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

Presentation to Adoption Lawyers on OBC Access in Ohio

On January 17 I delivered a semi-formal presentation before a  group of mostly Columbus, Ohio adoption lawyers on the subject of adoptee rights,  OBC access, and a bill that is scheduled to be introduced in the Ohio legislature later this year that would  equalize (I hope) access for all Ohio's adopted citizens. That is, pull back to  pre-1964 unrestricted access.

I want to make clear here (and did there) that this is not a Bastard Nation bill.  It  is brought by Adoption Equity Ohio and at this time none of us know what the final language will be. Consequently, neither BN nor myself  currently supports or opposes it..  We are particularly concerned with the status of the 1996  disclosure veto, which can legally muck up unrestricted access in any state unfortunate enough to be saddled with it.  

As chair and co-founder of Bastard Nation, I was  invited to present to the group. This invitation was an opportunity to meet local adoption lawyers to discuss adoptee rights. Discussion afterwards indicted  a lack of hostility to the repeal of the current black hole. My observation over the years, in fact,  has been that OBC access with few exceptions has become no  big deal..  I hope it stays that way. 

Below is  formal version of my talk. 

Ohio Adoptee Rights Legislation, 2013

Columbus Lawyers Meeting

January 17, 2013

Presented by

Marley Greiner

Current Ohio law prohibits large numbers of the state's adopted citizens from accessing their own original birth certificates and other birth information about themselves. Adopted persons , in fact, are not only treated differently than the not-adopted, but we are separated amongst ourselves by arbitrary legislatively-set boundaries that determine who can and cannot access their original birth certificates. (obc)

Adoptees born before January 1, 1963 have unrestricted access to their original birth certificates and adoption degree. They only need to submit an affidavit to Ohio Vital Statistics.  Those born between January 1, 1964 and September 16, 1996 have no access except by court order. Those adopted after September 16, 1996 have unrestricted access unless a birthparent utilizes a special right—a right that no other parent and no other adult has over another adult—a “right” to bar another adult from receiving the public record of their own birth via a disclosure veto , which authorizes the state to withhold the release of the obc.

Current Ohio law, with its tiered system, says there is something terribly wrong with adoption as a way to build families and with those who live within those families. It forces adopted adults (and their families) who want information about themselves to beg government and adoption agency bureaucrats for scraps of information, file petitions, appear in court, join a government “reunion” registry, pay professional searchers and private investigators thousands of dollars--or spend years getting a bill, such as the one scheduled for introduction this year-- passed to get their own birth certificates. 

Ultimately, sealed birth records perpetuate a culture of wrongness and even shame around adoption. In previous legislative hearings we have heard statements of praise for parents (especially mothers) who surrender their children to adoption. Yet, if adoption were so praiseworthy, why do the people it affects most need to be hidden from each other by the government? 

Legislation to amend/ repeal the 1964-1996 tier this bill is scheduled to be introduced, in the Ohio Senate probably in February. Through the auspices of Adoption Equity Ohio. Sponsors for a companion bill in the House are currently being sought. This bill will also include a non-mandatory “contact preference form” (cpf) which will let birthparents, should they choose to utilize it, state if they want contact (or not) with the adoptee. and if so, direct or through a designated intermediary. Birthparents can also, if they choose, submit a medical history form. The “preference” will have no bearing on the release of the obc; that is, the cpf has no legal teeth that prevents the adoptee from receiving his/her obc. In states where the cpf is used only 0.01% of birthparents have indicted that they do not wish contact.

It is unclear at this time, what if anything, can be done about third tier access, and the legal standing of the tiny handful of adoptess (still minors) who may be subject to the 1996 veto provision. The State of Ohio does not track the number of disclosure vetoes filed since 1996, but we believe the number is tiny. Unfortunately, once vetoes are in place, the state has entered into a legal agreement with the requesting birthparent(s) to bar access , and that agreement cannot be abrogated without legal remedy.

Since the bill is not yet published its exact contents is unavailable but you can read more about it on the Quick Facts sheet (click on fact sheet from Learn More tab) in this file. 

******

“Privacy”arguments against adoptee access are misleading. Privacy does not mean absolute, eternal anonymity or secrecy from parties with a legitimate interest in information. That is simply not the meaning of the word, either in normal discourse or in the law. Courts, in fact, have generally determined that the federal constitutional right to privacy means protection of individuals from government intrusion. The sealing of the obc from us--the people to whom they pertain--is clearly a government violation of OUR privacy and an over-reaching act of government authority over our lives.

Tennessee, Oregon, and federal courts located in those states have affirmed that adoptee access to their own birth certificates is not a breach of birthparent privacy since the document is not released to the public, but to the adopted adult to whom it pertains. 

