Snowy mountain tops, to golden hills right down to waves crashing on the ocean, I LOVE CALIFORNIA. It is my home state, the state I was born in, and the state I reside in currently. The only other place I would give up this state for, is Hawaii, but for now… California is the place I love and call my home.
AB 372 – could determine the fate of my access to my original birth certificate for some time, which is why I am eager to see how it unfolds and calling my representatives and legislatures religiously as well as writing letters.
Some new wording was introduced, I heard about it first from BB Church, who used to live in California and has been tracking this bill more than myself. Please read his blog posts about it here.
To get to the new wording and read it as it currently stands, you can do so here: NEW WORDING
I’m going to attempt to slaughter it up right now and spin it into some english for non bill readers, and insert my thoughts and opinions along the way.
- *current law* state registrar keeps original records w/ copy of court report on adoption w/ amended birth certificate.
- *current law* Only upon order of the Superior Court can vital records aside from amended birth certificates be given to the adoptee.
- *current law*An order will only be given after good cause is shown…
- *AB 372* would require the state registar to issue the adoptee ( 25 years of age or older ) a certified information only copy of the original unaltered birth certificate.
*** Why it is 25 years, is beyond me. Why can my brother serve 3 terms overseas in the war yet only just turned 25. He can die for this country, but not access his original birth certificate in the state of California? 16 year olds can drive, and drive their friends around but not have an information only copy of their OBC’s? It was asked on AdultAdoptees.org, how old must one be to run for California Senate?
I believe that all adoptees regardless of age deserve this information. I don’t think that 18 is a golden age, but it seems to be age of majority in the states who have passed restored access bills for adoptees. Surely CA would take this into consideration and AT LEAST amend the bill to be the age of majority, which in California is 18 years of age. That seems more reasonable than 25 imo ***
- *AB 372* would establish a contact preference form for surrendering parents that would attach to the birth certificate and be available to the adoptee.
- *AB 372* would also require the state registrar to receive and file updated medical information on the surrendering parents to be available to the adoptee.
- Medical history would include: medical conditions of surrendering parents, and their extended families – use of drugs and alcohol during pregnancy – and general information on the parents and pregnancy
***In depth medical history questions below. ***
The rest of the bill are the specifics of the contact preference form, and medical history form. There are 3 options on the contact preference form
- I would like to be contacted
- I would prefer only to be contacted through an intermediary
- I prefer not to be contacted at this time. If i decide later that I would like to be contacted, I will contact the state registrar. I have completed an updated medical history and have filed it with the registrar…
The bill then goes on to list some specific questions for the medical questionaire. They are listed as follows:
(1) Name of child on the birth record.
(2) Date of birth.
(3) Sex of child.
(4) Hospital where birth occurred, if any.
(5) Mother’s name shown on birth certificate.
(6) Adoption agency involved with adoption, if known.
(7) The date the form is completed.
(8) A place to indicate whether the person completing the form is
the birth mother or birth father.
(b) The form shall include places to provide information on the
medical conditions listed in this subdivision. For each of the
medical conditions, the person completing the form shall be provided
a form with columns that indicate separately whether or not that
person or any blood relative has the condition listed, or whether
this information is unknown, and the person completing the form shall
be requested to fill in the appropriate box. The form shall describe
the term “blood relative” as including, by way of example, the
person’s mother, father, sisters, brothers, grandparents, aunts,
uncles, or any other child. The form shall include a section for
comments for each medical condition, to be completed as needed, using
a separate piece of paper if necessary. The following medical
conditions, at a minimum, shall be listed:
(1) Club foot.
(2) Cleft lip or cleft palate.
(3) Congenital heart defect.
(4) Any other malformations, such as scoliosis.
(5) Muscular dystrophy, including a request to comment on the part
of the body involved and the age at onset.
(6) Multiple sclerosis.
(7) Cerebral palsy.
(8) Other paralysis or crippling disorder.
(9) Seizures, convulsions, or epilepsy, including a request to
comment on the age at onset, the treatment, and the frequency of
occurrence.
(10) Blindness, glaucoma, or other visual problems, including a
request to comment on the age at onset, the cause, and any special
education provided.
(11) Deafness or other ear problems.
(12) Speech problem, including a request to comment on the age at
onset, the cause, and any special education provided.
