GenChat-L Archives

Archiver > GenChat > 2001-02 > 0981176965


From: Tracey Converse <>
Subject: Re: [AFAR] Supreme Court ruling
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:09:25 -0600
In-Reply-To: <6931565.981086855081.JavaMail.tamtam222@gomailjtp00>


Actually, I think Shanna has a list of all of the different court
decisions. There's also one from Oregon....and YES, let's send this to
Womack. He's the one who voted for us two years ago but against us in
January. He's an adoption lawyer...NO...I'm sorry, he said he's a lawyer
that does adoptions! But, he seems to be a nice guy and genuinely
interested in this legislation. I don't think it would take too much to
turn his head. He also is one of the cheapest adoption attorneys I've run
into. He doesn't charge $20,000 for adoptions. Usually, from $2,000-4,000.

Tracey


At 08:07 PM 2/1/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Didn't Rep Womack ask for court docs on this issue in other states at the
>last commitee meeting??..Should we send him this one???
>BIRTH PARENTS FAIL TO RESEAL ADOPTION INFO
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to throw out a Tennessee
>law that lets adopted children, at age 21, find out the names of
>their biological parents.
> The court, without comment, turned away arguments by a group of
>biological and adoptive parents who said unsealing the records
>would violate their privacy rights.
> From 1951 until 1996, Tennessee law required adoption records
>to be sealed. They could be disclosed only if the biological
>parent consented or a court decided that opening the records was
>in a child's best interest.
> A 1996 law allows the records to be released to adoptees when
>they turn 21 and to their relatives if the adopted person gives
>consent. Biological parents can bar their offspring from
>contacting them and their relatives, but they cannot veto
>disclosure of their identities.
> A federal judge ruled against the parents seeking to keep
>adoption records closed but blocked the open records law from
>taking effect while an appeal was pursued. The 6th U.S. Circuit
>Court of Appeals also upheld the law.
> In the appeal acted on today, lawyers for the parents and
>adoption agency said the new law will encourage unmarried pregnant
>women to have abortions because those records would not be kept
>secret. Lawyers for the state did not respond to such concerns
>about encouraging abortions. But a friend-of-the-court brief by a
>group of biological and adoptive parents said there was ``no
>constitutional right to conceal one's identity from one's child.''
> The case is Doe vs. Sundquist, 96-1805.
> (The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
>
>Full story:
>http://www.NashvilleBanner.com/search/digest/adoption10061997.html
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________
>GO.com Mail
>Get Your Free, Private E-mail at http://mail.go.com



This thread: