APPENDIX A-OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE MODEL ADOPTION LEGISLATION AND PROCEDURES ADVISORY PANEL

Persons attending the panel meeting, September 26-28, 1979:

Panel members.'-Mary Lee Allen, Albert Burstein, Lee Campbell, Elizabeth Cole, Marie Copher, Sydney Duncan, Laurie Flynn, Linda Hanten, Donald Lewis, Helen Ramirez, Joanne Small, John Steketee, Margaret Sullivan, and Kenneth Watson.

Federal staff to the panel.-Diane D. Broadhurst, executive secretary to the panel.

Full-time Federal employees.-Elaine Schwartz, adoption specialist, Children's Bureau.

Contractor staff.-Bruce Gross, Rita Caufield, Karen Shekh Said, Ellen Segal, and Clara Swan,

Members of the public.-Notice of the panel meeting was published in the Federal Register and the meeting was fully open to the public. During the course of the meeting, five members of the public were present.

Mr. SIMON. Someone mentioned to me that there is something about nine members being present and there was a five to four vote. That is not correct then.

MS. WEBER. I don't believe that is correct. I can certainly double check that. I can provide that for the record.

Mr. SIMON. Could you do that?

MS. WEBER. Yes.

Mr. SIMON. We can enter that in the record.

Mr. Beard?

Mr. BEARD. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SIMON. I think that is all we shall inflict upon you at this point. As I indicated we are very much concerned about this. We will be back in touch with you; we will look forward to working with you and we welcome you to the world of officialdom, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. PERALES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SIMON. On our first panel we have one person who wishes her name to remain anonymous; also, as part of the first panel, Mrs. Lou Rosen, William McKay, and William Schur. You can take seats here. STATEMENTS OF BIRTH MOTHER (ALIAS FOR ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUAL); MRS. LOU ROSEN, NEW YORK, N.Y.; WILLIAM MCKAY, FORT WORTH, TEX.; WILLIAM SCHUR, FORT WORTH, TEX.

Mr. SIMON. For the person who wishes her name to be anonymous, I have no idea what your name is and I have not been told that by the staff. I am going to refer to you as Miss Jones, if I may. I trust that is not your name. We can proceed from there.

I think we will take all the members of the panel and then ask questions and then again I will apologize to you because I am going to have to leave in just a few minutes for the conference on the budget where, among other things, we have to get money for 3434 just referred to, so that we can fund some of these things that some of us believe in.

Miss Jones, if we could hear from you.

1 Mr. Harold Brown attended the 3-day meeting for panel member Sproesser Wynn. Mr. Brown participated in all panel discussions but did not vote on any issues.

STATEMENT OF BIRTH MOTHER (ALIAS FOR ANONYMOUS

INDIVIDUAL)

Birth MOTHER. Good morning, Congressman. In regard to the model State adoption act, title V, I am here to voice my feelings and concerns from two different points of view. I am able to speak from two different viewpoints because I am a birth mother and an adoptive mother. I also feel a deep sense of responsibility to tens of thousands of others who perhaps cannot risk their anonymity by speaking to you.

This act states in the summary that it was designed "to facilitate adoptions by families of all economic levels." I do not understand how title V of this act can accomplish that goal.

I, as an adoptive parent, feel outraged that my adopted daughter, upon turning 18 year of age, could be confronted by a woman who supposedly severed all ties years before. It does not matter whether my daughter wishes to consent to such an encounter or not, she will be forced to make a decision for which she will feel guilty either way. She will feel guilty for hurting us, as adoptive parents, if she elects to meet her birth mother; or she will feel guilty for rejecting her birth mother. The emotional burden would be tremendous.

Merely giving birth to a child does not make one a parent. I became a parent 4 years ago when my husband and I adopted our first child. By virtue of caring for her in sickness and health and by directing her in becoming a responsible adult has made me her parent. It angers me to think that another woman can come to my daughter at the magic age of 18 and announce that she is her real mother.

I was able to make the decision to place my baby for adoption 11 years ago because I knew that my decision would be final and because of that irrevocable decision I would be able to put that part of my life behind me forever. I would be able to put my life back together and go on.

