DOCSLIB.ORG

The Sealed Adoption Records Controversy in Historical Perspective: the Case of the Children's Home Society of Washington, 1895-1988

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Sealed Adoption Records Controversy in Historical Perspective: the Case of the Children's Home Society of Washington, 1895-1988 The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Volume 19 Issue 2 June Article 5 May 1992 The Sealed Adoption Records Controversy in Historical Perspective: The Case of the Children's Home Society of Washington, 1895-1988 E. Wayne Carp Pacific utherL an University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw Part of the Social Work Commons Recommended Citation Carp, E. Wayne (1992) "The Sealed Adoption Records Controversy in Historical Perspective: The Case of the Children's Home Society of Washington, 1895-1988," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 19 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol19/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you by the Western Michigan University School of Social Work. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Sealed Adoption Records Controversy in Historical Perspective: The Case of the Children's Home Society of Washington, 1895-1988* E. WAYNE CARP Pacific Lutheran University Department of History *Iwould like to thank Charlie Langdon and D. Sharon Osborne, past and present Executive Directors of the Children's Home Society of Washing- ton (CHSW), for permission to use the CHSW's case records, and Randy Perin, Supervisor of the CHSW's Adoption Resource Center, whose en- thusiasm for this project has been inspirational. I am also grateful to Roger W. Toogood, Executive Director of the Children's Home Society of Minnesota (CHSM), and Marietta E. Spencer, Program Director, Post-Legal Adoption Services, CHSM, for permitting me access to the Society's case records. I would also like to thank Paula Shields, George Behlmer, Ruth Bloch, Clarke A. Chambers, Paula S. Fass, Ray Jonas, William I. Rorabaugh, and Eugene Sheridan for their thoughtful com- ments on earlier drafts of this paper. This paper samples the 21,000 adoption case records of the Children's Home Society of Washington between 1895 and 1988 in order to docu- ment and analyze the history of twentieth-century postadoption contact for adult adopted persons and birthparents.It demonstrates that as a re- sult of a variety of factors - primarily social work professionalism, the demographic profile of birthmothers, and the influence of psychoanalytic theory on casework practice - the Society's polcy on releasingfamily in- formation to clients evolved through three phases. In the first and longest phase, roughly from 1895 to the mid-1950s, the Society maintained that adult adopted persons were entitled to identifying and nonidentifying information and that birthparents had a legiN.ate claim to nonidentify- ing information. In the second phase, a transitionalperiod spanning the mid-1950s to the late-1960s, the Society's postadovtion policy of relative openness became more restrictive. In the final phase, beginning in the early 1970s, the Society established a firm policy of closed records. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare The central issue igniting the Adoption Rights Movement in 1971 was the inability of adopted persons to gain access to information about their birth families contained in adop- tion case records (Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1978, chap. 3). Institutional custodians of adoption records - courts, hospi- tals, and adoption agencies - citing state statutes, some more than a half century old, refused to divulge any family infor- mation to adopted persons or birthparents searching for their biological kin. As early as 1917 Minnesota enacted legislation closing adoption records to public inspection, and other states soon followed. By 1943, spurred on by reformers wanting to protect the child born out of wedlock from the stigma of ille- gitimacy, 23 states had passed similar legislation sealing adop- tion records. By the early 1970s, sealed records had become a standard, if not universal, feature of the adoption process, but they had also achieved a seeming immutability that belied the past from which they emerged (Heisterman, 1935, pp. 289-290; Colby, 1942, pp. 70-71). Not surprisingly, adoption rights activists assume that adop- tion records have always been sealed and that adoption agency officials have always been uncooperative in providing members of the adoption triad - adoptive parents, birthparents, and adopted persons - with family information (Sorosky, Baran & Pannor, 1978; Child Welfare, 1976, DiGiulio, 1979; Newborg, 1979; Weidell, 1980; Geissinger, 1984; Aumend & Barrett, 1984; Wertkin, 1986; Sachdev, 1988). These assumptions are so deeply rooted, so unquestioned, that adoption rights advocates have not even asked the question, "Have adoption records always been sealed?" because they begin with the ahistorical presump- tion that what is has always been so, and proceed accordingly. When adoption rights activists attempt to account for this state of affairs they assume, logically though without evidence, that adoption agencies and adoptive parents have conspired to seal the records (Fisher, 1971; Lifton, 1975, p. 12, 31, 105). But in fact, none of these assumptions is historically accurate. This article provides new information about a historical past that is all but unknown to historians, social workers, and proponents of un- sealing adoption records. It will demonstrate that the Children's Home Society of Washington State, the institution used here as a case study, had vast discretionary power over how much and Adoption Records to whom it divulged family information. The story is compli- cated, and the Society's response varied enormously, depending on which members of the adoption triad were involved, what kind of information they desired, and when they made their in- quiry. Generally, the Society's policy on releasing information