 21 or his or her adoptive parents at the age of 18.   We can holler all we want, but we have no standing.

A joint news release on HB61 by Pelenda and Antonio is here.

The next hearing will be held at 3 PM on March 6, Room 122, Statehouse.  

Ashtabula County Catholic Charaities

Does anyone here have any experience with Ashtabula County Catholic Charities?  Do they or do they not do searche? I have never heard of a CC that will not do a search for a fee until now.

You can post here or contact me privately at marleyoas@gmail.com  Thanks.

Below and Beyond Offensive: Gotcha Day book review

Gotcha Day, the perverse label given by clueless adopters to the day they received their Bundle of Joy, is universally considered offensive by all but the most blindly entitled inhabitants of AdoptionLand..  Now there's a book by the same name:  Gotcha Day: a Celebration of Adoption. Some of us have been posting 1-star ratings of the book on amazon.com.  I just posted mine:

 This book is below and beyond offensive.  Gotcha is something you say when you catch a pesky mouse or stomp on a cockroach that been running across your kitchen floor for the past week..  It is not a term that should be used to "celebrate" adoption or the "gotten" adoptee. I understand why people would want to commemorate the day, but Gotcha is obscene. 

If I could give it less than one star, I would.

Full disclosure.  My adoptive parents used to commemorate the day I was placed with them.  It was known as Betsy Day (that's the name I went by most of my life--nothing wrong with the name, but it's not me, and I reverted to Marley, derived from my original name, Marlene).

Betsy Day was  low key-not  Gotcha!  I cannot imagine either of my parents (or my Mama Dot who later adopted 2 kids) using the creepy term or exhibiting Gotcha mentality.. Of course, I was adopted at a time when adoption wasn't considered an entitlement due the exburban set.   Since I was placed just before Christmas I got a sort of pre-Christmas gift or two which was nice.  When I got older, my mom never forgot, and I always got a check in the mail. At no time in my life did I feel like I'd been swooped up in a butterfly net,  scruntched in a mouse trap, or caught by the paparazzi. . I feel very sorry for today's Class Bastard, who not only are denied their identities and OBCs,  but  the simple recognition of their humanity.

Gotcha Day - Adoption Porn

Requesting Non-ID in Ohio

By law, all Ohio adoptees are over the age of 21 to receive their non-identifying information.

The request can be made to any of the following:

• agency that arranged the adoption
• attorney that arranged the adoption
• probate court where adoption was finalized

Non-ID may include a social history of one or both parents (age, physical description, ethnic background, religious background, employment information on biological parents and/or bio family members, number of parental and/or adoptee siblings), and a medical history.

The records of agencies or lawyers that are no longer in business are required to be sent to the probate court in which the adoption was finalized or another agency in good standing..

Although the law does not required it, I suggest that anyone requesting non-ID notarize their request and send a copy of their driver's licence or other ID with his or her letter..

Please remember that any information you receive is a clue to your identity and family history  no matter how insignificant it may seem.
Below is the entire Ohio Revised Code Entry on non-ID:

3107.66 Request for nonidentifying information.

(A) As used in this section:

(1) “Adopted person” includes both an “adopted person” as defined in section 3107.39 of the Revised Code and an “adopted person” as defined in section 3107.45 of the Revised Code.

(2) “Adoptive parent” means a person who adopted an adopted person.

(3) “Birth parent” means the biological parent of an adopted person.

(4) “Birth sibling” means a biological sibling of an adopted person.

(B) An adopted person age eighteen or older, an adoptive parent of an adopted person under age eighteen, or an adoptive family member of a deceased adopted person may submit a written request to the agency or attorney who arranged the adopted person’s adoption, or the probate court that finalized the adopted person’s adoption, for the agency, attorney, or court to provide the adopted person, adoptive parent, or adoptive family member information about the adopted person’s birth parent or birth sibling contained in the agency’s, attorney’s, or court’s adoption records that is nonidentifying information. Except as provided in division (C) of this section, the agency, attorney, or court shall provide the adopted person, adoptive parent, or adoptive family member the information sought within a reasonable amount of time. The agency, attorney, or court may charge a reasonable fee for providing the information.

A birth parent of an adopted person eighteen years of age or older, a birth sibling age eighteen or older, or a birth family member of a deceased birth parent may submit a written request to the agency or attorney who arranged the adopted person’s adoption, or the probate court that finalized the adoption, for the agency, attorney, or court to provide the birth parent, birth sibling, or birth family member information about the adopted person or adoptive parent contained in the agency’s, attorney’s, or court’s adoption records that is nonidentifying information. Except as provided in division (C) of this section, the agency, attorney, or court shall provide the birth parent, birth sibling, or birth family member the information sought within a reasonable amount of time. The agency, attorney, or court may charge a reasonable fee for providing the information.

(C) An agency or attorney that has permanently ceased to arrange adoptions is not subject to division (B) of this section. If the adoption records of such an agency or attorney are held by a probate court, person, or other governmental entity pursuant to section 3107.67of the Revised Code, the adopted person, adoptive parent, adoptive family member, birth parent, birth sibling, or birth family member may submit the written request that otherwise would be submitted to the agency or attorney under division (B) of this section to the court, person, or other governmental entity that holds the records. On receipt of the request, the court, person, or other governmental entity shall provide the information that the agency or attorney would have been required to provide within a reasonable amount of time. The court, person, or other governmental entity may charge a reasonable fee for providing the information.

(D) Prior to providing nonidentifying information pursuant to division (B) or (C) of this section, the person or governmental entity providing the information shall review the record to ensure that all identifying information about any person contained in the record is deleted.

(E) An agency, attorney, person, or other governmental entity may classify any information described in division (B)(2) of section 3107.60 of the Revised Code as identifying information and deny the request made under division (B) or (C) of this section if the agency, attorney, court, person, or other governmental entity determines that the information could lead to the identification of the adoptive parent. This determination shall be done on a case-by-case basis.

Effective Date: 09-18-1996; 09-21-2006; 2008 HB7 04-07-2009