Tag Archives: Bastardy

Webinar recording available on petitioning courts for original birth records

Nearly 60 people joined a recent webinar on March 21, 2021, hosted by the adoptee advocacy group Adoptees United. I presented with fellow adoptees Greg Luce of Minnesota and Courtney Humbaugh of Georgia. Each of us highlighted our experience as adoptees denied basic legal and equal rights in accessing our adoption and vital records.

  • My introductory comments can be found at the start of the recording.
  • My comments about my court petition begin here (17:00 into the recording).
  • A copy of my presentation that I shared with attendees can be found here.

As a presenter, I wanted to provide a roadmap for others who face nearly insurmountable barriers in getting what should be provided to all persons as a basic human right. My memoir and critical study of the U.S. adoption system describes why the state-level denial of these records must be understood historically and sociologically as part of the historic mistreatment of adoptees and illegitimately born persons, like me.

In addition, I provided what I consider to be a strategic approach for channeling defiance to an unjust system that had impacted my life greatly. At the very least I hoped my words and example helped to motivate a few others. Many of my decisions in my life were profoundly influenced by words I heard from someone else, sharing a story about why they took action to do good things.

As I had shared earlier, access to vital records by adoptees is intrinsically an issue rooted in power relationships. Those relationships are communicated through symbols that are invested with far more meaning than what they appear to have on the surface. And anything invested with this much magical and symbolic power, such as one’s original birth record, is worth a lifelong fight, which I have had to undertake only because I was born as an adoptee.

It is also critical to remember that an original birth certificate is a document that continues to be withheld from millions of U.S. adoptees. This denial of equal treatment by law has and remains in violation the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and equally the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

My book also explains this struggle as a hero’s journey that too few adoptees can do for reasons too long to explain in one post. You can order my book on that issue, which describes how the state of Michigan denied me my birth record for decades until I finally took the state’s adoption bureaucracy to court and won my right to what was always mine as a human right.

“The state never had the legal and moral right to hold my past from me or the right to prevent my birth families from knowing about me,” I wrote in my memoir. “My true birth certificate shows the world that I exist as someone with a past. It shows I have an identity that I alone own. This document is and always has been mine by birthright.”

I would encourage adoptees, policy-makers, and journalists to visit the website of Adoptees United. The organization continues to host events that focus on issues it works on supporting the rights of adoptees in the United states as it works on changing laws and policies that deny rights to adopted persons.

Let me give you some advice, bastard: a few lessons about records and the treatment of adult adoptees

The character Tyrion Lannister on HBO’s Game of Thrones provides expert advice for adoptees who may forget who they are in the eyes of the law (image used for editorial and commentary purposes).

Let me give you some advice, bastard: Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not.

Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones, Season 1

 

This week I found a very interesting discussion on case law concerning efforts by adoptees to legally annul their adoptions and reclaim their original identities that were taken from them by the states and by state law that governs adoption.

There was a back and forth discussion about the merits of the cases and if adoptees have legal rights to their original identities. I decided to weigh in on the thread, even though it was three years old. Here is the crux of what I shared:

For a good background on how the courts have made clear that adoptees have no legal inheritance rights to biological kin, I suggested reviewing articles by University of Baltimore law professor Elizabeth Samuels. Her 2001 Rutgers Law Review article, “The Idea of Adoption,” makes clear  adoption law is designed to protect all biological parents, including fathers-by-sperm only, from any legal claim to their estates and assets by illegimate children given up for adoption.

Before 1943, Samuels writes, adoptees “were usually permitted to inherit from their birth parents as well as from other birth relatives.” By 1970, 21 states expressly forbid such inheritance. This trend matched the pattern of states creating discriminatory laws that prevented adoptees from knowing their past and obtaining their records, which most could usually access before the 1950s in practice, even in states that had sealed records. For Samuels, these laws reflected a prevailing societal idea promoted by adoption supporters that families created by adoption could be the equivalent of families created by kinship and blood. I, however, see a much different set of forces at play, documented over centuries in the denial of rights, property, and even life of those born illegitimately.

This revival of legal prejudice against adoptees, almost all of whom are bastards in the full sense of the word, is not new. It is a carryover from the English and Catholic and canonical legal tradition of treating illegitimately born humans as outsiders and bastards—filius nulius (children of no one or non-people). Bastard children had no claim to land, title, or property. Many were denied basic care and treated to cruelties we cannot begin to imagine. (See the excellent book on this topic: Bastardy and Its Comparative History, edited by Peter Laslett.) Infanticide of bastard babies has been widely documented up through the mid-1800s in Europe and even colonial America, for example.