to triad members evolved through three phases. In the first and longest phase, roughly from 1895 to the mid-1950s, the Society believed that adult adopted persons, regardless of legal restric- tions, were entitled to identifying information (surnames and addresses that would lead to locating birthparents) and non- identifying information (medical history or nationality) as long as it was in their best interests. During this first phase, the So- ciety also responded to birthparents, usually birthmothers, as if they had a legitimate claim to nonidentifying information. Indeed what is most striking about the Society's initial posta- doption contact policy was the way it used its discretionary power to divulge family information. In the postwar period, however, the Society's initial postadoption policy of relative openness gave way to a policy of secrecy that was shaped in the Cold War era primarily by social workers' increasing commit- ment to professional secrecy, the changing demographic profile of birthmothers, and the influence of psychoanalytic theory on casework policy. The second phase of the Society's postadoption policy - roughly from 1955 to 1968 - was one of transition. The Society became increasingly restrictive in giving out identi- fying information to adult adopted persons and nonidentifying information to birthmothers, believing that those who sought such data were irrational or emotionally disturbed. In the third phase, from the 1970s to the present, the CHSW established a firm postadoption policy of closed records. The Society reversed its policy of voluntarily giving nonidentifying information to adult adopted persons and refused to devulge any identifying family information to triad members without a court order. Data and Method This article uses for the first time the confidential adoption case records of a twentieth-century adoption agency: the Chil- dren's Home Society of Washington (CHSW or Society). The records run consecutively from 1895 to 1973 when, because of Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare the shortage of Caucasian infants, the Society all but ceased plac- ing children for adoption. One out of every ten of the CHSW's 21,000 adoption case records has been examined for evidence of its administrative policies toward releasing family informa- tion. (Data that the Society has added to the case records on postadoption contact has been examined through 1988.) The study's sample yielded 463 cases, comprising 479 individuals who returned to the Society 599 times in quest of informa- tion about themselves, siblings, or birthparents. Thus, almost a quarter of all cases (N=463) in this sample included postadop- tion contact. The case records have been supplemented by the Society's disorganized and incomplete minutes of supervisors' meetings, personnel files, and annual reports, dating mostly from the 1950s and 1960s. This article is a case study. But corroborative evidence from the Child Welfare League of American (CWLA) - a privately supported national organization of affiliate adoption agencies - and geographically diverse child placement agencies, such as those in Illinois, New York, Minnesota, Ohio, and Florida, lends strong support that the CHSW's policies were not unique. Rather, they were representative of mainstream adoption agen- cies' attitudes and practices. In evaluating the CHSW's represen- tativeness, it must be kept in mind that most adoption agencies still refuse to allow researchers access to their confidential case records. Scholars are invited to test this article's representative- ness by conducting research at their local adoption agencies. Until adoption agency officials permit researchers access to the case records, the data presented here may be the best historians and social workers will ever get. The Children's Home Society of Washington In 1896, a Methodist
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adoption Overview
    Virginia Department of Social Services July 2020 Child and Family Services Manual F. Adoption 1 ADOPTION OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Framework ................................................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Practice principles ....................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Legal citations ............................................................................................. 3 1.2.2.1 Federal laws .............................................................................................. 3 1.2.2.2 Code of Virginia ........................................................................................ 6 1.3 Definitions .................................................................................................................. 7 1.4 Common websites ................................................................................................... 16 F Section 1 Page 1 of 16 1 Adoption Overview Virginia Department of Social Services July 2020 Child and Family Services Manual F. Adoption 1 ADOPTION OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction “Adoption is the method provided by law to establish the legal relationship of parent and child between persons who are not so related by birth, with the same mutual rights and obligations that exist between children and their birth parents.” 1 The primary purpose of
    [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]
  • Policy Viii-E: Decisions Involving Children in Dhs Custody Whose Parents’ Rights Have Been Terminated
