Information disclosure and openness in adoption: State policy and empirical evidence

Pergamon

Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 20. Nos. l/2. PP. 57-85, 1998 CoPyright Q 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0190-74CFh98 $19.00 + .oO

PI1 so190-7409(97)00067-4

Information Disclosure and Openness in Adoption: State Policy and Empirical Evidence Rosemary J. Avery Cornell University This paper presents the rationale and details of state policy with regard to sealed record statutes and open adoption practice. The empirical work focuses on attitudes toward, and experiences with, openness in adoption in a sample of 1,274 adoptive parents in 743 adoptive homes in New York State. Results indicate that a substantial majority of adoptive parents in the study favor a change in state statutes allowing greater openness in adoption and that mothers are more open to the concept of information disclosure than adoptive fathers. Open adoptions were practiced in only a minority of adoptions in this study. When contact does exist, it is far more likely to be with a birth mother than a birth father. Openness in adoption was found to differ by age, race, and by prior experience with fostering or adoption. Older adoptive mothers were more supportive of open adoption records, while white adoptive fathers and both adoptive mothers and adoptive fathers who had prior experience with fostering or adoptions were less open to the concept of open adoption records. Conclusions are draw and recommendations made for future policy in this area.

Information disclosure and openness in adoption have surfaced as salient policy issues in the courts, statutory reform efforts, and social work practice in almost all states in the nation during the past few years (DeWoody, 1993; Sachdev, 1989). Confidentiality and secrecy are central components of state policy on adoption. When a child is adopted in the United States, the original birth certificate and the records from the adoption proceedings are placed under seal (Kuhns, 1994), and a new birth certificate is issued pronouncing the adoptee as born to the adoptive parents. The majority of states have enacted legislation to seal adoption records permanently. In most states these records may be accessed only by court petition, and if successful, only nonidentifying information such as medical and genealogical history may be released. Reprints may be obtained from Rosemary J. Avery, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 [rja;[email protected]] 57

58

Avery

The process of sealing records has created a controversial clash between adoptees desiring information about their past on the one hand and state policy of confidentiality on the other. On the one hand the argument is made that sealed records statutes protect the birth parents’ “right of privacy,” on the assumptions that bii parents desire to sever all ties with a birth child and that they continue to rely on past assurances of anonymity to protect them against intrusions by the child they gave up for adoption. Organizations such as Concerned United Birthparents (CUB) challenge the accuracy of these assumptions (Kuhns, 1994). Supporters of open adoption records argue that closed record statutes impose on the adoptee a lifelong familial amnesia at a time when he or she is too young to consent or to know what is happening (Crane, 1987). They argue that adoptees should have access to pertinent information central to their lives and future development (Kuhns, 1994). Adoptees have challenged sealed record statutes in federal court on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. In these hearings it has been argued that that sealed records abridge the adoptee’s constitutional right to privacy, to receive important information, and to equal protection under the law. The right to privacy argument rests on the contention that adoptees have a fundamental right to know the identity of their birth parents because such information is necessary for healthy psychological development (Kuhns, 1994; Lum, 1993). In these hearings it has been contended that adoptees are co-owners of the information about themselves, and thus it is unfair to deny this information to them, especially because they never consented to the sealing of such information (Crane, 1987; Lum, 1993). The right to receive information argument rests on the contention that secrecy interferes with the adoptee’s right of freedom to participate in and contribute to social and governmental decisionmaking processes and holds that sealed records laws violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The outcome of these constitutional challenges has been unsuccessful. Despite several efforts, no federal court has upheld the argument that sealed records laws are unconstitutional, and the issue continues to rest with the individual states as one of “conflicting best interests.” At the state level, legislators and practitioners continue to make conflicting claims about the rationality of greater openness in adoption. Advocates for openness in adoption argue that it would benefit all parties involved. First, it would give birth parents a greater sense of control over the adoption process and make them more willing to relinquish their child into the care of an adoptive parent (Barth & Berry, 1988; Byrd, 1988; McRoy & Grotevant, 1988; McRoy, Grotevant, & White, 1988; Rompf, 1993). In addition, they argue that greater openness enhances adoptive parents’ ability to raise their adopted

Information

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

59

children (Etter, 1993; Siegel, 1993). For example, results of a study by Grotevant, McRoy, Elde, and Fravel(l994) found that adoptive parents in open adoptions had greater empathy toward both birthparents and the adopted child and a stronger sense of permanence in the adoptive relationship. Disclosure of complete medical, genetic, and social history information at the time of placement could permit earlier diagnosis and appropriate treatment of adopted children who may be subject to adverse mental or physical health conditions. Continued contact with a birth parent after adoption finalization could help adoptive parents deal with difficult child adjustment problems during adolescence. For adoptees, it is suggested that greater openness will contribute significantly toward healthy identity development during adolescence and lessen feelings of rejection and insecurity (Kuhns, 1994; Rompf, 1993; Van Bueren, 1995). Advocates for maintaining confidentiality in adoption argue that greater disclosure would open a “Pandora’s Box” with negative consequences for all parties involved. They argue that it would hinder the process of closure on birth parents’ grieving, while heightening their sense of ambivalence and confusion (Blanton & Deschner, 1990). Furthermore, it would contribute to adoptive parents’ insecurity, uncertainty, and feelings of tenuousness, which might lessen bonding and attachment between adoptive parent and child (Kaye & Warren, 1988). They argue that adoptive parents should be given the opportunity to raise their children without the intrusion of the birth parent (Kuhns, 1994) and be protected from the additional burden of potential dependency between the adoptive and birth parent (Churchman, 1986; Silber & Domer, 1989). It is argued that greater openness would lead to confusion rather than resolution for adopted children because they would be forced to deal with the conflicting value systems of both sets of parents. Today many professionals working in the adoption arena hold that although confidentiality and closed adoption may be in the best interest of adoptees as children, this is not always the case when these children have reached adolescence and adulthood. Many birth and adoptive parents have stated that confidentiality is not in their best interests either (Kuhns, 1994). In fact, the open adoption movement has been fueled by a proliferation of both adoption rights and birth parent groups such as the Adoptees Liberty Movement Association (ALMA) and Concerned United Birthparents (CUB), many of whom practice open adoptions. This paper sets out both the rationale and details of state policy with respect to sealed records and open adoption practice. The empirical work reported in this paper investigates adoptive parents’ attitudes toward, and experi-