(13) Learning disability.
(14) Mental or physical retardation, including a request to
comment on any diagnosis or cause, and if hospitalized.
(15) Diabetes, including a request to comment on the age at onset
and any treatment.
(16) Thyroid disorder.
(17) Other hormonal disorder.
(18) Bronchitis.
(19) Emphysema.
(20) Congestive heart failure.
(21) Atherosclerosis.
(22) Eczema or other skin conditions, including a request to
comment on any cause known, treatment provided, and medication
provided.
(23) Asthma.
(24) Hay fever or other allergy.
(25) Schizophrenia, including a request to comment on any cause
known, treatment provided, and if hospitalized.
(26) Depression or bipolar disorder.
(27) Other mental or emotional illness, such as anorexia or
bulimia.
(28) Hypertension, to be described parenthetically as high blood
pressure.
(29) Stroke.
(30) Heart attack, to be described parenthetically as coronary.
(31) Other cardiovascular problems.
(32) Cancer, including a request to comment on the type, the age
at onset, and the part of the body affected.
(33) Tumors.
(34) Cystic fibrosis.
(35) Huntington’s Disease.
(36) Tuberculosis.
(37) Kidney disease, including a request to comment on age at
onset and treatment provided.
(38) Alcoholism or drug addiction, including a request to comment
on the kind, when taken, and amount.
(39) Any other conditions that the person completing the form or
others in the person’s family might have.
(c) The form shall include places to provide information on drug
and alcohol use during pregnancy listed in this subdivision, which
shall be presented in the same manner as described in subdivision
(b). The information requested on drug and alcohol use during
pregnancy shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Prescription drugs taken during pregnancy, including a request
to comment on the kind, when taken, the amount, and frequency of
use.
(2) Nonprescription drugs taken during pregnancy, including a
request to comment on the kind, when taken, the amount, and frequency
of use.
(3) Use of alcohol during pregnancy, including a request to
comment on the amount and frequency.
(4) Use of amphetamines during pregnancy, including a request to
comment on the kind, when taken, the amount, and frequency of use.
(5) Use of barbiturates during pregnancy, including a request to
comment on the kind, when taken, the amount, and frequency of use.
(d) The form shall include places to provide other information on
the birth parents to be given at time of the child’s birth and should
instruct the person completing the form to not provide personally
identifying information. The other information requested on the birth
parents shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Height and weight.
(2) Body build.
(3) Eye, hair, and skin color.
(4) Age.
(5) Race.
(6) Nationality, to be described parenthetically as citizenship.
(7) Ethnic background.
(8) Religion.
(9) Number of school years completed.
(10) Mother’s blood type.
(11) RH factor.
(12) Baby’s blood type.
(e) The form shall include a place for the person completing the
form to give the age at death and cause of death of the child’s
grandparent, aunt, uncle, and sibling, if any.
(f) The form shall include places for the person completing the
form to provide the following information on the pregnancy:
(1) Whether the baby’s father is aware of the pregnancy.
(2) The month prenatal care began for the pregnancy.
(3) Any complications during the pregnancy.
(4) Exposure during pregnancy to:
(A) X-ray.
(B) Electrocardiogram.
(C) Radiation.
(g) The form shall include a place for the person completing the
form to give other comments regarding the child’s birth history.
**** So thats it! Thats the bill as it currently stands. I’m sure it will amend some more. i’d definitely like to see the age lowered to 18 at minimum. I believe we all deserve our records and that 25 is far to high. What I would do to get my hands on that job of the person in charge of filing all of this information. My oh my what a field day I would have.
Thoughts ? Comments?
I’m going to call and write my leggies again now. I have some updating to do on my letters 
*****
6 responses so far ↓
joy // March 29, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
I think the idea is that they keep the bill alive as it is now, while addressing the 1984 law.
Then address the law, and ammend the current bill again.
Gershom // March 30, 2009 at 12:03 am |
nice!!!! thank you Joy
InMySeoul // March 30, 2009 at 11:50 am |
I’ve thought and wrote a post about the age of which an adoptee should have access to their records.
I know you would prefer 18 and even younger to access records, but I just wanted to point out that less than 18 will probably never happen. The reason being is because of the potential legal implications that might occur with a minor contacting a birth parent.