    POLICY VIII-E: DECISIONS INVOLVING CHILDREN IN DHS CUSTODY WHOSE PARENTS’ RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TERMINATED 01/2021 The Department of Human Services (DHS or Department), Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS or Division), has designated the Area Director or designee as having the authority to give consent for major decisions for children under the age of eighteen (18) whose parental rights have been terminated. The Area Director or designee will make decisions regarding such consents with input from local DCFS staff who work directly with the child, as well as other members of the child’s team such as the child’s attorney ad litem, Court Appointed Special Advocate, and therapist, as applicable. Major decisions that require the Area Director’s or designee’s written consent include: A. Marriage; B. Entry into the Armed Forces; C. Out-of-state or out-of-country travel; and D. Media release that identifies the child as being in foster care (also requires consultation with DHS Office of Communications, DHS Privacy Officer, and the child’s attorney ad litem). For youth ages eighteen (18) to twenty-one (21), who elect to participate in Extended Foster Care Program, the Area Director’s or designee’s consent is not required for the decisions listed above. However, Division staff will hold a staffing with the youth and the youth’s team to discuss the benefits and drawbacks associated with such decisions and to provide guidance to the youth as needed. 1 POLICY VIII-F: INFANTS RELINQUISHED FOR ADOPTION UNDER THE SAFE HAVEN ACT 01/2021 Any medical provider, law enforcement agency, or fire department will take possession of a child who is thirty (30) days old or younger, without a court order, if the parents of the child, without expressing an intent to return for the child, leaves the child: A.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaying Adoption Disclosure
    JFIXXX10.1177/0192513X19829503Journal of Family IssuesBaden et al. 829503research-article2019 Article Journal of Family Issues 2019, Vol. 40(9) 1154 –1180 Delaying Adoption © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: Disclosure: A Survey of sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19829503DOI: 10.1177/0192513X19829503 Late Discovery Adoptees journals.sagepub.com/home/jfi Amanda L. Baden1 , Doug Shadel2, Ron Morgan3, Ebony E. White1, Elliotte S. Harrington1, Nicole Christian1, and Todd A. Bates1 Abstract Despite common recommendations from professionals that adoption disclosure should be done at early ages, reports suggest that a sizeable number of adult adoptees do not learn of their adoption status until older ages. The few studies that exist indicate that the late discovery of adoption is linked to psychological distress and feelings of anger, betrayal, depression, and anxiety. In this mixed-method study, 254 adult adoptees completed a survey consisting of the K10 (Kessler Distress Inventory) the World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale–BREF, open-ended prompts, and demographic items. Results indicated that those who learned of their adoptions from age 3 and older reported more distress and lower life satisfaction when controlling for the amount of time adoptees have known of their adoption statuses and their use of coping strategies. Adoptees also indicated a desire for communicative openness and reported that beneficial coping methods included supportive relationships and seeking contact with birth relatives and other adoptees. Keywords family processes, parent/child relations adoption, adoption disclosure, late discovery adoptees, adjustment, coping 1Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA 2Independent Researcher, Seattle, WA, USA 3Independent Researcher, Portland, OR Corresponding Author: Amanda L.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Adoption Act Review Final Report
    ADOPTION ACT REVIEW FINAL REPORT August 22, 2018 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................... 9 Reasons for Consultation ............................................................................................................................ 11 Changing Canadian Norms and Calls for Opening Records on PEI ......................................................... 11 Focus on Historic Adoptions vs Future ................................................................................................... 11 Historical Context of Adoptions on PEI ....................................................................................................... 12 Influence of Societal Norms and Social Services Programming in Post-War Era (1950-1970) ............... 12 Legislative History ................................................................................................................................... 18 Characteristics of Current Adoption Act and its Administration ................................................................ 20 Services Currently Available at Post-Adoption Services ......................................................................... 21 Current Canadian Context of Adoption Records (Jurisdictional Scan) ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Adoption of Indian Children by Norwegian Parents
    1 The Adoption of Indian Children by Norwegian Parents VICTOR GROZA, PHD, LISW1 Professor Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7164 [email protected] DAVID CHENOT, LCSW, MDIV Doctoral Student Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106-7164 [email protected] With Kristin Holtedahl and the Team from Children of the World, Norway [email protected] September, 2004 1We want to express our appreciation to the families in Bergen and Olso who participated in the pilot study to pre-test the questionnaire, the families who agreed to participate in the study, and the professionals who provided guidance, assistance, advice and recommendations including Monica Dalen, Ånund Brottveit, Dag Kilberg, Signe Howell, and Torhild Andersen. Several staff from Children of the World-Norway helped with translations, answering questions, arranging logistics, etc: thanks to Karin Nguyen, Monika Jørgensen, Astrid Fredriksen, and Silvia Suh. Cristina Nedelcu contributed time to the project to provide an analysis of the written comments. Roxana Kalyanvala from Bharatiya Samaj Seva Kendra was a driving force behind the initiation of the project. Last, but not least Mr. Young Kuk Kim provided partial funding for this project—without his support, the project would have never happened. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 4 Norwegian Adoptions: An Overview 6 Norwegian Adoptions: Research Review 7 Adoptions from India: Research