Avery

60

ences with, openness in adoption in a sample of 743 adoptive homes in New York State. Adoption Law And Practice State Policy English common law inherited by the United States did not recognize the practice of adoption, and U.S. adoption law is entirely a creature of state statutes (Kuhns, 1994). From their earliest beginnings, state adoption statutes were designed to protect the “best interests of the child.” In the late 1800s the first state statutes did not bar access to court records. Court hearings on adoption at this time were usually informal, and confidentiality was not a significant issue. Institutionalized secrecy in adoption proceedings was first introduced into American law in 1917 when Minnesota enacted the nation’s first sealed records law which closed adoption files from inspection by the adult adoptees, their birth parents, and the general public (Kuhns, 1994). Other states followed Minnesota’s lead. New York statutes mandated that “illegitimacy” not appear in the transcript of judicial hearings. Confidentiality statutes in New York, however, merely concealed the adoption proceedings from the public, not from the actual participants in the adoption proceedings (Kuhns, 1994). By the end of the 1940s most states had enacted confidentiality statutes, and these laws protected adoption confidentiality through the decades 1940-1970. By the end of the 1970s however, in response to societal pressure for greater openness, state legislatures began to pass amendments to the sealed records laws (Kuhns, 1994). At the present time, one state (New Jersey) upholds the policy of complete confidentiality in adoption records, three states (Hawaii, Kansas, and Minnesota) have open adoption records (with or without age limitations), three states (Alaska, Kansas and Tennesseel) allow adoptees access to their original birth certificates (with or without age limitations), six states (Washington, D.C., Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia, and West Virginia) allow the unsealing of adoption records subject to a “good cause” hearing. The majority of states (42 states) have statutes restricting access to only nonidentifying 1 Tennesseepassed a law in 1995 which allows persons adopted before March 16, 195 1 access to all of their adoption records in the state. Those adopted after this date are to have access from July 1, 1996 forward. The law has a “contact veto” system built in where birth parents are notified the adoptee has requested the records and may file a contact veto to do just that. A class action law suit has been filed in federal court to prevent Tennessee from releasing any records. The stay against the state is currently under appeal in federal court in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Information

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

61

information (with or without age limitations or a court order) (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 1992). Nonidentifying information could include date and place of birth, age of birth parents, description of birth parents’ physical appearance, race, ethnicity, religion, medical history of the birth parents, circumstances leading to placement, age and gender of biological siblings, education and occupation of the birth parents (Berry, 1993), and medical history of the adopted child (Crane, 1987). “Good cause” hearings are conditioned on the assumption of a need for privacy on the part of the birth parent. The adoptee has the burden of persuasion in these cases (Kuhns, 1994; Lum, 1993). “Good cause” is usually demonstrated on the basis of need for documented medical or psychiatric information that the adoptee cannot obtain elsewhere. Mere desire to know (curiosity) is deemed insufficient in most states to justify releasing information. Some courts have accepted “serious psychological disorder stemming from an identity crisis” as adequate demonstration for good cause (Kuhns, 1994). In successful good cause hearings the courts usually require agencies or private intermediaries to collect the nonidentifying information contained in adoption records, although state policies vary considerably regarding the maintenance and disclosure of such information (Kuhns, 1994). Within the past decade some states have made progress toward greater openness, amending their statutes to reflect changing mores (Kuhns, 1994). At least 20 states have enacted some form of “mutual consent” registry statutes facilitating the process whereby parties to an adoption can indicate their willingness to meet at a later date (Lum, 1993). Some states also permit adult biological siblings to register their consent to have contact (Crane, 1987). Some people consider the “mutual consent” registries a sensible solution to the conflicting interests of the adoption triad members. Others criticize them on the grounds that they favor the rights of the birth parents and a policy of confidentiality over an adoptee’s right to know. They argue that registry statutes condition the adoptee’s right to information on the birth parents’ consent but fail to require that the birth parent even be informed of the opportunity to register their consent or denial at the time of relinquishment (Crane, 1987). Other grounds for criticism are that people often don’t know about the statutes because they are not widely advertised, that people move, marry, and change names so that information in this registry rapidly becomes out of date (National Committee for Adoption, 1996), that some registries charge a fee which not everyone can afford (Lum, 1993), and that registries fail to take account of changes over time in birth parents’ willingness to have contact. Attempting to improve on the “mutual consent” statutes, at least 17 states have passed “search and consent” statutes to more actively facilitate openness

62

Avery

between adoptees and their birth parents. These search and consent laws authorize public or private agencies to assist adult adoptees in locating birth parents and to ascertain their willingness to disclose their identities or actually meet with the adoptee (Kuhns, 1994). “Search and consent” laws require a complex process involving petitions, intermediaries, and court hearings. They usually involve a large number of individuals at great expense. Search and consent statutes have the same limitations as “mutual consent registries” in that the information they contain is often inaccurate and out of date. Some states have established procedures for updating medical information, but their success has been dependent on the continued willingness of birth parents to provide such information (Crane, 1987). Organizations such as the National Committee for Adoption (NCFA) have come out in strong opposition to search and consent statutes on the grounds that they too often become intrusive “search and confront” systems, exerting pressure on birth parents to meet or divulge information, both of which violate their right to privacy. The possibility of abuse is made even more likely by the means chosen by some states to implement searches. They allow independent contractors to conduct searches rather than trained social workers in state or private adoption agencies (National Committee for Adoption, 1992). Another extremely contentious policy issue facing the states is the age at which information about birth parents and medical/social history may be disclosed to an adoptee. Five states allow access to nonidentifying information with good cause before age 18, 14 states stipulate that such information be made available only at age 18, and 9 states require adoptees to be 19 or older before they may obtain such information. The remaining states require a court order for the disclosure of nonidentifying information, regardless of the age of the adoptee. Furthermore, an active policy debate surrounds retrospective changes in state open records statutes. The issue here is whether adoptees should have access to information contained in their adoption records, regardless of when they were adopted. At the time of writing this paper, this very issue is under debate in the New York State (NYS) legislature. NYS adoptive parents’ attitudes toward these potential changes form the focus of the empirical research reported here. While every state in the nation has statutes governing the release of information contained in the adoption records, only three states (Washington, Ohio, and Indiana) have legal statutes specifically allowing open adoptions. In these states birth and adoptive parents can enter into an agreement allowing formal visitation rights after finalization. Washington State statutes cover court enforcement of open adoption agreements and allow for monetary damages under tort law for failure to uphold the agreement, without penalty of disrup-