I loved that baby so much that I was able to do what I truly believed was best for her too. That meant relinquishing all rights to her forever and allowing her to have the complete family environment, which is the right of every child and which I could not provide.

As much as I loved that baby 11 years ago, I do not think of her as my child. I have no legal or emotional rights to her. I do not intend to ever contact her and cause confusion for her and certain heartache for her adoptive parents.

Now to think that the finality of my decision 11 years ago could possibly be set aside is overwhelming. Confidentiality was a major factor in that decision. Many people could and would suffer needlessly if that confidence is broken. This act will terminate my right to privacy and confidentiality. The act states that I could bring legal suit, if in fact my right to privacy is infringed upon.

I ask, what good would come from that action? My confidentiality would already be broken and many lives disrupted. It makes no sense

to me.

I do not agree with the supposition that an adoptee will be able to find his identity and further his growth by the simple knowledge of who his birth parents are. A person is the product of his environment, not only the product of two biological parents.

The family unit of an adoptive family will be undermined if a child is raised with the knowledge that he can find his birth mother at a later age. That knowledge is placing the child in a position of being torn between adoptive parents and birth parents.

A child needs a feeling of belonging, not a feeling of living in limbo. I can also see the consequences if an adoptee seeks his birth mother at age 18 and finds she is not all he thought she would be. What if he should find his birth mother is an alcoholic, drug addict, or a criminal? Who can say what kind of psychological effect that knowledge would have? The birth mother could also be a member of a prominent family in society, or even a prominent figure herself. The adoptee might feel he had been cheated from his birthright and that he was a source of embarrassment. That knowledge would not help his own self-identity. I can understand the need and importance of medical history being given to an adoptee-even given earlier than age 18. The adoptee's search for identity and further growth are not justifiable reasons for opening birth records.

I cannot honestly say what my decision would have been 11 years ago had this act been in effect at that time. I believe this act will increase the abortion rate and in turn many couples will have to live lives without children because of the decline in adoptable children.

The act, as it now stands, would, One: abolish all confidentiality of records retroactively; Two: create a climate of fear and uncertainty in the adoptive triangle; Three: rescind the act of relinquishment as a permanent and binding act; and Four: only allow a foster care type environment for adopted children until the child reaches the age of 18. It is my opinion that this act will not facilitate adoptions, only hinder them. I, therefore, strongly urge this committee to consider all of the harmful consequences of open records and allowing a birth mother to contact her child through an agency. I also recommend that the model State adoption act, as written, be returned for further examination and amendments. Thank you.

Mr. SIMON. Thank you very much. We thank you also for your courage, frankly. I am going to ask my colleague from Minnesota to take over the Chair at this point. I am going to be here for just a few more minutes.

Mrs. Rosen?

STATEMENT OF MRS. LOU ROSEN, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mrs. ROSEN. Congressman Simon, members of the House Subcommittee on Select Education, my name is Lou Hill Rosen. I am a resident of New York City, the borough of Manhattan, and I am the mother of three children, two boys aged 11 and 9 and a little girl 3. My children are adopted.

As an adoptive parent, I am deeply concerned about the impact that the proposed model adoption code could have on my family. There are many areas of this code that call for revision, and I would like to be able to address the subcommittee on all of them. However, due to the limitation of time, I will concentrate on only two. Both of these points are found under title V records, Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 33, Friday, February 15, 1980.

Preparing for this testimony was no easy task. I had anticipated the great amounts of reading material, i.e., the lengthy code itself, but I was stunned at the emotional impact the preparation had upon

me.

It began yesterday morning. After I had kissed the last scrubbed cheek goodbye and sent them off to school, inspected their shining new orthodontry and the deteriorating bookbags, and chosen to ignore the scuffed penny loafers which were to have been polished before Walt Disney-after all, it had been Mother's day-I gathered up the mail and strode determinedly to my typewriter. Before I could put the paper in the carriage, a large brown envelope with bright red lettering stating: "There's still time" jumped out at me.

