DOCSLIB.ORG

Strengthening New York's Protection for Unwed Mothers Michelle Cucuzza

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strengthening New York's Protection for Unwed Mothers Michelle Cucuzza Brooklyn Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 3 Article 5 3-1-1995 The niU form Adoption Act: Strengthening New York's Protection for Unwed Mothers Michelle Cucuzza Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Michelle Cucuzza, The Uniform Adoption Act: Strengthening New York's Protection for Unwed Mothers, 61 Brook. L. Rev. 931 (1995). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol61/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. NOTES THE UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT: STRENGTHENING NEW YORKS PROTECTION FOR UNWED MOTHERS" INTRODUCTION Adoption establishes a legal relationship of child and par- ent between persons who are not related biologically.' Simul- taneously, adoption severs any legal relationship between the adopted child and his or her biological parents, thereby termi- nating all the biological parents' rights and responsibilities associated with the child.2 Because the federal government traditionally has refrained from interfering in domestic rela- tions,' no federal adoption statute exists.' The creation of ' This article is limited to the unique situation of unwed birth mothers who, unlike many married couples, are considered more suspectable to coercion, fraud, and duress because they are often young and extremely vulnerable to societal, fa- milial, and financial pressures to place their children up for adoption. Jane A. Robert, Parental Consent The Need for an Informed Decision in the Private Adop- tion Scheme, 47 LA. L. REV. 889, 895 (1987). 1 N.Y. DoM. REL. LAW § 110 (IMcKinney 1988). See also Dennis T. v. Joseph C., 82 A.D.2d 125, 128, 441 N.Y.S.2d 476, 479 (2d Dept 1981) ("Adoption is the legal proceeding whereby a person takes another person into the relation of [a] child .... "); ROBERT A. FARmER, How TO ADOPT A CHILD 7 (2d ed. 1968). 2 N.Y. DoM. REL. LAW § 117(1)(a) (McKinney 1988) ("After the making of an order of adoption the natural parents of the adoptive child shall be relieved of all parental duties toward and of all responsibilities for and shall have no rights over such adoptive child"). Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 257 (1983) (explaining that state laws tra- ditionally govern a multitude of parent-child relationships including child custody and adoption). ' More than a decade ago, a congressional effort to draft a uniform adoption BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 61: 931 adoption law and regulation of the adoption process is entirely within the discretion of the individual states.5 Although New York has designed its adoption scheme to promote and protect the best interests of the child,' in the last two decades unwed mothers have bombarded New York courts with adoption challenges seeking to undo finalized placements on the theory that the adoptions violated their parental rights.7 Many unwed birth mothers challenge adoptions on act failed and it is highly unlikely that Congress will succeed in enacting a federal adoption statute in the near future. See Mark Hansen, Fears of the Heart, 80 A.B . J. 58, 62 (Nov. 1994). 6 Although state legislatures draft and implement adoption statutes, federal constitutional limits circumscribe the states' discretion. In fact, adoption statute provisions have been declared unconstitutional on more than one occasion. See, e.g., In re Raquel Marie, 76 N.Y.2d 387, 559 N.E.2d 418, 559 N.Y.S.2d 928, cert. denied, 489 U.S. 984 (1990) (holding that New York Domestic Relations Law § lll-e, which required unwed fathers to openly live with the unwed mothers for six months prior to an adoption in order to veto the adoption, violated Equal Protec. tion); see also, Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1980) (holding that a sex-based distinction in New York Domestic Relation Law § 111, which authorized unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, to withhold consent to their child's adoption, violated Equal Protection); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) (holding that an Illinois statute, which automatically terminated unwed fathers' parental rights without a hearing upon the death of children's mother, violated Due Process and Equal Protection). ' See N.Y. DOM. REL. LAW § 114 (McKinney 1988) ("If satisfied that the best interests of the adoptive child will be promoted thereby, the