Information

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

63

tion of the adoptive placement. The Ohio and Indiana (Post Adoption Visitation Privilege Act) statutes do not cover court enforcement of such agreements but do protect the integrity of the adoptive placement in the case of later disputes. In other states the courts have recognized open adoption agreements between adoptive parents and birth parents, even though there is no statute specifically authorizing them. In the case of In re Adoption ofMinor (Massachusetts, 1973) the court found that these agreements are enforceable by the court as long as visitation is in the best interests of the child (North American Council on Adoptable Children, 1996). In New York State, birth and adoptive parents can agree to have continued contact or visitation as part of the voluntary relinquishment of parental rights proceedings (N.Y. Social Service Law #383-c), also known as “conditional surrenders.” Although Alabama does not have an open adoption statute, a supreme court in that state favored a particular placement because the adoptive parents were willing to provide the birth mother and her family with continued access to the child. However, in an Illinois appellate court decision in which the issue of open adoption was faced more directly, the court rejected a lower court’s effort to establish a de fucro open adoption (Hafemeister, 1994). Despite the lack of specificity in state statutes, open adoptions are frequently and informally practiced in the United States. In a study of older-child adoptions undertaken by Nelson (1985), 20 percent of adoptees had maintained contact with a biological relative (usually the mother), and Belbas’s study (1986) found a similar contact rate. However, Feigelman and Silverman’s study (1986) found contact rates as low as 8 percent. Both Berry (1991 b) and Katz (1990) found that many adoptive families in their studies practiced open adoptions, with mostly positive outcomes. Berry (199 1b) found that contact was more frequent in independent adoptions and less frequent in agency adoptions. Berry’s (1993) study of 1,268 adoptions found that openness was far more likely for infant adoptions, for adoptions of children who did not have a history of mistreatment, and for adoptions by relatives. Siegel’s (1993) study of recently adopted infants found that in many situations open adoption can be a desirable option, and a wide array of different types and frequencies of pre- and post-adoption contact work well. Siegel notes that the adoption triad members’ feelings about, and reactions to, open adoption may evolve over time and that each developmental stage requires new coping skills. Agency Policy and Practice The social work practice of disclosure in adoption has been cyclical in nature (Carp, 1992). From the early 1900s through the late 1930s adoption

64

Avery

agencies generally practiced a “full disclosure” policy toward adoption. This policy made sense at the time because there was little information to provide to adoptive parents. Record keeping was usually sketchy and incomplete, and there was no extensive questioning of birth parents or probing into their medical or social background. In addition, many (perhaps most) adopted children were older and had clear memories of their parents and families. For these older children the agency was not the sole source of information regarding their history. This relieved the agency of much of the burden of disclosure (Carp, 1992). In 1938 the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) began promoting secrecy in adoption as its official policy, and social work practice of “full disclosure” took a rapid turn (Carp, 1992). Prevailing social mores regarding sexuality which ostracized women who became pregnant outside of marriage and stigmatized children born under such circumstances (Dukette, 1984) created pressure on legislators in almost every state to pass laws fostering secrecy, anonymity, and confidentiality in adoption. In the period 1940-l 970 a greater number of infants were available for adoption. Adoption was primarily used to emulate “natural” family formation (Carp, 1992), and many adoptive parents avoided telling their children that they were adopted or postponed telling them until they were adolescents. By the early 197Os, the philosophy of openness in social work adoption practice had reemerged in response to four major social changes. First, there was a significant increase in the number of female-headed households, out-ofwedlock birth was becoming increasingly accepted by society, and unwed birth parents emerged from their “shadow of shame” (Siegel, 1993). The sexual revolution of the 1960s changed the social situation of women in relation to sex and parenthood, including attitudes about illegitimacy, contraception, and the legitimization of abortion (Kuhns, 1994). Second, tracing genealogical roots and ethnic heritage during this period became a socially popular philosophy, and adult adoptees became increasingly vocal about their rights and needs for information establishing their identity. Third, during the 1970s the population of children available for adoption changed. Children were older, and significantly fewer “healthy white infants” were available for adoption. In addition, there was greater diversity in the characteristics of adoptive parents (older parents, single parents), and these parents were more active and informed. Many of them formed adoption rights activist groups lobbying for change (Carp, 1992; Kuhns, 1994). Their efforts -were highly successful. Between 1978 and 1990 at least 21 states enacted mandatory disclosure statutes requiring adoption agencies or intermediaries to provide adoptive parents

Information Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

65

with nonidentifying information about an adopted child’s health, education, and family background (Carp, 1992; Rompf, 1993). During the past decade adoption agency policy and practice in regard to information disclosure has become a matter of huge potential liability (DeWoody, 1993). Legal precedent has been established for agency liability in failure to disclose relevant information, and “wrongful adoption” has become a new basis for lawsuits with significant implications for public and voluntary child welfare agencies (DeWoody, 1993; Goldenhersh, 1992). The basis for wrongful adoption suits is provided in tort law, which permits adoptive parents to sue adoption agencies and collect monetary damages if the agency deliberately conceals, intentionally misleads or misrepresents, or negligently fails to disclose the health status or family background of an adopted child (information that later proves to be inaccurate or failure to disclose information in a way that misleads the adoptive parents as to the truth) (Connelly, 1991; DeWoody, 1993; Dickson, 1991; Goldenhersh, 1992; Maley, 1987). To date six state appellate courts have issued decisions that impose liability on agencies and their workers in wrongful adoption suits (DeWoody, 1994; Gustavsson, 1995; Kopels, 1995). In 1986, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Burr vs. Stark County Board of Commissioners, awarded adoptive parents $125,000 in damages because the adoptive agency deliberately concealed information about the adoptive child’s inherited life-threatening medical conditions (Hollinger, 1990). Since this decision, courts in at least five other states have upheld wrongful adoption suits against child-placing institutions (Goldenhersh, 1992; Woo, 1992). In Massachusetts in 1991, for example, a jury awarded an adoptive couple $3.8 million on the grounds that the placing agency deliberately withheld the information that their child was developmentally disabled and that the child’s mother suffered from schizophrenia (Lambert & Moses, 1991). Other cases have been similarly successful: Michael J. v. Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions (1988); Meracle v. Children’s Service Society of Wisconsin (1989); M. H. and J. L. H. v. Caritas Family Services in Minnesota (1992); Gibbs v. Ernst in Pennsylvania ( 1992); and Juman v. Louise Wise Services in New York (1994). In 1992 alone at least 17 wrongful adoption cases were pending in courts in Texas, Illinois, Florida, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York (Kopels, 1995).