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Adoption Records to Find Statute Information for a Particular State, Go To
    STATE STATUTES CURRENT THROUGH DECEMBER 2019 Access to Adoption Records To find statute information for a particular State, go to https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/state/. Although adoptive parents are provided WHAT'S INSIDE nonidentifying background information about the child they plan to adopt, in nearly Nonidentifying information all States the privacy interests of adoptive parents, adoptive children, and birth families Restrictions on release of nonidentifying are protected by making all files related to the information adoption process confidential and withheld from public access. To ensure that ongoing Identifying information privacy needs are met, records of adoption court proceedings and the child's original Mutual consent registries certificate of birth are sealed after an adoption is finalized. The need for information about the birth Other methods of obtaining consent family does not always end when the adoption has been finalized. Persons who have been Access to an original birth certificate adopted may need to access information from the records to obtain updated medical history, while some adoptees seek identifying Summaries of State laws information about birth family members in order to contact their families of origin. For this publication, statutes were collected for all States, the District of Columbia, American Children’sChildren's Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | 800.394.3366 | Email: | Email: [email protected] [email protected] | https://www.childwelfare.gov| https://www.childwelfare.gov 1 States, the District of Columbia, American All States, American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Rico have provisions in statutes that allow and Puerto Rico, and the results indicate that access to nonidentifying information by an most States have instituted procedures by adoptive parent or a guardian of a minor child which parties to an adoption may obtain both who has been adopted.
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption Disclosure Andacknowledgment Of
    ADOPTION DISCLOSURE AND RECEIPT OF ADOPTION DISCLOSURE THE STATE OF FLORIDA REQUIRES THAT THIS FORM BE PROVIDED TO ALL PERSONS CONSIDERING ADOPTING A MINOR OR SEEKING TO PLACE A MINOR FOR ADOPTION, TO ADVISE THEM OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING ADOPTION UNDER FLORIDA LAW: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the adoption entity providing this disclosure is: Lucia C. Piñeiro, Esq. & Associates, P.A. 717 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 309 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Phone: (305) 443-9488 2. The adoption entity does not provide legal representation or advice to birth parents, and birth parents have the right to consult with an attorney of their own choosing to advise them. 3. With the exception of an adoption by a stepparent or relative, a minor child cannot be placed into a prospective adoptive home unless the prospective adoptive parents have received a favorable preliminary home study, including criminal and child abuse clearances. 4. A valid consent for adoption may not be signed by the birth mother until 48 hours after the birth of the child or the day the birth mother is notified, in writing, that she is fit for discharge from the licensed hospital or birth center. Any man may sign a valid consent for adoption at any time after the birth of the child. 5. A consent for adoption signed before the child attains the age of 6 months is binding and irrevocable from the moment it is signed unless it can be proven in court that the consent was obtained by fraud or duress. A consent for adoption signed after the child attains the age of six months is valid from the moment it is signed; however, it may be revoked until the child is placed in an adoptive home, or up to 3 days after it was signed, whichever period is longer.
    [Show full text]
  • Amacker, Dawn Mengis, Joseph W
    LOUISIANA STATE LAW INSTITUTE THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL February 2-3, 2018 Friday, February 2, 2018 Persons Present: Amacker, Dawn Mengis, Joseph W. Boudreaux, Bernard E., Jr. Miller, Cody "C.J." Braun, Jessica Mills, Allison Breard, L. Kent Morris, Glenn G. Brister, Dorrell J. Norman, Rick J. Burris, William J. Odinet, Christopher Carroll, Andrea Price, Donald W . Castle, Marilyn Riviere, Christopher H. Crawford, William E. Scalise, Ronald J., Jr. Crigler, James C., Jr. Sole, Emmett C. Davidson, James J., Ill St. Amant, Chimene Dawkins, Robert C. Talley, Susan G. Dimas, Jimmy N. Tate, George J. Ellison, David M., Jr. Thibeaux, Robert P. Garofalo, Raymond E. Jr. Trahan, J. Randall Gasaway, Grace 8. Tranchina, Frank Gregoria, Isaac M. "Mack" T ooley-Knoblett, Dian Hamilton, Leo C. Varnado,Sandi S. Hester, Mary C. Vernon, J. Michael Hogan, Lila T. Waller, Mallory Chatelain Holdridge, Guy Weems, Charles S., Ill Knighten, Arlene D. Wilson, Evelyn Kostelka, Robert "Bob" W. Ziober, John David Lavergne, Luke President Susan Talley opened the Friday session of the February 2018 Council meeting at 10:00 AM on February 2, 2018 at the Lod Cook Alumni Center in Baton Rouge and called on Professor Andrea 8 . Carroll, representing the Marriage-Persons Committee, to present on divorce grounds and spousal support, House Concurrent Resolution No. 10 of the 2017 Regular Session regarding paternity and birth certificates, and House Concurrent Resolution No. 79 of the 2017 Regular Session regarding domestic abuse and the assessment of costs. Marriage-Persons Committee Professor Carroll asked the Council to turn their attention to the material regarding the grounds for divorce and the awarding of spousal support.
