Bill to Unseal Confidential Adoption Records Is Killed

Legislation to unseal nearly 50 years of confidential adoption records died quietly in a Senate committee Thursday, but the bill’s author vowed to return with a similar measure next year.

The bill, pushed by adult adoptees trying to find their natural parents, would have revealed the identity of thousands of parents who gave up their children in closed adoptions between 1938 and 1984.

The measure also contained provisions designed to help parents find children they relinquished long ago and would have given adoptive parents the same access to confidential records that their adopted children would be entitled to.

The bill moved briskly through the Assembly and won easy passage in the Legislature’s lower house in June. But it received more scrutiny in the Senate and soon encountered trouble. On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to shelve the bill.

Assemblyman Charles Quackenbush (R-Saratoga), who introduced the bill, conceded that the legislation was dead. Lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn next Friday.

“There’s not enough time to do anything more with it,” Quackenbush said.

He said he could not overcome opposition from adoption agencies that said many of the children for whom they have found parents have never been told they were adopted. The bill would have helped the natural parents find these children, and adoptive parents feared the disclosure would damage their relationships with their adopted children.

“I didn’t realize that people were keeping secrets from the people they adopted,” said Quackenbush, who adopted a baby last year. “There are a lot of adults running around who don’t know they were adopted.”

Current California law automatically seals the birth certificates, court records and agency files in adoption cases. Since 1984, California parents relinquishing their children have had the option at the time of adoption of allowing their names and addresses to be disclosed after their children reach the age of 18. Adult adoptees also have the chance to approve the release of personal information to their parents.

Records that remain sealed can be opened to adoptees only by a judge who finds that “exceptional circumstances” outweigh the parents’ right to privacy.

The Quackenbush bill would have made original birth certificates and court records open to the inspection of adoptees and their adoptive parents and would have required the Department of Social Services to release information on the marriages and married names of the birth parents.

The bill also would have required the state to conduct a 12-month advertising campaign to notify birth parents and adoptees of the change in law and give them the chance to keep their records sealed. But opponents said the campaign would be insufficient.

“This bill was not well-thought out,” said Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento). “There is just no reason to go in and rip aside 50 years of confidentiality.”

Quackenbush said he was surprised that the bill went as far as it did.

“We’ll refine the bill and come back with it,” he said. “Now we know where we have to target our efforts.”