Avery

66

Empirical Research Focus of the Study During the period 1994-1995 issues surrounding potential changes to NYS statutes to allow adoptees access to their birth records were being debated in the state legislature and the adoption community.* This study was undertaken to determine adoptive parents’ attitudes toward these legislative changes and to determine the degree to which open adoptions are practiced in a sample of adoptive families in New York State. Method A questionnaire was designed and pre-tested on a sample of 153 adoptive parents in Tompkins County, New York State. Following the pre-test, the questionnaire was revised and a research package from the author’s academic institution was distributed to 750 adoptive homes through county adoption agencies (County Departments of Social Services (DSSs)) in New York State, and to a random sample of 400 adoptive parents who were members of the New York State Citizens’ Coalition for Children (NYSCCC) during the period October 1994 through May 1995. Participating agencies were asked to distribute the questionnaire to all parents who had adopted a child through the agency within the past two years and who had at least one adopted child still living in the home. Similar criteria were used to determine the NYSCCC sample.3 The questionnaire package contained a cover letter indicating that all responses would be kept strictly confidential and be used for academic research purposes only. The package included detailed instructions for questionnaire completion and return mailing. The questionnaire allowed adoptive parents to self-identify as either the “adoptive parent” or “spouse/partner” (if applicable). In the case of an adoptive couple (married or cohabitating), “adoptive parent” was defined as the parent who had primary responsibility for care of the child on a daily basis and interacted with the child most frequently. The “adoptive parent” could be either an adoptive mother or an adoptive father. Adoptive parents and spouses/partners were instructed to complete their “openness” questionnaires independently. An additional ques-

* At the time of writing, three bills (S7413, S6053B, A2328D3709) addressing issues of openness in adoption records were on the floor in the NYS legislature. 3 If the most recent adoption was of a sibling group, instructions were provided to the adoptive parent to complete the questionnaire for the youngest member of that sibling group.

Information

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

67

tionnaire was included regarding the nature of the adopted child’s contact with his or her birth parents, and the adoptive parent’s perceptions of the child’s interest in maintaining/ establishing this contact. This section of the questionnaire was completed by the “adoptive parent” only. Questionnaires were completed by 1,274 adoptive parents in 743 adoptive homes in New York State (743 adoptive parents, 531 spouses/partners), representing a 64.6 percent response rate. The study instrument sought adoptive parents’ opinions related to the following statements/question: * New York State law should allow an adult adoptee to obtain a copy of his/her original birth certificate. * At what age should an adopted person have access to his/her birth certificate? * An adult adoptee’s right to obtain an original birth certificate should be retroactive. In other words, all adult adoptees should have access regardless of when they were adopted.

In addition, information was obtained regarding the adopted child’s knowledge of, and interaction with, birth parent(s) and background information on the adopted parent(s), the adoptive family, and other children living in the home. Results Characteristics

of Adopted Children

Mean age of adopted children in the sample is 9.07 years. A little over one-half (52 percent) are female, and 48 percent are male. Forty-four percent of adopted children in the sample are white, 21.8 percent are African American, 10.6 percent are children were of mixed race, and 23.3 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, or American Indian4 The majority of children were adopted through either a public (47.8 percent) or private agency (35.9 percent), and 21.4 percent of children were adopted internationally. A higher proportion of female children were adopted internationally (25.5 percent of females compared to 18.1 percent of males), and children of an “other” 4 Race categories used in the questionnaire

were white, black/African American, Asian/pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, and mixed race. Because of the small number of observations in categories other than white and blacWAfrican American, race was collapsed into the categories white, black/African American, and “other” which included Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, and mixed-race children.

68

Avery

race are more likely to have been adopted internationally through a private agency. Approximately 47 percent of adopted children in the sample lived in the home as a foster child before the adoption. African American children (75.3 percent) are more likely than white children (40.1 percent) or children of an “other” race (37.3 percent) to have lived in the home as a foster child before the adoption. Children adopted through public agencies were older at the time of adoption, and white children (3.04 years) were older than children of an “other” race (1.84 years) at the time they entered the adoptive home. Characteristics

of Adoptive Parents

Approximately 80 percent (80.6 percent) of “adoptive parents” in the sample are female. Mean age of the adoptive parent is 47.1 years. Adoptive parents are predominantly white (75.9 percent), married (69.0 percent), with at least a college degree (57.5 percent), employed (61.9 percent), professionals (45.4 percent), and a member of an adoptive parent group (50.2 percent). Seventy-one percent of adoptive parents in the sample are married or cohabitating. Spouses/ partners in these families are predominantly male (78.2 percent), white (83.8 percent), and married (92.1 percent). Mean age of spouses/partners is 47.4 years. The majority of spouses/ partners in these families had completed a college degree (56.5 percent) and are gainfully employed (91.9 percent) in a professional capacity (45.0 percent). Fewer spouses/partners (46.3 percent) than adoptive parents (50.2 percent) are members of an adoptive parent group (46.3 percent). Characteristics

of Adoptive Families

The majority of adopted children in the sample (71.4 percent) live in twoparent families. Approximately 3 percent (2.6 percent) live in homes headed by same-sex partners. Of the 212 (28.5 percent) single-parent families in the sample, 90.6 percent are single mothers and 9.4 percent are single fathers. The majority of two-parent families are dual-earner families (67.3 percent), and a fairly large percent of single parents in the sample are not employed (41 percent). African American families and families of an “other” race are far more likely to be headed by a single parent, be unemployed, and have other foster children in the home. Only 6.6 percent of two-parent families in the sample are involved in an interracial marriage (cohabitation), and 38.2 percent of adoptions involved a child who is of a different race than the adoptive parent. The mean number of children in adoptive families in the sample is 2.28 (s.d. 1.17), and for more than half of the sample families (54.8 percent) this

Information

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

69

was their first adoption. Approximately 45.2 percent of the families have other adopted children, and 17 percent have foster children living in the home. Adopted Children’s Contact with their Birth Parents The questionnaire allowed for the collection of fairly detailed information regarding the adopted child’s knowledge of, and contact with, birth parents (Table 1). Only 17 percent of adopted children in the sample have any contact with their birth mother, although adoptive parents report that approximately 40 percent of their adopted children know the name of their birth mother. For those adopted children who do have contact with their birth mother, the contact is likely to be seldom (52.8 percent) or regular but not often (31.7 percent). This contact is frequent for only 4.1 percent of adopted children who have contact with a birth mother. When contact exists, it is likely to be via telephone (47.2 percent), letter or photographs (47.2 percent), or face-to-face (52.8 percent). Adoptive parents were asked their opinions on whether their child has interest in maintaining/establishing contact with a birth parent. It is important to note that responses to these questions represent the adoptive parent’s perception of the child’s interest, not the reported interest of the child per se. Adoptive parents report that fifty-one percent of children who have contact with their birth mothers are interested in maintaining contact, while only 16 percent of those who do not have contact are interested in establishing contact. Contact with a birth father is a rare occurrence for adopted children in this sample. Only 7 percent have any contact with their birth father, and only 23 percent know his name. For those children who do have contact with their birth father, the contact is likely to be seldom or infrequent. If contact with a birth father is maintained, it is likely to be via telephone (38.5 percent), letter or photographs (46.2 percent), or face-to-face (5 1.9 percent). Adoptive parents report that 42 percent of adopted children who have contact with their birth fathers are interested in maintaining contact, and only 13 percent of those who do not have contact are interested in establishing contact (Table 1).