Im not disagreeing or agreeing necessarily but the proposal you stated is not the first time where there is a discrepancy between the drafting/enlistment age and the age of other activities. The most obvious and most public would be the legal drinking age, 21. So that means guys in the military would be able to die for their country but not be allowed to drink. Personally this is ok for me, because I don’t think guys with guns should be drinking anyways…
Richard Patrick // April 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
I believe the effort being made by CARE is quite sensible and shows the kind of balance required to accomplish anything in a legislative setting. I can tell this Blog author is educated but there seems to be a lack of common sense and simple knowledge about how the world works. The previous laws controlling an adoptees birth certificate access are absurd but were born in a less progressive time. Consider the gradual incremental improvements in civil rights and the horrible inequity suffered by various ethnic, racial and other minority groups. There is no doubt the laws have been incrementally improved slowly edging toward equality for women, African Americans, Hispanics, the disabled and many others. If in the 1950’s, African Americans had demanded “Everything” at once, we all know it would have been blocked by the near all white congress. The late great Martin Luther King was very bright and knew equality would come slowly in steps and pushing any harder would have done more harm than good. It may have led to his death but he was right and much has improved since the 60’s. Its foolish, childish and quite naive to make brash comments about small incomplete interim details and ignore the VAST improvements over the existing laws. If you demand perfection and instant equality, you will deny the majority of adoptees what they deserve and need. That is selfish and borderline narcissism. The legislative process is one of give and take. Even a undergraduate Poly Sci major knows that. The legislators and other interest groups must be satisfied and only compromise achieves that. One must always ask the question “what do I want to achieve for the majority of adoptees” and keep that in mind. Only a fool believes their idealistic position can be forced through the legislature. Clever, smart and wise people know how to incrementally get as much as they can on each pass which sets a knew baseline so the following rounds can move toward equality. I can see that CARE fits into the category of Clever, smart and wise while this blogger shows how they are willing to sacrifice all adoptees while standing on their soapbox forever. This blogger doesn’t even know enough about the legislative process to realize the SB 372 language will change many times as different committees and interests insist their views be included. If this blogger had read the CARE summary of their latest meeting Stephanie held, it was the OTHER invitees that insisted on the 25 year age. Why? Who knows. Everyone has their viewpoint and if they are not respected, the legislative process is stopped. That is called politics. Just as an example; if SB 372 was passed with the 25 year age, IT HAS PASSED. Now only the battle for under 25 needs to be fought while over 25 adoptees are freed from the horrible existing laws. Why punish the over 25 adoptees when the new baseline law can now be tweaked on a next round. The idea of incrementally setting new baselines of law, changes peoples view often setting the stage for the next improvement for the under 25 group. What part of this don’t you understand? It’s so simple and basic to politics and the legislative mechanism, it makes me wonder if this blogger has some self righteous “sacrifice everyone else” ego and already has their birth certificate and doesn’t really care about real adoptees. Or maybe they have held this ideologue position so long, they are embarassed to admit a mistake. Sounds similar to our last president’s intellectual/ego problems to me. What a mess he made! Please don’t do that to adoptees. Please just wait till the bills through the legislative process and see if it incrementally helps many adoptees and sets the stage for the next round moving closer and closer to a balanced equality. Why would you even bother making negative comments on wording that is destined to change. Why attribute it to CARE when the government agencies seemed to insist on it. Why can’t you open your mind to smart politics since we can’t change how our State or Federal Governments function this week and must work inside the system. Care seems smart as they have the awareness to understand politics, put effort into that understanding, don’t shoot off their mouths prematurely, are trying to help the most adoptees as much as the system will allow in one shot and are even nice people. Please open your mind, be smart and get off the soapbox and help. Its so sad to see how ignorant people can do harm in the name of self righteousness. How about studying politics, doing some real work and learn from Martin Luther King how its done. Your cause isn’t as worthy as his but the principle is the same. How do you think African Americans, Hispanics and the disabled will react when they hear your cause demands perfection. They will be right. Take your place and do some good. You could use your energy and intelligence to help most adoptees get most of the respect they deserve in increments and move to fight for the under 25s next if that doesn’t change anyway. I’m sorry for being tough but you really need to take a hard look at your thinking and views and behavior and do what is right.