Michigan’s Treatment of Adoptees and Bastards

The stamp mark of “SEALED” is meant to show me that I am not a real person in the eyes of the state and that I am an adoptee, who must bear the burden of that status on my legal records, which I am entitled to as a human right.

In my case, the state of Michigan intentionally adulterated the original birth certificate I received in 2016, after a bruising fight and court order. It arrived 51 years after my birth, and after I had petitioned for it over three decades.

In my assessment of both the law and the action by state vital records/public health staff who were handling my court ordered petition, they sought to confirm my bastard status and to affirm I did not have legal rights as the person I was born as. The state of course offered another rationale, but the effect was to imprint my identity document with the legal equivalent of a giant scarlet “B,” as in “bastard.” It was an expression of power of the state over “bastardized” and illegitimately born people, like me.

Legalese conversations about case law and law in general overlook the root and clearly documented history of discrimination that underpins this practice. I discuss this at length in Chapter 9 of my new memoir on the U.S. adoption experience.

One cannot separate historic discrimination of illegitimate people when having any conversation about the law, courts, and treatment of U.S. adoptees. Prejudice taints the entire case record and legal system regarding adoption, and to say otherwise is to ignore the legal reality impacting millions of adoptees today. It is that simple. My memoir on this experience explores this reality and its public health implications for millions of U.S. residents.

Changing Your Name Will Not Change Who You Are

Rudy Owens birth certificate after legal name change, showing the state of Michigan did not remove my adopted name (from 2009)

Before I received my original birth certificate, I had petitioned to change my name to incorporate my original birth name that I had known of since 1989 into my new name in 2009, and I was successful, becoming “Rudolf Scott-Douglas Owens.” My new name incorporated my birth name of “Scott Douglas Owens” with my adoptive name of “Martin Rudolf Brueggemann.”

I then requested Michigan’s vital records office to give me my revised birth record. Yet Michigan denied my right to my past and my former legal identity at the time of my birth by still keeping my amended birth certificate’s adoptive name, “Martin Rudolf Brueggemann,” as the prominent name on my now legally changed birth certificate. The new record puts my new legal name in barely visible micro letters below it, even though my new name is my true legal name that the courts bestowed upon me.

So even as adoptees assert their rights to their legal birth records, names, and identities, state public health agencies like the those in Michigan will assert through the perks of bureaucracy that an adopted bastard will have been erased, even if nearly impossible legal petitions exist for only the boldest and most defiant bastards and adoptees to reclaim their true identities.

Regardless, now I will die with the kin name I was born with, and the state cannot erase that. It tried to do that for decades, and it lost. And this bastard has never forgotten how the world has treated those born into this status. 

Memoir release set for April

Rudy Owens’ memoir on the American adoption experience

At long last, I can see the finish line for the first major milestone of sharing my story about the U.S. adoption system with readers. In April, I expect to begin selling my forthcoming memoir and public-health and historic overview of the still-flawed U.S. adoption system on multiple book-selling platforms and hopefully in book and mortar stores. Promoting and marketing my work, and finding the proverbial “stage” to bring it to a wider audience, will be an ongoing effort that will continue for months afterward. For now, first things first.
 
I will publish my book in paperback and e-book versions. I will include a searchable index for the paperback edition. My indexer is finishing this task now. I will be including a range of keywords and subject areas that define the experience of being an adoptee in the United States, including the terms “bastard,” “illegitimate,” “illegitimacy,” and many more. 
 
An index is a critical tool for anyone who wants to quickly find material to help understand the history of U.S. adoption and the ongoing treatment of U.S. adoptees by discriminatory laws and public-health bureaucracies in many states. Here are a few ways my index will call out my subject matter:

  • My work will include original research of how groups like the esteemed American Academy of Pediatrics openly encouraged single women to relinquish their infants without any peer-reviewed or medical evidence that showed adoption relinquishment provided any benefits to the child and mother.
  • I will highlight new information from the organizations (Florence Crittenton Mission and Florence Crittenton Association of America) that ran the hospital where I was born and the dozens of maternity homes nationwide where hundreds of thousands of women were put in hiding and encouraged to give up their children. That data will include a comprehensive study by the Crittenton organizations of “Crittenton moms” and their circumstances when they gave up their children.
  • I will provide a detailed accounting how the state of Michigan fails to treat Michigan-born adoptees fairly and has failed to do its job managing adoptee-records requests and original birth records.
  • It will support my commitment as a scholar and communications and public health professional to be trusted and strongly fact-based source of information that is rooted in evidence and unbiased analysis of data and the meaning of that data.