Avery

70

Adopted Child’s Knowledge

Table 1 of, and Contact With, Birth Mother and Father

T

1

Birth Mother

Birth Father

Descriptor

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Child has contact with: no contact at all some contact not applicable*

313 123 307

42.1 16.6 41.3

360 52 331

48.5 7.0 44.5

252 300 191

33.9 40.4 25.7

354 174 215

47.6 23.4 29.1

65 39 5 11

52.8 31.7 4.1 8.9

26 14 3 9

50.0 26.9 5.8 17.3

2

1.6

0

0.0

1

0.8

0

0.0

Type of contact if it exists (N=123 birth mothers, N=52 birth fathers):** telephone letter/photographs face-to-face word of mouth

58 58 65 18

47.2 47.2 52.8 14.6

20 24 27 10

38.5 46.2 51.9 19.2

Adoptive parent’s perception of child’s interest in maintaining contact if it exists (N=123 birth mothers, N=52 birth fathers): no interest some interest uncertain

44 63 16

35.8 51.2 13.0

30 22 0

57.7 42.3 0.0

Child knows the name of his/her: no yes not applicable* How frequent is this contact if it exists (N=123 birth mothers, N=52 birth fathers): seldom regular, but not often frequent other (i.e., special occasions) used to be contact, not anymore contact now, probably not in future

(Table continued on next page)

Information Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

71

Table 1 Continued

Although child has no current contact with birth parent (N=3 13 birth mothers, N=360 birth fathers), adoptive parent’s perception of child’s interest in having contact in the future : 262 83.7 I 312 I 86.7 no interest 51 16.3 48 13.3 some interest Too young, child mentally retarded, birth parent deceased, or birth parent unknown. **More than one type could be specified.

Further multivariate analyses were undertaken to determine whether contact with birth parents, and adoptive parent’s perceptions of the adoptive child’s interest in maintaining such contact, could be explained by child, adoptive parent, or adoptive family characteristics (Tables 2 and 3). Results of this analysis indicate that white children and children of an “other” race are significantly more likely to have contact with both their birth mothers and fathers, and children involved in a first adoption for the family are significantly more likely to have contact with their birth mothers. Children with more educated adoptive parents are significantly less likely to have contact with either a birth mother or father (Table 2). Older children are significantly more likely to want to maintain contact with a birth mother. Children who live in a home with other foster or adopted children and children who are involved in a first adoption for the family are significantly less likely to want to maintain contact with a birth mother. None of the predictor variables were significant in explaining adopted children’s interest in maintaining contact with a birth father (Table 3).

Avery

72

Table 2 Regression Explaining Child’s Contact with Birth Mother/Father’

T

T

Birth Mother

Birth Father

Predictor Variables

Coefficient

Intercept

0.321**

0.131

-0.025

0.092

0.004 -0.003

0.002 0.027

-0.001 -0.014

0.001 0.019

0.163** 0.099**

0.072 0.050

0.103** 0.072**

0.050 0.035

-0.029 -0.000

0.036 0.001

0.030 0.001

0.025 0.001

-0.094 -0.078

0.073 0.072

-0.048 -0.027

0.05 1 0.05 1

-0.018 -0.036

0.044 0.048

0.008 -0.04 1

0.03 1 0.034

-0.030

0.030

-0.000

0.021

-.253** -.296** -.281** -.245**

0.061 0.064 0.064 0.067

-0.059 -0.055 -0.043 -0.085*

0.043 0.045 0.045 0.047

0.025 0.021 0.013

0.040 0.015 0.044

0.029 0.012 -0.002

0.028 0.011 0.03 1

0.08 1

0.058

-0.002

0.040

Child characteristics Age (in years) Gender (male) Race: white other Adoptive parent characteristics: Gender of adoptive parent (male) Age of adoptive parent (in years) Race of adoptive parent: white other Adoptive parent is employed: employed professionally employed nonprofessionally Adoptive parent is member of adoptive parent group Education of adoptive parent: high school some college college degree graduate degree

Characteristics of adoptive family: Family is a single-parent family Number of children in the home Family is a dual-earner family Family has other foster/adopted children in home

Standar Error

Coefficient

Standard Error

(Table continued on next page)

Information

73

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

Table 2 (continued)

Characteristics of the adoption: This is an interracial adoption This is an international adoption This is a public agency adoption Child lived as foster child in home before adoption This is a first adoption

0.016 -0.114 -0.085

0.058 0.040 0.032

0.043 -0.034 0.007

0.04 1 0.028 0.022

-0.020 0.092*

0.035 0.05 1

0.023 0.006

0.024 0.036

N F-value Adjusted R2

743 565 2.71** 0.165 0.069 .. .. . Sample restricted to only those children who COUMpotenttatty nave contact, I.e., not tnose who are too young, mentally retarded, or in situations where the parent is unknown or deceased. *Coeficient significant at the .I0 level. ** Coeflcient sign$icant at the .05 level.

Parental

attitudes

toward

open adoption

records

For all further analyses adoptive parents were classified by gender, regardless of whether they had self-designated themselves as either “adoptive patent” or “spouse/partner.” Eighty-four percent of adoptive mothers and 73 percent of adoptive fathers in the sample either agree or strongly agree that an adult adoptee should be able to obtain a copy of his/her original birth certificate. Only 9 percent of adoptive mothers and 11 percent of adoptive fathers disagree or strongly disagree with this statement (Table 4). Forty percent of adoptive mothers and 32 percent of adoptive fathers think that access to birth certificates should be made available at age 18, but an equal number of both adoptive mothers (44 percent) and adoptive fathers (42 percent) think that access to birth certificates should be reserved until age 21. Seventy-nine percent of adoptive mothers and 66 percent of adoptive fathers think that such access should be retroactive.