Richard P.
e.
Gershom // April 20, 2009 at 10:11 am |
wow richard you are angry. I’m going to skip this all together and get to your most recent comments. In light of the recent amendments of AB372 i think that is necessary and crucial. Time is of the essence.
Rich Patrick // April 11, 2009 at 10:36 am |
Hi.. I’d like to offer some thoughts on AB 372. I hope you are open and “Fair & Balanced” in the opinions and comments you post. By the tone of your Blog, I would like to ask why you seem to be “down” on “far more more open records”. It appears from your writing that you are well educated and are likely to understand the complexities of the legislative process. Is this correct? Even our brilliant President of the US Barack Obama with his level of grass roots support, his party’s current dominance plus his personal skills at “organizing” is still struggling to get his great ideas through to law. He even has the Veto power on his side
…
Its a very basic principle of our form of legislative process that “Bills” that are close to one interested parties views or ideals will never become law as that group desires. The best anyone can hope for is making incremental progress. This is due to the intentional “Checks and Balance” built into the legislative process which have gotten almost out of control. We cold all fight to “fix” the legislative process but then would never get to our issue. That means we are stuck “doing our best” or never getting anything accomplished. This system is full of powerful interest groups, legislators themselves, lobbyists with varied agendas all steering a Bill in “their direction”. That is just “how it works” in Sacramento and Washington. That means that the most sensible approach toward achieving “Open Records” is to begin with a Bill that is close to the ideal but takes into account, initially known “show stopper” provisions or other “time bombs”. The concept of “raising the bar” incrementally by establishing a new law that “Opens as many records for as many adoptees as possible now” and then tackle the flaws next, is the only viable approach. Its simply not realistic to believe anything but an incremental approach can succeed. Almost all Bills with any controversy and differing opinions or interested parties suffers from this problem. That means that the AB 372 approach is nicely aligned with this only viable strategy.
Since the particular wording of this version of AB 372 is the second draft, the 25 year age and other provisions are destined to change. I did notice that it was people from the California Department of Public Health that made the 25 year request and who knows why. That is a perfect example of how even the California Government organizations essentially lobby for their own positions and fighting them can result in failure. That is the essence of politics.
“”[AB 372 - could determine the fate of my access to my original birth certificate for some time, which is why I am eager to see how it unfolds and calling my representatives and legislatures religiously as well as writing letters.]“”
You are mentioning another vehicle that influences a Bill. Individuals can “lobby” their own representative and even ask others to do so in Blogs and other ways. All of these influences are good in that they reduce the chances one group can dominate the language of a law but also “dark” in that it forces all controversial Bills to be compromises. Have you not been able to get a copy of your birth certificate?
“”[Some new wording was introduced, I heard about it first from BB Church, who used to live in California and has been tracking this bill more than myself. Please read his blog posts about it here.] [To get to the new wording and read it as it currently stands, you can do so here: NEW WORDING]“”
Yes, as I mentioned, the wording will evolve as everyone in the process gets their 2 cents in. Unfortunately that is how the system works and only the incremental approach can effectively address this reality.
The wording will probably change many more times as it passes various meetings and committees. Its interesting to see how each change transpires but the only one that really counts is the final version if and only if it passes and becomes law.
Is it true that you don’t support AB 372 or any less than ideal incremental approach?
Do you realize that this is a side effect of our system and waiting for an “ideal bill” will leave adoptees waiting forever?
What is wrong with the notion of “giving the greatest number of adoptees the most open access possible” as the first step?
Do you prefer to sit and allow the current absurd law to continue forever, since getting it “ALL at once” is simply not realistic given the nature of the beast?
Is that fair to the adoptee group as a whole?
Is it smart given the nature of the political system and the effectiveness of the incremental strategy?
I and ‘m sure many adoptees are curious why you would take an unrealistic position?
Is focusing on that 25 age provision while knowing its temporary and not supporting the “good provisions” simply not in the spirit of helping the adoptee community?
I’d love to hear your views on my comments as maybe I’m missing something that is pragmatic?
I hope you are in your integrity in allowing “open dialogue” on your Blog within this “open records” effort. Wouldn’t it be ironic and somewhat intellectually dishonest if you didn’t?
Thanks for listening to my ideas!
Rich