judge . shall make an order approving the adoption."). In re Amanda B., 206 A.D.2d 636, 614 N.Y.S.2d 607 (3d Dep't 1994); In re Female R. 202 A.D.2d 672, 609 N.Y.S.2d 295 (2d Dep't 1994); In re Baby Girl J., 192 A.D.2d 533, 595 N.Y.S.2d 816 (2d Dep't 1993); In re Ricardo N., 195 A.D.2d 559, 600 N.Y.S.2d 730 (2d Dep't), appeal denied, 82 N.Y.2d 661, 625 N.E.2d 591, 605 N.Y.S.2d 6 (1993); In re Adoption of Baby Boy "B"., 163 A.D.2d 673, 558 N.Y.S.2d 281 (3d Dep't), appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 710, 564 N.E.2d 672, 536 N.Y.S.2d 62 (1990); In re Adoption of Samuel, 167 A.D. 2d 909, 562 N.Y.S.2d 278 (4th Dep't 1990), appeal granted, 77 N.Y.2d 804, 571 N.E.2d 82, 568 N.Y.S.2d 912 (1991); In re Ricky AA., 146 A.D.2d 433, 541 N.Y.S.2d 264 (3d Dep't 1989), affd, 75 N.Y.2d 885, 553 N.E.2d 1021, 554 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1990); Margenesy v. Manitta, 156 A.D.2d 1026, 549 N.Y.S.2d 307 (4th Dep't 1989); In re Baby Boy L., 144 A.D.2d 674, 534 N.Y.S.2d 706 (2d Dep't 1988), appeal denied, 74 N.Y.2d 606, 541 N.E.2d 427, 543 N.Y.S.2d 398, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 918 (1989); See In re Sarah K., 110 A.D.2d 18, 492 N.Y.S.2d 957 (2d Dep't) rev'd, 66 N.Y.2d 223, 487 N.E.2d 241, 496 N.Y.S.2d 384 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1108 (1986); Dennis T. v. Joseph C., 82 A.D.2d 125, 441 N.Y.S.2d 476 (2d Dep't 1981); State ex rel. Baby Girl Dunn, 133 Misc. 2d 399, 506 N.Y.S.2d 805 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 1986), reo'd, 125 A.D.2d 106, 512 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1st Dep't 1987); In re Baby Boy N., 150 Misc. 2d 535, 573 N.Y.S.2d 244 (Family Ct. N.Y. County 1991); In re Adoption of E.W.C., 89 Misc. 2d 64, 389 N.Y.S.2d 743 (Sur. Ct. Nassau County 1976); In re Anonymous (T.W.C.) N.Y.L.J. Dec. 18, 1974, p. 17 col 6, affd, 48 A.D.2d 893, 369 19951 UNIFOM ADOPTION ACT grounds that they never consented to the adoption or that their consent was obtained improperly through fraud, coercion or duress. Such adoption challenges do not serve the best interest of the child or any party involved in the adoption process8 because they have the potential to frustrate the legislature's goal of providing final, stable homes for children.' The finality of adoption placements is critical because a "continuous home environment is deemed essential to a child's development as a healthy, stable human being.""0 It is also important to finalize adoption relationships because parent- child relationships implicate other legal rights, such as the children's rights to inherit and the parties' rights to receive governmental benefits." Besides frustrating the goal of fi- nality of adoptions, adoption challenges also subject adoptive and biological parents and the child to debilitating, traumatic and expensive litigation. Compliance with New York's statutory requirements should be sufficient to guarantee that unwed birth mothers' consents are informed, voluntary and final decisions. The New York legislature has repeatedly revised the Domestic Relations Law since 1961 in order to increase protection for biological parents.' Despite these efforts, statutory compliance with the N.Y.S.2d 783 (2d Dept), affd, 38 N.Y.2d 128, 341 N.E.2d 526, 379 N.YS.2d 1 (1975). ' See generally Robin DuRocher, Balancing Competing Interests in Post-Place- nent Adoption Custody Disputes: How Do the Scales of Justice Weigh the Rights of Biological Parents, Adoptive Parents, & Children?, 15 J. LEG. LIED. 305, 306 (1994). ' See N.Y. SOC. SERV. LAW §§ 384-b(1)(a)(i-iv) & 384-b(l)(b) (MKinney 1992). The legislature finds that "children [who] grow up with a normal family lifM in a permanent home [have] . the best opportunity... to develop and thrive.! Thus "when it is clear that the natural parent cannot or will not provide a normal family home for the child ... a permanent alternative home should be sought for the child." Id. "DuRocher, supra note 8, at 330; see Janet H. Dickson, The Emerging Rights of Adoptive Parents:Substance or Specter? 38 U.C.L.A. L. REV. 917, 927 (1991). u Robert 0. v. Russell IK, 80 N.Y.2d 254, 269, 604 N.E.2d 99, 106, 590 N.Y.S.2d 37, 44 (1992) (Titone, J., concurring). See In re Baby Boy N., 150 Afisc. 2d 535, 573 N.Y.S.2d 244 (Far. Ct. N.Y. County 1991). Prior to 1961 the Domestic Relations Law provided little guidance to biological parents regarding the necessary procedures and content of adoption consents.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Perfect Substitutes Or the Real Thing?