Avery

74

Table 3 Regression explaining adoptive parent’s perception of child’s interest in maintaining contact with birth mother/father’

Birth Father

Birth Mother

Predictor Variables

Coefficient

standard Error

Coefilcient

standard Error

Intercept

0.110

0.341

-0.411

0.341

Child characteristics Age (in years) Gender (male) Race: white other

0.036** 0.036 0.175 0.283

0.007 0.086 0.197 0.180

-0.005 0.129 0.850 0.665

0.007 0.086 0.197 0.180

-0.126 0.003 -0.157 0.094

0.128 0.005 0.196 0.191

-0.280 0.011 -0.996 -0.568

0.128 0.005 0.196 0.191

0.015 0.035

0.143 0.156

-0.364 0.081

0.143 0.156

0.100

0.094

-0.152

0.094

0.022 0.120 -0.050 0.077

0.144 0.168 0.164 0.166

0.143 -0.351 0.333 0.190

0.144 0.168 0.164 0.166

-0.103 -0.017 0.050

0.124 0.058 0.135

0.273 0.142 -0.013

0.124 0.058 0.135

-0.307*

0.166

0.163

0.166

-0.05 1 0.195 0.046

0.150 0.145 0.121

0.284 -0.080 0.433

0.150 0.145 0.121

Adoptive parent characteristics Gender of adoptive parent (male) Age of adoptive parent (in years) Race of adoptive parent: white other Adoptive parent is employed: employed professionally employed nonprofessionally Adoptive parent is a member of an adoptive parent group Education of adoptive parent: high school some college college degree graduate degree Characteristics of adoptive family: Family is a single-parent family Number of children in the home Family is a dual-earner family Family has other foster/adopted children in the home Characteristics of the adoption: This is an interracial adoption This is an international adoption This is a public agency adoption

(Table continued on next page)

Information

75

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

Table 3 continued Child lived as a foster child in the home before the adoption This is a first adoption N F-value Adjusted R*

0.020

0.128

-0.515

0.128

-0.305**

0.134

-0.335

0.134

330 2.88** 0.511

300 1.04 0.423

“Sample restricted to only those children who could potentially have contact, i.e., not those who are too young, mentally retarded, or in situations where the parent is unknown or deceased. *Coefficient significant at the .lO level. ** Coefficient significant at the .05 level

Multivariate

analyses

Parents’ responses to the three questionnaire statements may be viewed as reflecting various aspects of parental “openness” to the disclosure of information in adoption. To capture this concept, responses to the three statements were coded on a scale (-2 to +2), with negative numbers indicating less openness (disagree/strongly disagree) and positive numbers reflecting more openness (agreektrongly agree) on these dimensions. A test for internal consistency of these three measures (Chronbach’s alpha = .81) indicated that it was appropriate to construct a summary variable to reflect the overall openness of parents to the notion that their adopted children have the right to information about their birth parent(s). This variable was constructed as the sum of the scores on the three individual statement responses (range for this variable is -6 through +6). Univariate means on the individual and summary openness scores are presented in Table 5. These results indicate that, compared to adoptive fathers, adoptive mothers are significantly more open to the notion of allowing an adopted child access to his or her birth certificate, and believe that such access should be retroactive. In addition, adoptive mothers are more inclined to think access should be made available to a child at 18 rather than 21 years of age.

Avery

76

Table 4 Adoptive parent’s attitudes toward openness in adoption

Adoptive mother Statement”

Adoptive I father Percent

New York State law should allow adult adoptees to obtain a copy of their birth certificates: strongly agree agree somewhat undecided disagree somewhat strongly disagree

64.3 19.4 7.3 3.8 5.0

50.8 21.8 7.7 4.1 6.6

At what age should an adopted person have access to his/her original birth certificate? age 18 age 21 other

39.2 44.3 15.3

31.6 42.0 16.0

An adult adoptee’s right to obtain an original birth certificate should be retroactive. In other words, all adult adoptees should have access regardless of when they were adopted: strongly agree agree somewhat undecided disagree somewhat strongly disagree

60.2 18.7 6.7 5.1 8.2

49.2

Total

716

558

16.8 8.3 6.6 9.6

4 small number of adoptive parents failed to respond to ese closed-e] :d statements, or their responses were illegible, resulting in percentages not summing to 100. Some adoptive parents wrote alternative statements supporting their intended response. These are available from the author upon request.

Information

Descriptive

77

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

Table 5 Statistics on Openness Measures by Gender

Adoptive Father

Adoptive Mother

Mean

Standard Deviation

Mean

Standard Deviation

Response: strongly agree to strongly disagreea

1.32**

1.09

1.09**

1.19

At what age should an adult adopted person have access to his/her original birth certificate? Resuonse: 18,21, otherb

0.02**

1.09

-0.12**

1.02

An adult adoptee’s right to obtain an original birth certificate should be retroactive. In other words, all adult adoptees should have access regardless of when they were adopted: Resnonse: strongly agree to strongly disagreeC

1.16**

1.25

0.91**

1.34

Openness scored

2.49**

2.70

1.89**

2.81

Total

716

Statement New York State law should allow adult adoptees to obtain a copy of their birth certificates:

558

zive point scale ran from +2=strongly agree to -2=strongly d agree. zive point scale +2= younger than 18 to -2= over 21. ‘Five point scale ran from +2=strongly agree to -2=strongly disagree. dOpenness is the sum of the scores on the three openness measures. Range on this variable is +6 to -6, with positive numbers indicating higher levels of openness. **Means are significantiy different at the .05 level.

Avery

78

Multivariate analyses were then undertaken to determine if parental attitudes toward openness in adoption can be explained by parent, child, or family characteristics (Table 6). Results indicate that older adoptive mothers are significantly more open compared to younger adoptive mothers, and those living in homes in which there are other adopted or foster children are significantly less open to the concept of information disclosure. No other individual, child, or family characteristics are significant in explaining openness in the female subsample. Results of the multivariate analysis on the male subsample indicate that male adoptive fathers living in homes in which there are other adopted or foster children and those involved in an adoption of a white child are significantly less open to the concept of information disclosure. Discussion of Results Results of this study lend support to the notion that a substantial majority of adoptive parents in New York State favor a change in state law allowing greater openness in adoption, and only a small minority still desire stateimposed secrecy laws. In addition, the majority of parents believe that a change in the law should be retroactive, covering all adopted children regardless of when they were adopted. Despite their relative openness toward information disclosure, however, the majority of adoptive parents in this study thought that access to birth certificates, and the information they contain, should be a right reserved for older (>18 years) rather than younger adults. In the written comments adoptive parents provided on the questionnaires explaining their hesitancy to suggest earlier information disclosure, many stressed that the chronological age at which the information is disclosed is not as important as the child’s ability to handle the information and have a reason for wanting it. These parents stressed that it was important to have the information at the time when the child needed it, which might not be the same age for all adoptees. Many parents offered their opinion that the state should not be involved in private matters of the family, asking that the records be made open and that they be given the responsibility of dealing with how and when the information is given to their child.5

’ A summary of these written responses

is available from the author on request.