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption Disclosure to Adoptive Parents the State
    ADOPTION DISCLOSURE TO ADOPTIVE PARENTS THE STATE OF FLORIDA REQUIRES THAT THIS FORM BE PROVIDED TO ALL PERSONS CONSIDERING ADOPTING A MINOR OR SEEKING TO PLACE A MINOR FOR ADOPTION, TO ADVISE THEM OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING ADOPTION UNDER FLORIDA LAW: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the adoption entity providing this disclosure is: Name: Lauren Kingry Law, P.A. Address: 118 West Adams Street, Suite 320; Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone Number: (904)722.3333 2. The adoption entity does not provide legal representation or advice to parents or anyone signing a consent for adoption or affidavit of nonpaternity, and parents have the right to consult with an attorney of their own choosing to advise them. 3. With the exception of an adoption by a stepparent or relative, a child cannot be placed into a prospective adoptive home unless the prospective adoptive parents have received a favorable preliminary home study, including criminal and child abuse clearances. 4. A valid consent for adoption may not be signed by the birth mother until 48 hours after the birth of the child, or the day the birth mother is notified, in writing, that she is fit for discharge from the licensed hospital or birth center. Any man may sign a valid consent for adoption at any time after the birth of the child. 5. A consent for adoption signed before the child attains the age of 6 months is binding and irrevocable from the moment it is signed unless it can be proven in court that the consent was obtained by fraud or duress.
    [Show full text]
  • The Management of Biological Origins in the New Reproductive Technologies
    Family Connections: the management of biological origins in the new reproductive technologies Erica Victoria Haimes Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Social Policy, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne 1990 Family Connections: the management of biological origins in the new reproductive technologies. Abstract This thesis investigates the management of information about the biological origins of individuals conceived through the use of a third party; that is, by donated gametes or surrogacy. From a review of policy reports and academic studies of families created in this way, I identify three possible management strategies: complete secrecy; openness about the means of conception coupled with third party anonymity; openness about the means of conception, coupled with releasing the identity of the third party to the individual conceived, when adult. The middle strategy is exemplified by the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the 'Warnock Report', 1984). This I explore in two ways: first through a detailed analysis of the Report itself, then through a series of in-depth interviews with committee members. I conclude that although the Report can be read as a prescription for the creation of 'normal families', in which the above management strategy on origins is a device for protecting ideologically-correct but biologically-anomalous families, from the Interviews it appears that this represented a suspension of more profound difficulties experienced by members when discussing these issues. These difficulties arose from what members found to be an irresolvable dilemma over the contribution of biological factors to family life. In the final chapter I examine the nature of the contrast between the Report and the interviews; I then locate the above dilemma in broader theoretical debates and finally I suggest that the strategy of recommending anonymity between all parties exposes rather than resolves the tension between the 'biological' and the 'social' in everyday, lay, reasoning about family life.
    [Show full text]
  • Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties
    U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: RECONCILING NONDISCRIMINATION PRINCIPLES WITH CIVIL LIBERTIES BRIEFING REPORT SEPTEMBER 2016 U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20425 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, Martin R. Castro, Chairman bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Vice Chair directed to: Roberta Achtenberg Gail L. Heriot • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are Peter N. Kirsanow being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their David Kladney race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national Karen K. Narasaki origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Michael Yaki • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution Mauro A. Morales, Staff Director because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 1150 • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to Washington, DC 20425 discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or (202) 376-7700 national origin, or in the administration of justice. www.usccr.gov • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress.
    [Show full text]