Ohio’s current outdated law legitimizes debunked spurious claims of “implied promises of confidentiality” to birthparents—promises which apparently never existed in the state before January 1, 1964 or after September 16, 1996. These so-called “promises” have been disproved repeatedly by activists, legal scholars, historians, and in court rulings. In over 30 years of birth record access campaigns throughout the US, not one document has ever been presented by the opposition to any legislature that gives “promises of confidentiality,” “privacy” or “anonymity”-- implied or otherwise. If verbal “promises” were made by individual adoption professionals or lawyers, they were private policy statements without the force of law—or reality-- behind them. And, of course, no one can promise that a law will never change.

Identifying information about surrendering parents often appears on court documents given to adoptive parents who can at any point give that information to the adopted person. The names of surrendering parents are published in legal ads. Courts can open “sealed records” for “good cause.” In Ohio, adoptive parents can request the court at the time of adoption finalization to keep the obc unsealed. Critically, the obc is sealed at the time of adoption finalization, not surrender. If a child is not adopted, the record is never sealed. If a child is adopted, but the adoption is overturned or disrupted, the obc is unsealed. Birthparents have no say or special right in any of these procedures or decisions and at no time are anonymous.

In no state has it ever been shown that records were sealed to “protect” birthmothers’ “privacy” nor that they asked for “protection.” It was simply part of the deal forced on them if they chose to place their children for adoption. There is ample documentation in every state that sealed records laws, most of which were enacted after World War 2, were never intended to “protect” birthmothers. They were written to protect the reputations of “illegitimate” and adopted minors and the integrity of the adoptive family: to keep the public—including birthmothers—out of adoptive families’ business.

This is especially well documented in Ohio. William Norris, author of the 1964 law, later worked to undo it. In 1994 he testified  before the Ohio House Human Resource Committee in favor of HB 457, that would have restored access:

It is now obvious to me that the 1964 legislation produced an absurd anomaly in Ohio, and it is painful to reflect on the fact that these changes in the law were made in the belief that they were in the best interests of the entire adoptive process. …The 1964 law has not worked out in the way it was originally intended and it should be changed by the passage of a new law such as HB 457. (5)

See Mr. Norris' testimony before the Ohio House Human Resources Committee in support of the restoration of obc access

******

This is the 21st century. The information superhighway grows wider and longer each day, and adoptees and their families are on it. Thousands of successful adoption searches happen each year—hundreds in Ohio alone—nearly all without the obc. The Internet has made adoption secrecy virtually impossible. In December 2012 The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute published a report, Untangling the Web: The Internet's Transformative Impact on Adoption, which includes a section on how the Internet has eased adoption searches.

Moreover, in this age of heightened security, the government requires all of us to prove our identities and citizenship-- legal paper trail of identity. As a result, adopted persons without an obc are in danger of losing even more rights than just their obc access. US-born adoptees report increased problems in obtaining driver’s licenses, passports, professional certifications, Social Security benefits, pensions and security clearances due to what government bureaucrats refer to as “irregularities” in their amended birth certificates.  In the wake of the Obama “birther” movement, about a dozen state legislatures have seen bills that would require anyone running for president (and in some cases other offices) to present an original birth certificate to prove his/her place of birth. The amended birth certificate of an adoptee would not suffice.

A major irregularity is a “late birth certificate (filed a year or more after the birth). According to the US Department of State a “late birth certificate” may only be accepted for passport application if it lists the documentation used to create it and is signed by the attending physician or midwife, or, lists an affidavit signed by the parents, or shows early public records. Recent proposed passport changes are even more stringent.

Other “irregularities” include age discrepancies between parents and child, missing information., and irregular signatures (ex: typed rather than signed). This problem will grow with the increase in adoption of older children from fostercare and adoptions by same sex couples.

******

Adopted people want their original birth certificates for many reasons. But reasons are immaterial We have a right to the facts about our births, origins, and adoptions. We have a right to do whatever we please with the information found on our birth certificates, just as the not-adopted do. We should not be parsed, chopped, spindled and mutilated.
The right to the public record of our births is not some radical controversial idea or an attack on adoption. Ohio's most famous adoptee and the country's most generous advocate of adoption, the late Dave Thomas, certainly didn’t think so.

In an interview for Adam Pertman’s book, Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America, Thomas said, “Those things are controversial for people who have never been adopted, who really don’t understand. Everyone should be able to get their birth certificate, their own information. I’d hate to think I couldn’t get mine.” Thomas, in fact, did have his original birth certificate, given to him by his adoptive grandmother.

I'll Be Home for Christmas--Someday

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to adoptees and parents in search.  For many, coming home is only be a dream at this point.  Let's make it a reality in Ohio in 2013!