Information

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

79

Table 6 Regression of Openness Score on Parent, Child, and Family Characteristics Adoptive Parent

by Gender of

Adoptive Mother

Adoptive Father

Explanatory variable

Coefficient

Standard Error

Coeffcient

Standard Error

Intercept

2.17**

0.98

3.26**

1.25

0.02** 0.07 -0.11

0.01 0.54 0.53

0.01 0.95 0.41

0.01 0.62 0.74

0.10 0.38

0.35 0.39

-0.63 -0.17

0.46 0.43

-0.04

0.23

-0.08

0.26

0.03 -0.22 -0.28 0.03

0.46 0.49 0.49 0.52

-0.28 -0.66 -0.80 -0.43

0.59 0.61 0.61 0.62

0.32 -0.00 -0.39

0.32 0.11 0.36

0.02 -0.13 -0.05

0.66 0.13 0.27

-0.69**

0.43

-1.05**

0.57

-0.00 -0.38 -0.41 -0.01

0.03 0.53 0.38 0.20

0.05 -1.52** -0.56 -0.04

0.04 0.62 0.45 0.24

0.42 0.30 0.24

-0.81 0.15 -0.08

0.53 0.36 0.29

0.26 0.38

0.07 -0.67

0.31 0.52

Characteristics of adoptive parent: Age of parent (in years) Race of parent: white other Parent is employed employed professionally employed nonprofessionally Parent is a member of an adoptive parent group Education of parent high school some college college degree graduate degree Characteristics of adoptive family: Family is a single parent family Number of children in the home Family is a dual earner family Family has other adopted/foster children in the home Characteristics of the adopted child: Age at which child was adopted Race of the adopted child: white other Gender of adopted child (male)

Characteristics of the adoption: This is an interracial adoption -0.06 This is an international adoption 0.13 This is a public agency adoption 0.29 Child lived as a foster child in the home before the adoption 0.05 This is a first adoption -0.23

(Table continued on next page)

Avery

80

Table 6 continued N

743

531

F-value AdjustedR2

130**

1.37 0.055

0.056

**Coefficient is significant at the .05 level.

Adoptive mothers, especially older adoptive mothers, were found to be more open to the concept of information disclosure than adoptive fathers in this study. Older adoptive mothers might be less likely to be threatened by the presence of a birth parent in the life of their adopted child, or might be less likely to be adopting as a replacement for natural child birth. Interestingly, parents who have had prior experience with adoption and foster care (parents who have other adopted or foster children living in the home) were found to be far less open to information disclosure in adoption. Perhaps the complexity of having to deal with multiple birth families is a complicating factor for these parents, or prior negative experiences in interaction with birth parents conditioned their attitudes toward openness in the current adoption. Open adoptions were practiced in only a minority of adoptions in this study, and even when contact with a birth parent does exist, it is likely to be seldom or irregular. Although 40 percent of adopted children in the sample know the names of their birth mothers and 23 percent know the names of their birth fathers, only 17 percent have some contact with their birth mothers, and 7 percent have any contact with birth fathers. Despite the relatively low levels of contact, adoptive parent’s perceptions of the adoptive child’s interest in maintaining ties with the birth family was high for children in this sample. The majority of children (51 percent) who do have contact with a birth mother were interested in maintaining the contact, and 42 percent of them were interested in maintaining contact with a birth father when it exists. An interesting finding from the study is that, while contact with a birth mother is far more likely for adopted children in this sample (17 percent have contact with a birth mothers compared to only 7 percent having contact with a birth father), when contact does exist it is equally as likely to be regular or frequent with a birth father and birth mother (36 percent for mother contact compared to 33 percent for father contact). Another interesting finding was that openness in adoption practice differed by race of the adopted child, education of adoptive parent, and adoptive parent’s prior experience with fostering or adoption. Study results indicate that

Information Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

81

white adopted children and those of an “other” race are far more likely to have contact with both their birth mother and birth father than black/African American children. Children adopted by more educated parents are far less likely to have any contact with a birth parent. Furthermore, children involved in a first adoption for the family were far more likely to have contact with a birth mother, but they were far less interested in maintaining that contact. Reasons for the observed differences in open adoption practices by race, parental education and adoption status offer fruitful areas for future research but could not be addressed in this study. As may be expected, older children were far more interested in maintaining such contact. However, the presence of other adopted or foster children in the home appear to significantly reduce a child’s interest in maintaining contact with his or her birth mother.

Conclusions The underlying questions of importance are whether state-imposed secrecy is appropriate and whether state-imposed confidentiality serves the best interests of all parties involved. In this study the opinions of adoptive parents were sought to provide one perspective on this issue. In interpreting the results of this study it is important to note that, while adoptive parents in New York State overwhelmingly support openness in adoption records, state policy remains supportive of confidentiality which primarily protects birth parents in these adoptions. Further research should attempt to determine adopted child’s and birth parents’ attitudes toward open adoption records and birth parent contact. Free and fair access to nonidentifying information in adoption records would not violate either birth- or adoptive-parents’ rights and should be, in the author’s opinion, an automatic right of adopted children in the nation as it would serve the best interests of all parties involved, without rights’ violation, state intervention and lengthy court proceedings. Nonidentifying information should be easily obtainable by an adopted child without laying the burden of demonstrating “good cause” demonstration on the adopted child. The release of such information in no way jeopardizes the privacy rights of birth parents and would be a large step toward untangling the states’ control over essentially personal information. Although it is acknowledged that a perfect adoption records statute is impossible to achieve, states should at least attempt to find the best solution for the greatest number of people. Kuhns (1994) says in this regard:

82

Avery

A birth record statute that sufficiently addresses the interests of all parties involved must balance these interests within the current social context. The statute should not presuppose that adoptees and biological parents are adversaries in this controversy. Rather, an ideal statute would recognize that a substantial majority of members of the adoption process favor openness and only a small minority still desire state-imposed secrecy. (p. 284) Changing state statutes to reflect a presumption in favor of disclosure of nonidentifying information would be a significant step toward upholding an adoptee’s right to information and to moving the control of family matters back into the family unit. A truly fair state statute, however, must give birth parents a voice regarding disclosure of information that is essentially privute to them as individuals (names and personal history) and the right to maintain the integrity of the life they have assumed since relinquishing the child. The questions remain, what is the role of the states in facilitating a meeting between members of the adoption triad, and what is the appropriate mechanism for releasing confidential information that has been entrusted to the state? It appears that the time lapse between when adoption records are sealed and when identifying information is desired by adoptees plays a major role in both the ease with which contact may be reestablished between adoptees and their birth parents, and the integrity of the assumption that birth parents wish to remain anonymous to their birth children. Changes in state statutes to facilitate defucto open adoptions, would relieve the state of the responsibility of adjudicating issues of conflicting personal interests in situations where information is incomplete. The fact is that the best interests of both birth parents and children can be served only on a case-specific basis, not through global statutes based on outdated assumptions. Each adoption is unique, and the situations of both adopted children and birth parents change radically over time. Relational situations that are appropriate when the child is still in infancy and childhood may not be optimal for either party at a later stage of development. Changing state statutes to reflect a presumption of openness in adoption, presenting all parties involved with full information with respect to their legal rights and responsibilities toward the adopted child, both now and in the future, would at least give all parties involved a legal right and the option to exercise it, both at the time of relinquishment and at a future date. The focus of all statutory efforts should be the best interests of the child, throughout his or her developmental stages. Without calling into question the integrity and irrevocability of the adoption, contact and visitation should be subject to ongoing negotiation by those intimately involved with, and informed about, the child and his or her needs