    CAHN.DOC 10/10/03 9:37 AM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 52 APRIL 2003 NUMBER 6 PERFECT SUBSTITUTES OR THE REAL THING? NAOMI CAHN† ABSTRACT This Article traces the development of adoption law using recent scholarship in history and sociology, as well as nineteenth century le- gal sources. The early history of American adoption provides a novel and useful context to analyze the complicated relationships between “traditional” and “alternative” family forms. The Article discusses how judicial interpretations of the meaning of adoption were cabined by the traditional significance of blood relationships, and examines the treatment of adopted and biological children in three contexts: pa- rental consent to adoption, inheritance, and the civil and criminal laws governing incest. The Article argues that the challenge today, as was true more than a century ago, is how to expand the meaning of family without destabilizing families. Copyright © 2003 by Naomi Cahn. † Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. Many thanks to Anita Al- len-Castellito, Brian Bix, Wayne Carp, Richard Chused, Brad Clark, Tony Gambino, Jill Elaine Hasday, Joan Heifetz Hollinger, Carolyn Lawes, Chip Lupu, Dorothy Roberts, Catherine Ross, Elizabeth Samuels, Sonia Suter, and Robert Tuttle, to participants at a GW Faculty Workshop, and to the organizers of the 2002 American Historical Association panel on Sentimental Families. Thanks to GW for its financial support, to Mary Dini, for superb administrative expertise, and to Chelsea Grimmius, Melissa Loewenstern, Todd Melnick, Trisha Smith, and Michelle Wu for re- search assistance. Finally, as scholarship is a collaborative effort, a special note of thanks to the edi- tors of the Duke Law Journal for overcoming the difficulties of transcontinental editing.
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption Law in the United States: a Pathfinder
    Child and Family Law Journal Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 2 2014 Adoption Law In The nitU ed States: A PathFinder Glen-Peter Ahlers Sr. Follow this and additional works at: https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cflj Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Ahlers, Glen-Peter Sr. (2014) "Adoption Law In The nitU ed States: A PathFinder," Child and Family Law Journal: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cflj/vol2/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Barry Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Child and Family Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Barry Law. ADOPTION LAW IN THE UNITED STATES: A PATHFINDER Glen-Peter Ahlers, Sr.* A pathfinder is a research tool that points the way to information resources on a given topic by exploring research paths to the information.1 They identify appropriate information resources and search strategies and selectively provide and discuss guideposts along the research path.2 Typical guideposts on law-related issues include significant legislation, model statutes, court opinions, regulations, journals, books, web pages, associations, and human experts. Before beginning our research journey, we must be clear on the parameters and scope of our topic, adoption law. What is adoption law? According to Black’s Law Dictionary, adoption is the “statutory process of terminating a child’s legal rights and duties toward the natural parents and substituting similar rights and duties toward adoptive parents.”3 While most adoptions involve children, Article five of the Uniform Adoption Act4 and many states allow adults to be adopted as well.5 According to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Adopted Child's Experience in Schools and Methods to Improve
    The Adopted Child’s Experience in Schools and Methods to Improve it. Elementary Education Honor’s Thesis Emory Manguilli Wheaton College ‘17 Table of Contents Introduction………...………………………………………………………3 Literature review……..…………………………………………………….6 Interviews Analysis………………………………….…………………....16 Development of Children’s book………………………….………….….21 Development of Unit Plan……………..………………………………….29 Conclusion……………………………………….....………………...……35 Works Cited………………………………………………,,,……………..39 Appendices……………………………………...…………………………43 A. Interview Protocol……………………………………………...43 B. Interview Data………………………………………………….48 C. Children’s Book………………………………………………..62 D. Unit of Study………………….………………………………..75 2 INTRODUCTION I started my junior year at Wheaton College with an idea that I had developed the previous summer. My work with Touched By Adoption, an organization based in Connecticut that aims to “strengthen the wellbeing of families formed through adoption,” inspired this idea. The plan was to write a children’s book about adopted kids, which would incorporate different types of families and to include some type of “curriculum” with it. This curriculum and book would then be published and distributed to classrooms across the United States to give students with a non-heteronormative biological (non- traditional) living situation a sense of inclusion and acceptance. The book and curriculum would serve as a resource for teachers, who, while required to be educated in numerous areas such as special education and teaching English Language Learners (ELLs,) are not necessarily required to learn anything about the development of children from non-traditional families. As an education major, I decided to address this obvious gap in the curriculum, because it seems that non-traditional families have become the norm in our society, rather than the outlier. In the fall semester of 2015, I met with the Dean of First Year students, Jocelyn Emerson, in a typical meeting to discuss our summers.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Oklahoma Adoption Code: a Quest to Accommodate Diverse Interests
