of the Assyrian, Greek, Egyptian, and Roman civilizations.
In our own country, almost all modern state laws embody

this concept.

Theoretically, it is felt that if this policy is followed, adopted children are more likely to grow up free from any irrational stigma which might be connected with the circumstances surrounding their birth; their biological parents are free to make new lives for themselves without fear of recriminations in the future; and adoptive parents need not fear that the natural parents will return to try and reclaim their offspring or that the child will feel reluctant to accept his or her adopted parents with the emotional bonding that is the essence of the relationship society wishes to nurture and protect.

The adoptive panel disputed this long-held tradition, however, and based its recommendations on a different view of society's obligations to the adopted individual and a different view of how these obligations ought to be measured against the rights of other parties in the adoption process.

The proposed act relies upon the assumption of equal legal and social status of adopted children and those reared in their original families. Accordingly, the panel felt that an adoptee was entitled to the same rights as other individuals and should be permitted

to obtain his original birth certificate and know the identity of his birth parents.

Certainly, there are legitimate concerns of the adoptee

which are accentuated by this kind of equal protection analysis. Many adoptees today express the desire to seek out their original parents in the interest of their own pwersonal growth and development of their identity. This is indeed a compelling concern that demands compassion.

However, I am equally concerned about society's interests in maintaining confidentiality of these records, for there are other individuals involved in the adoption process whose behavior can be expected to change if society's ground rules change.

An open records policy would serve to discourage future adoptions by making potential adoptive parents uneasy about their future relationship with the child. It is important that adoption forms a lasting bond between the adoptive parents and the adoptee, and if access to adoption records is made too easy, this bond could be severely threatened. The consequences which would result could include a decrease in the number of couples willing to adopt children. This same reluctance could also be felt in the attitudes of birth parents who might choose some alternative to adoption if they feared disclosure of their identity in the future.

In both cases, the cause of adoption would be harmed rather than benefited, thus directly opposing the intent of Congress when it authorized the study.

It is my strong feeling that this panel has exceeded its original mandate by formulating a comprehensive and significantly altered adoption policy which is neither in the best interests of the children nor the adults involved in the adoption process. The directive of the Congress has not been implemented in this situation, and it is therefore the responsibility of Congress to take exception to the Act as it has been presented. In view of these considerations, I urge the Select Education Committee to recommend that the Department of HHS reject this Act and return it to the panel for further action which will conform with the law's original specifications.

MODEL STATES ADOPTION ACT
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

ILLINOIS CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION

General Comments

The Illinois Catholic Conference is a federation of the six Catholic dioceses in the State of Illinois. The Church's schools, social service agencies, institutions, and various programs provide a complete range of services to families and children in Illinois. It is the largest service-providing network in the state, not only to crisis populations, but to the whole community in a variety of services of an educational and preventative nature. It has been providing services to the citizens of Illinois for over one hundred seventy years. The Social Services Division of the Conference includes the programs of the Catholic Charities agencies statewide. These Catholic Charities have a long history of placement of children with special needs and recognize the pressing need to encourage and promote additional permanent planning for these children. The Catholic Charities agencies in Illinois have placed more than 16,000 children in adoption over the past twenty-five years of service.

With this long history of care and involvement it is our belief that the Model States Adoption Act, as proposed, will hinder our goal and vision of providing and promoting permanent planning for these children in need.

Senate Resolution 401, recently sponsored by Senator Tower of Texas, summarizes our objections. It reads,

I am concerned about the federal government's
involvement to this great extent in the area of
adoptions. Adoption is a matter traditionally
handled at the state level. I am aware that the
panel's work is only the draft of the Model State
Act. Nevertheless, it is the first time that
the federal government has intervened to such an
extent in this area. This activity at the federal
level proposes federal goals in an area better
dealt with at the state level where officials are
more knowledgeable about and better equipped to
deal with the particular problems involved...These
proposals will make most adoptions more difficult,
in direct contradiction to federal intent; in that

they greatly exceed the scope of the authority
granted by Congress to eliminate barriers to
adoption so that children, especially those with
special needs, can find permanent and loving home
environments.

We believe, with Senator Tower, that this attempt to create a uniform, federal Model Adoption Act has not accomplished its purposes, and further efforts ought to be reconsidered as unwise and excessively expansive intrusions into a very sensitive area.

However, since the Model States Adoption Act has in fact been proposed and developed, the Catholic Charities agencies believe that responsible, critical commentary must address its glaring deficiencies and inadequacies. A further issue which needs to be clarified is the prospective application of the Model States Adoption legislation to individual states, communities, or agencies. It is clear that, although this Act was written to meet the problem of special needs children in adoption, adoptable children without special needs would also be greatly affected by its confusing and often conflicting rules and procedures.

Title I.

Specific Comments

Section 101 (A)

Policy and Procedures

Rights of all parties are not explicitly defined in this
section. Additionally, it is unclear as to what are
considered rights in the context of this law. Both the
original court and, if called upon, the appellate court,
should not be prohibited by this Act from carrying out
its responsibility to rule on the issues of each indi-
vidual case. Some statements (in paragraph a) go far
beyond the proposed law itself which attempts to define
adoption as one potential plan for a child. These
statements can lead to the mechanistic imposition of
instant adoption plans for children and shortcut services
to the birth parents which they otherwise have a right
to receive.

Birth parent is defined as the mother or father of genetic origin of a child. Although the entire Section 308 of the Model States Adoption Act is devoted to the putative father, nowhere in this Section is this term defined clearly.

Section 104 (C)

Character and Effect of Termination of
Parental Rights and of Adoption

We feel that this paragraph remains ambiguous since the
possibility is still open of provisions being included
to require adoptive or birth parents to enter agreements.
We understand that "nothing shall be construed to prevent"
these occurances.

Section 107 - Fees

The directives in this section would appear to be an
infringement on the autonomy of voluntary agencies and
would demand that they enter purchase of service contracts
and agreements with government when in fact the voluntary
agency might have no wish to do so. Furthermore, it would
be an error to overlook the fact that many children in
special circumstances are adopted by families who do not
see themselves as doing an act of charity, which itself
is never an adequate reason or rationale for wanting to
adopt.

Title II.

Section 203

Who May Place a Child for Adoption

The Act presents no evidence to indicate that adoptive
placements made through independent arrangements are
more successful than those made by licensed agencies.
Yet it goes to great lengths to require the highest
qualifications of voluntary agency personnel. The
question arises as the whether members of the committee
had discussed the subject of independent placements
with judges who are faced with adult adoptees and natural
parents seeking information. The statement that the
prohibition of independent adoptions might divert scarce
agency resources from the service of children with
special needs to non-special needs infants is undocu-
mentable and does not justify sanctioning independent
adoptions. The question can be asked: are agency
resources scarce in this context? The committee should
consider the Child Welfare League of America standards