Information

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

83

(adoptive parent, child, social worker, and birth parent), and only in the case of necessity or dispute should there be adjudication and mediation by the courts. Examples of openness statutes in Washington, Ohio and Illinois provide encouraging models for change. Although such statutes are still in their infancy and might require some refinements and clarifications, they have contributed significantly to a shift in focus of attention away from secrecy and confidentiality toward a true focus on service in the child’s best interest.

References Barth, R. P., & Berry, M. (1988). Adoption and disruption: Rates, risks, and responses. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Belbas, N. F. (1986). Staying in touch: Ernparhy in open adoptions (Working Paper). Northhampton, MA: Smith College, School of Social Work. Berry, M. ( 199 1a). The effects of open adoption on biological and adoptive parents and children: The arguments and the evidence. Child Welfare, 70,637-65 1. Berry, M. (1991b). The practice of open adoption: Findings from a study of 1,396 adoptive families. Children and Youth Services Review, 13, 379-395. Berry, M. (1993). Adoptive parents’ perceptions of, and comfort with, open adoption. Child Welfare, 72, 23 l-252. Blanton, T. L., & Deschner, J. (1990). Biological mothers’ grief: The postadoptive experience in open versus confidential adoption. Child Welfare, 69,525-535. Byrd, A. D. (1988). The case for confidential adoption. Public Welfare, 46(4), 20-23. Carp, E. W. (1992). Adoption disclosure of family information: A historical perspective. Child Welfare, 74,217-239. Churchman, D. (1986). The debate over open adoption. Public Welfare, 44, 1 l14. Connelly, S. M. (199 1). The need for disclosure laws: A survey of the wrongfuladoption cause of action and statutory remedies for adoption fraud. Review of Litigation, 10, 793-821. Crane, A. E. (1987). Unsealing adoption records: The right to know versus the right to privacy. In 1986 annual survey of American law, Vol. 2 (pp. 645-666). New York: New York University School of Law. DeWoody, M. (1993). Adoption and disclosure of medical and social history: A review of the law. Child Welfare, 72, 195-218. Dickson, J. H. (1991). The emerging rights of adoptive parents: Substance or Spector? UCLA Law Review, 38,917-990. Dukette, R. (1984). Value issues in present-day adoption. Child Welfare, LXZZZ(3), 233-243.

84

Avery

Etter, J. (1993). Levels of cooperation and satisfaction in 56 open adoptions. Child Welfare, 72,257-267. Feigelman, W., & Silverman, A. R. (1986). Adoptive parents, adoptees, on the sealed record controversy. Social Casework, 67,219-226. Goldenhersh, J. (1992). Adoption agency may be held liable for misrepresentation to adoptive parents. Family Law Reporter, 18, 1223-1224. Grotevant, H. D., McRoy, R. G., Elde, C. L. , & Fravel, D. L. (1994). Adoptive family system dynamics: Variations by level of openness in the adoption. Family Process, 33(2), 125 146. Gustavsson, N. S. (1995). “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and child welfare. Social Work, 40(6), 815-817. Hafemeister, T. L. (1994). Current legal issues in adoption. State Court Journal, 18(l), 11-14. Hollinger, J. H. (1990). Aftermath of adoption: Legal and social consequences. In J. H. Hollinger (Ed.), Adoption law and practice. New York: Matthew Bender. Katz, L. (1990). Effective permanency planning for children in foster care. Social Work, 35(3), 220-226. Kaye, K., & Warren, S. (1988). Discourse about adoption in adoptive families. Journal of Family Psychology, I, 406-433. Kopels, S. (1995). Wrongful adoption: Litigation and liability. Families in Society, 76(l), 20-29. Kuhns, J. (1994). The sealed adoption records controversy: Breaking down the walls of secrecy. Golden Gate University Law review, 24(l), 259-297. Lambert, W., & Moses, J. M. (1991, October 30). Couple gets $3.8 million in adoption suit. The Wall Street Journal, p. B6. Lum, B. W. Y. (1993). Privacy v. secrecy: The open adoption records movement and its impact on Hawai’i. University of Hawai’i Law Review, IS(l), 483-522. Maley, J. R. (1987). Wrongful adoption: Monetary damages as a superior remedy to annulment for adoptive parents victimized by adoption fraud. Indiana Law Review, 20,709-734. McRoy, R. G., & Grotevant, H. D. (1988). Open adoption: Practice and policy issues. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 6, 119- 132. McRoy, R. G., Grotevant, H. D., & White, K. L. (1988). Openness in adoption: New practices, new issues. New York: Praeger. National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. (1996). Access to adoption records. Rockville, MD: Author. National Committee for Adoption. (1996). On the con$dentiality of adoption records. Washington, DC: Author. National Council for Adoption. (1992). Unpublished summary tables from report on state adoption laws. Washington, DC: Author. Nelson, K. (1985). On the frontier of adoption: A study of special-needs adoptive families. New York: Child Welfare League of America. North American Council on Adoptable Children (1996). The child advocate’s legal guide. St. Paul: Author.

Information

Disclosure and Openness in Adoption

Rompf, E. L. (1993). Open adoption:

85

What does the “average person” think?

Child Welfare, 72,219-230.

Sachdev, P. (1989). Unlocking the adoption files. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Siegel, D. H. (1993). Open adoption of infants: Adoptive parents’ perceptions of advantages and disadvantages. Social Work, 38(l), 15-23. Silber, K., & Dorner, P. M. (1989). Children of open adoption. San Antonio, TX: Corona Publishing. Van Bueren, G. (1995). Children’s access to adoption records - State discretion or an enforceable international right? The Modern Law Review, 58(l), 37-53. Woo, J. (1992, July 9). Adoption suits target agencies for negligence. Wall Street Journal, p. B 1.