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Dedicated to the U.S. Supreme Court Fall 1997 The New Oklahoma Adoption Code: A Quest to Accommodate Diverse Interests D. Marianne Brower Blair [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation D. M. Blair, The New Oklahoma Adoption Code: A Quest to Accommodate Diverse Interests, 33 Tulsa L. J. 177 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol33/iss1/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blair: The New Oklahoma Adoption Code: A Quest to Accommodate Diverse In TULSA LAW JOURNAL Volume 33 Fall 1997 Number 1 ARTICLES THE NEW OKLAHOMA ADOPTION CODE: A QUEST TO ACCOMMODATE DIVERSE INTERESTS* D. Marianne Brower Blairt I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 178 II. JURISDICTION, CHOICE OF LAW, AND RECOGNMON ............ 183 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction .......................... 183 1. Rationale ................................... 183 2. Bases for Jurisdiction .......................... 186 3. Pending Action in Another State ................... 191 4. Effect of Prior Custody Order ..................... 192 5. Relationship of § 7502-1.1 to Other Requirements of the Adop- tion Code, ICWA, and the PKPA .................. 195 B. PersonalJurisdiction and Venue ...................... 197 C. Choice of Law ................................... 198 * OKLA. STAT. tit. 10, § 7501-1.1 to 7511-1.5. t Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law. B.A. 1974, DePauw University; J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption Law: Congratulations for Now--Current Law, the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, and Final Adoptions
    Oklahoma Law Review Volume 49 Number 2 1-1-1996 Adoption Law: Congratulations for Now--Current Law, the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, and Final Adoptions Eric C. Czerwinski Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric C. Czerwinski, Adoption Law: Congratulations for Now--Current Law, the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, and Final Adoptions, 49 OKLA. L. REV. 323 (1996), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol49/iss2/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oklahoma Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Adoption Law: Congratulations! For Now - Current Law, the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, and Final Adoptions L Introduction In 1993, Jim and Colette Rost wanted to expand their family but were unable to conceive any more children.' The Rosts opted for an open adoption, where the adoptive parents and birth parents could meet before the adoption and the birth parents would not be completely excluded from the child's life. The State of Ohio, where the Rosts lived, discourages open adoptions; therefore, the Rosts contacted an attorney in California.2 The attorney introduced the Rosts to a young, unmarried couple, Cindy Ruiz and Richard Adams, who were expecting twin girls. The two couples agreed to the adoption with the Rosts giving Ruiz $10,000 in a trust fund to cover expenses? Both Cindy Ruiz and Richard Adams signed papers consenting to the adoptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption: the Virginia Code Vs. the Uniform Adoption Act
    William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice Volume 11 (2004-2005) Issue 2 William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law: Symposium: Attrition of Women from Article 7 the Legal Profession February 2005 Unwed Fathers' Rights In Adoption: The Virginia Code vs. The Uniform Adoption Act Erin Green Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl Part of the Family Law Commons Repository Citation Erin Green, Unwed Fathers' Rights In Adoption: The Virginia Code vs. The Uniform Adoption Act, 11 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 267 (2005), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol11/iss2/ 7 Copyright c 2005 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl UNWED FATHERS' RIGHTS IN ADOPTION: THE VIRGINIA CODE vs. THE UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT It was an emotional scene: after a long custody battle, Roberta and Jan DeBoer were forced to give the child they had raised for two and a half years back to the child's birth parents. Much media attention surrounded the case of Baby Jessica, who was born to Cara Clausen on February 8, 1991.' Shortly after the birth, Clausen and Scott Seefeldt, whom Clausen named as Jessica's father, signed release of custody forms.2 Roberta and Jan DeBoer filed a petition for adoption of Jessica; Clausen and Seefeldt's parental rights to Jessica were terminated; and the DeBoers transported their new baby from Iowa to their home in Michigan Nine days after the termination of her parental rights, Clausen filed
    [Show full text]
  • Intercountry Adoptions: Are the Biological Parents' Rights Protected?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 January 2006 Intercountry Adoptions: Are the Biological Parents' Rights Protected? Cynthia Ellen Szejner Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Cynthia Ellen Szejner, Intercountry Adoptions: Are the Biological Parents' Rights Protected?, 5 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 211 (2006), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol5/iss1/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS: ARE THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS’ RIGHTS PROTECTED? INTRODUCTION The number of international adoptions has increased drastically in recent years.1 In the United States, the number of international adoptions increased from 7,093 in 1990 to nearly 22,884 in 2004.2 The international adoption phenomenon began after World War II when Americans became aware of the plight that abandoned children in Japan and Europe faced in the aftermath of the war.3 “During the 1950s, proxy adoptions, which allowed U.S. citizens to adopt in foreign courts in absentia, were the most widely publicized means of international adoption.”4 After adoptions from Japan and Europe began to slow, the Korean War created a new interest in the children of war-torn Asia.”5 Similarly, as a result of the Vietnam War, 3,267 Vietnamese children were adopted by American parents between 1963 and 1976.