In a little cellophane window it said, "How to continue the Rosen family's protection."

My mind went racing. There was no question in my mind. Someone was offering to sell us adoptive family insurance. Why not? We insure against theft many things we care much less for: cars, jewelry, household possessions. Why not insure that which is dearest to us, our children and the security of our family.

The envelope actually contained my General Electric repair contract which expires shortly. So, although I signed in relief this time my frightened imagined thoughts would not be so farfetched if in fact this code were passed. I am at this time referring to section 505, volume 45, Federal Register, 10690, which requires agencies to seek out adoptees at the request of birth parents when the adoptee reached majority-18.

Please be advised that this would be done in spite of the fact that the child has not expressed any interest in seeking his birth parents and it would be done without consultation with us, the adoptive parents.

So, while my 18-year-old is poring over college applications, sweating out examination scores, debating the issue of whether he can have a car, and recovering probably from the latest broken heart, he could receive along with his college acceptances a letter saying that his birth mother or father would like to come say "Hi."

Surely I need not carry this scenario further to illustrate the shattering emotional ramifications of such an intrusion into our lives. Not only would the 18-year-old be affected, but the entire family; the 16-year-old, and most of all my little girl who would at that time be only 10 years of age. Because of one birth parent's desire to establish contact, the sense of security of an entire family would be threatened. This brings me to the second part of this title V records to which I take exception. The mandatory opening of court records to adoptees at age 18, without an intermediary of court intervention, regardless of the wishes of the birth parent.

In researching the effect of the current British law, the much touted British Childrens' Act of 1975. which opens birth records at age 18, I was astonished to learn that only 1 to 2 percent of all adult adoptees have come forward to seek out their birth parents.

With these statistics in mind. it would appear that the model adoption code is concerned most with the very smallest percentage of the adoptive triad by allowing the adoptee to establish contact with a

birth parent, and appears to be ignoring the majority who would be affected and whose lives would be most disrupted, the siblings, adoptive parents, and the birth parents themselves.

We are a quiet majority, we the adoptive parents.

We don't have an organization. We have not wanted to make waves or rock the boat. We have not wanted to appear on "Sixty Minutes" or in headlines or magazines or newspapers. Why? Because for the most part we are happy, fulfilled and devoted parents caring first and foremost for the welfare of our children. We don't want to bring attention to ourselves. We want only to be able to raise our children in the most loving, caring and secure environment.

There are so many pressures and insecurities in the world today we certainly do not need the added burden of a lurking fear of intrusion or the undermining of our roles as parents.

I know there are no guarantees or contracts like the General Electric repair contract which promises to continue the Rosen family's protection, but, please, let us not undermine the very foundation of our society, the family.

Help support and protect the family unit. Return the model adoption plan for further study and revision.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ERDAHL. Thank you very much, Mrs. Rosen.

The next witness is William McKay. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Simon said this before, you may proceed in any way you wish. If you wish to read the statement for the record. or submit it, it will be available for my colleagues and our staff.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MCKAY, FORT WORTH, TEX.

Mr. MCKAY. Thank you sir.

My name is Bill McKay. I represent two sides of the adoption triangle, since I am both an adoptee and an adoptor. I don't presently expect to be involved in the third aspect personally, but I could be since I have two daughters and a son. I was adopted 40 years ago, through a private placement. My son was adopted through an agency, and I also have two natural birth children.

We wanted another child 14 years ago and could not because of serious medical problems.

I guess you could describe my family and childhood as happy, peaceful, constructive, loving, caring, middle class in both economic and social circumstances.

Our children are bright, healthy, freethinking, independent, affectionate, close and secure, all of them; no difference between adopted and natural other than the particular directions they take.

My son knows he's adopted, always has. He expresses some interest in it, mostly genetic curiosity, as I did, but he is not compelled at present to want to know too much more. We are his family, the only one he has, just as mine was to me. We fed him, changed him, rocked him, played with and challenged him, spanked him and loved him, helped heal his wounds, both physical and emotional.

As is true with most parents, we have done well at times, and poorly at others. What he is today is mostly a reflection of what influence our