Reuben Pannor, 1922-2012

Pioneer adoption reformer and adoptee rights advocate Dr. Reuben Pannor died yesterday at the age of 90.  I never had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Pannor but am familiar with his work and the great honor he bears in the reform movement.

Below is is Reuben's obituary, written by his son Jonathan and posted on the CUB list by Karen Vedder. I had no idea what an interesting man he was inside and outside of adoption).

Reuben “Ruby” Pannor, a social worker and pioneer in the field of open adoption, died on December 22^nd, 2012, at the age of 90. A man overflowing with kindness and empathy, Reuben was universally loved by family, friends, colleagues, and all of those in the “adoption triangle” (birthparents, adopted persons, and adoptive parents).

Reuben and his twin brother Harry were born on July 4^th, 1922, to Rose and Isidor Pannor in the small village of Slobodka, in Lithuania.  The twins and their younger sister Esther spent their early childhood surrounded by generations of extended family. In response to growing anti-Jewish sentiment prior to World War II, Reuben’s immediate family immigrated to America when Reuben was eight years old.

Reuben grew up in Poughkeepsie, New York, where his parents, early union supporters, worked as tailors in a factory. When World War II started, Reuben joined the Army Air Corps.  Stationed on Fernando di Naronha, an isolated island penal colony 100 miles off the coast of Brazil, Reuben was responsible for predicting the weather over the Atlantic Ocean for use in military operations. He later awed his children and grandchildren with tales of befriending the island’s prisoners and his uncanny ability to identify clouds and forecast the next storm.

After World War II, the GI Bill enabled Reuben to obtain an undergraduate degree from Cornell University and a Master’s Degree in Social Work from Columbia University.  One day in 1948, he was visiting the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, where he repeatedly found himself gazing at the same paintings as Sydell Alpers, a Poughkeepsie girl who recognized him as one of those handsome Pannor twins. In Sydell, Reuben found a true match in temperament and intellect, a shared passion for social justice, and a soul mate.

In 1953, Reuben and Sydell followed Ruby’s twin brother, Harry, to Los Angeles, eventually moving to Pacific Palisades to raise their three children. For thirty years, Reuben worked at the nationally recognized child welfare agency, Vista del Mar of Los Angeles, where he became the Director of Community Services and later Director of Adoptions. Through his clinical work, he noticed that the needs of birth fathers had been overlooked, leading to the publication of his first book, The Unwed Father, co-written with Byron Evans. Through his interactions with birth parents, adoptive parents and adoptees, Reuben developed several key insights: that birth parents often suffered for years from their loss, that it was natural for children to wonder about their biological origins, and that adoptive parents’ relationships with their children were strengthened, not harmed, by openness about adoption. 

In 1978, he wrote a seminal book, The Adoption Triangle, with co-authors, Annette Baran and Arthur Sorosky. This book argued that adopted children had a right to know about their origins and that laws preventing this were cruel and should be abolished. Reuben championed the belief that knowledge of one’s origins should be a civil right for all. Another book,Lethal Secrets, co-written with Annette Baran, addressed issues of secrecy and genetic heritage for those who had children through donor insemination. Reuben received numerous awards for his work, including citations from the City of Los Angeles, the State of California and the United States Congress.  

Reuben touched countless lives and engaged in many communities. He was constantly sought out for his wise counsel. He always had time to listen and he gave the best advice. He was a prolific storyteller, captivating his children and grandchildren with long, creative tales he made up as he went along. Reuben inspired in his family a great passion for the outdoors. Yosemite Valley, Sequoia, The Sierra, the Colorado Rocky Mountains, and the Alaska wilderness were second homes. Closer to home, Reuben was frequently spotted walking his dog through the Palisades, engrossed in political conversations, and schmoozing in Mort’s Deli.

Reuben’s surviving family include his wife of 62 years, Sydell, his children, Suzanna, Gerry (husband Rick), Jonathan, and his grandchildren, Sarah, Michael, David, Viva, Golda, Ari, Jacob, and Sam. Reuben touched all who knew him with his unconditional love and is lovingly remembered for his profound compassion, commitment to reducing suffering, ready chuckle, and his smiling eyes. 

A celebration of Reuben’s life will be held on Thursday, December 27, 2012, 1:00 pm, at Congregation Kehillat Israel, 16019 Sunset Boulevard, Pacific Palisades, California, 90272. 

You can read n interview with PACER that Reuben made in 1998 here.

I'm having problems posting  a 3-part video of Reuben, but if you go to this link you'll find them.  Part 2 is dedicated to unsealing records,  adoptees, and first parents.. Part 3 covers adoptive parents and the adoption industry.

Ohio Adoptee Searches  sends our condolences to the Pannor family.