    [Show full text]
  • Angels in Adoption ™
    The 2006 Congressional Angels in Adoption™ Gala Program Musical Performance Darryl DMC McDaniels Hip Hop Legend Welcome Bob Madigan, WTOP Radioʼs Man About Town Master of Ceremonies Invocation Dr. Barry C. Black Chaplain, U.S. Senate 1st Course Served Remarks from CCAI Board President The Honorable Jim Oberstar, U.S. House of Representatives Congressional Director, CCAI Message from our Premier & Founding Sponsor Maxine B. Baker President and CEO, Freddie Mac Foundation Remarks from our Event Chairs The Honorable Roy Blunt, U.S. House of Representatives and Mrs. Abigail Blunt Main Course Served Musical Performance Mark Schultz Platinum and Dove Award-Winning Artist Message from CCAI Executive Director Deanna Carlson Stacy Dessert Served Recognition of 2006 Angels in Adoption™ The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite, U.S. House of Representatives Congressional Director, CCAI Daunte Culpepper Miami Dolphins Quarterback The Honorable Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senate Congressional Director, CCAI Invisible Children Documentary and Grassroots Movement The Honorable Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Congressional Director, CCAI Darryl DMC McDaniels Hip Hop Legend of RUN DMC CCAI Would Like to Thank Thank You Premier and Founding Sponsor to the following for providing in-kind gifts and donating their valuable time and services ABC’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition AdoptUsKids and the Advertising Council, Inc. Air Tran Airlines Gold Sponsors America World Adoption Association Chevron Barbara Walzer and Harmonious Endeavors Fluor Corporation Capitol Services, Inc. Rollin M. Gerstacker Foundation Continental Airlines Target Courteney Holden Washington Group International CVS/pharmacy Silver Sponsors Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption Altria Group, Incorporated DEMDACO Cruise Industry Charitable Foundation Dorie Thompson Diageo DTE Dow Chemical Company Enchanted Strings Ensemble Duke Energy Family Christian Stores Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption Freddie Mac Foundation Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2003 Congressional Awards Celebration
    A Celebration of those Committed Individuals Making a Difference in the Lives of Children and Families September 30, 2003 Washington, DC AngelsTHE 2003 CONGRESSIONAL in TM AWAdoptionARDS CELEBRATION Each year,the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, CCAI, invites Members of Congress to recognize those individuals who have made a difference in the lives of children and families through adoption by giving them the Congressional Angels in AdoptionTM Award. CCAI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to raising awareness about the tens of thousands of foster children in this country and the millions of orphans around the world in need of permanent, safe, and loving homes; and to eliminating the barriers that hinder these children from realizing their basic need of a family. AngelsTHE 2003 CONGRESSIONAL in AdoptionTM AWARDS CELEBRATION Welcome Tom Jarriel ABCNEWS Anchor, 20/20 Correspondent Message from the Director Kerry Marks Hasenbalg Executive Director, CCAI Message from Event Sponsor Maxine B. Baker President and CEO, Freddie Mac Foundation, Founding & Premier Sponsor Musical Performance Nicole Yonkosky God Bless America 2001 Angel in Adoption™ Award Recipient Invocation Barry Black Chaplain of the United States Senate Presentation of National Congressman Jim Oberstar and Angels in AdoptionTM Award Congressman Dave Camp to Muhammad and Lonnie Ali Presentation of National Senator Larry Craig and Angels in AdoptionTM Award Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to Bruce Willis Special Musical Performance Steven Curtis Chapman
    [Show full text]
  • At a Glance: Adoptees' Right to Know •Fi the Decades-Long Battle for Unsealing Adoption Records
    Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 5-1-2013 At A Glance: Adoptees' Right to Know – The Decades-Long Battle for nseU aling Adoption Records Rotem Peretz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship Recommended Citation Peretz, Rotem, "At A Glance: Adoptees' Right to Know – The eD cades-Long Battle for nU sealing Adoption Records" (2013). Law School Student Scholarship. 284. https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/284 I. INTRODUCTION In New Jersey, the average individual need only complete three steps to obtain his or her birth certificate: identify name, as well as date and place of birth, provide identification, such as a copy of a valid driver’s license (even a simple combination of bank statement and school ID would suffice), and pay a $25 fee.1 Of course, Vital Statistics has an entire page dedicated to walking individuals through the process, as simple as it may be. As for adoptees, Vital Statistics has one simple message: “When the adoption is placed on file with the Office of Vital Statistics and Registry, the original birth certificate and all documents related to the adoption are placed under seal. This seal can only be broken by court order.”2 As one reads on, it will soon become apparent that breaking the seal via court order is no easy endeavor. Still, such has been the life of most adoptees for the better part of the twentieth century. This paper seeks to provide an overview of the “right to know” movement – adoptees’ legal and political fight to freely obtain copies of their original birth certificates, learn the names of their biological parents, and any other such information contained in state-sealed adoption records.
    [Show full text]
  • Division of Children and Family Services
    Agency # 016.15 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES FAMILY SERVICES POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL Contents I. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DIVISION OVERVIEW II. SERVICES TO ASSESS FAMILY STRENGTHS AND NEEDS III. SERVICES CASE OPENING IV. SERVICES CASE PLAN AND STAFFING V. SERVICES TO PRESERVE FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES VI. SERVICES TO REUNIFY FAMILIES VII. SERVICES TO SUPPORT FOSTER PARENTS VIII. SERVICES TO PROVIDE OTHER PERMANENT LIVING SITUATIONS IX. SERVICES ACCOUNTABILITY X. SPECIAL SERVICES XI. DCFS EDUCATIONAL LEAVE AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE APPENDIX: I. GLOSSARY II. ADOPTIONS III. PERIODICITY SCHEDULES FOR HEALTH CARE IV. LAWS V. RECORD RETENTION SCHEDULE VI. RECORD ORDER/RECORD FILE ORDER (FAMILY FOSTER HOMES) VII. CASE RECORD ORDER (OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT) VIII. PROTOCOL FOR FAMILY SERVICE WORKERS – Responding to Methamphetamine and Meth Lab Exposure of Children IX. FOSTER HOME RECRUITMENT AND APPROVAL FLOW CHART FSPP TABLE OF CONTENTS 08/24/2006 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DIVISION OVERVIEW ________________________ I-1 POLICY (I-A): PHILOSOPHY AND MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES _________________________________________________________________________I-1 POLICY (I-B): FAMILY SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM___________________________________________I-2 POLICY (I-C): DIVISION’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE _____________________________________I-3 POLICY (I-D): OFFICIAL RECORD KEEPING ___________________________________________________I-4 POLICY (I-E) COMPLIANCE WITH
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Child-Centric Approach to Revocation of Birthparent Consent in Domestic Infant Adoption
    WHOSE RIGHTS SHOULD PREVAIL? TOWARD A CHILD-CENTRIC APPROACH TO REVOCATION OF BIRTHPARENT CONSENT IN DOMESTIC INFANT ADOPTION * DAVID L. THIBODEAUX INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................344 I. ADOPTION IN GENERAL .........................................................................346 II. THE HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE ................................................................348 III. POLICY CONCERNS: COMPETING INTERESTS AND RIGHTS OF THE VARIOUS ACTORS ........................................................................352 A. Birthparents’ Interests.............................................................353 B. Adoptive Parents’ Interests .....................................................356 C. The Interests of the Child........................................................358 IV. CURRENT STATUTES GOVERNING INFANT ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES .........................................................................................362 A. Liberal Construction of Consent and Revocation ...................364 B. States That Have Adopted a Quasi-Uniform Adoption Act Approach ...............................................................................365 C. Narrow Construction of Consent and Revocation...................366 D. Other Approaches ...................................................................367 V. PROPOSAL: WHICH STATUTORY SCHEME IS “LEAST DETRIMENTAL” TO THE CHILD’S INTERESTS?.............................................................368
    [Show full text]