Is Gladney saying, with the save-face caveat (or warning?) that disclosure “may” be dependent on state laws–which of course, Gladney can influence in Texas and perhaps in other states?While making adoptive parents the domestic gatekeeper, is Gladney saying that it is OK for adoptees (usually) 18 and over to get access to the OBC, court records, and other recordsIs Gladney back-door endorsing the QuadA endorsement of record access?

So here it is: a clear, concise explanation and timeline of Texas access law  in the newly-published report, Texas: Setting the Records Straight, released by the Texas Adoptee Rights Coalition in March 2019.

There is no state interest in keeping original birth certificates sealed from adult adoptees to which they pertain. Nor does the state have a right or duty to mediate and oversee the personal relationships of adults. Those who claim a statutory right to parental anonymity through sealed records to them promote statutory privilege and state favoritism. 30,000 Connecticut adoptees were left behind in 2015. The passage of SB972 brings them back.

The core problem though is that H597 posits birth record access as an individual personal desire or cute curiosity rather than a civil right and political issue. H597 conflates “reunion” with rights. Through the FARR mandate, and even a reunion requirement outside of FARR, it holds Florida adoptees and their families hostage to archaic laws and customs. The bill treats adult adoptees like children, promotes continued shame in adoption, and maintains the iron lock of the state on our birth records and personal autonomy. None of this is related to adoptee civil rights and is an insult to every Florida adoptee. It is about Big Government.