Please check back on my website to get the latest update on my book’s publishing date, sometime in April. Look for news about a possible Go-Fund-Me campaign too.
 
I also encourage followers of this website to tell your friends to bookmark my webpage, sign up for my newsletter,  follow me on Twitter, and, I hope, purchase my work in the coming weeks. 

Why adoption and the rights of adoptees must be seen as public health issues

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide this model to explain how a public health approach addresses problems and promotes population health.

My memoir, You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are: An Adoptee’s Journey Through the American Adoption Experience, stands apart from most books and memoirs that focus on adoption and adoptees’ stories.

Unlike other works in this field, You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are describes the American adoption experience through a public health lens, and it is written as a “public health memoir.” Please see the CDC Foundation’s definition of public health if you are not sure what public health means or how it approaches health issues.

In terms of policy, You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are shows how the institution—past and present—and the status of being adopted both constitute legitimate public health areas of interest that can be improved by changing outdated and discriminatory laws and policies. This will require the active collaboration of health and public health groups. Both have a moral obligation to advocate for the well-being of all adopted Americans as a population. Both also have a responsibility to correct their past historic roles creating a system that denies adoptees rights and also health information that could potentially be life-saving for some.

These are some of the public health issues my memoir addresses:

  • It shows that being adopted can be measured in long-term health impacts (there are anywhere from 5 million to 9 million U.S. adoptees, and that imprecision is part of the larger problem of counting them, and thus ensuring they count in all public-health decision-making).
  • It shows how and why health and public health professionals need to be involved in policy changes that improve the health for this diverse but large group of Americans, including advocating for legal changes to harmful adoption-records-secrecy laws now used in most U.S. states. Giving more adoptees access to their records will allow them to know their health and family ancestry—something recommended by nearly every leading health and scientific expert.
  • It shows how public health professionals today, namely in state vital records offices, contribute to legal inequality in the treatment of adopted persons seeking equal treatment by law and their family ancestry and medical history.
  • It shows how implicit bias against illegitimately born people—adoptees are viewed that way, even if that is not acknowledged—is seen in longitudinal health outcomes. There are tragic and meticulous historic and current data on mortality and morbidity of those born outside of marriage, which should be of interest to anyone in public health and health who thinks that bias matters in the treatment of people/groups.
  • It shows how doctors and social work professionals from the late 1940s through the 1970s promoted practices that separated infants and their birth families without any peer-reviewed or demonstrable evidence documenting how this would provide a long-term benefit to millions of Americans, namely the relinquished infants and their mothers/birth families. Those impacted were usually vulnerable, young, and powerless women who had few advocates for maintaining family relationships.
  • It shows how the United States’ state-level adoption records laws promoting records secrecy are out of alignment with most developed nations that allow adoptees to access birth records, and all without any evidence of harm. This discussion also highlights how this represents another form of “American exceptionalism” in health issues, such as the United States’ lack universal health care, and how the GOP in promoting adoption as a Christian/moral “alternative to abortion” has promoted this exceptionalism that harms adoptees as a population.

(Published Jan. 16, 2018; updated July 27, 2019)

How Prejudice Harms Millions of Adoptees

The Outcast, by Richard Redgrave, 1851, Royal Academy of the Arts, London, documents the treatment of bastardy and birth mothers in England in the 1800s.

Today I  published a detailed essay entitled “Discrimination Against Adoptees Rooted in Fears of Illegitimacy.” In it I explore one of the themes that will be discussed at length in my forthcoming memoir, You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are. 

My essay documents how the issue of prejudicial treatment of adoptees by states, courts, the media, and adoption agencies is almost never discussed in the long-simmering debate over adoptees’ legal right to their original birth records. As I show, discrimination can be seen in how adoptees seeking their birthright to know themselves and obtain copies of their original birth records are treated. By law, they are not considered equal to others in the majority of U.S. states. Many who enforce outdated state laws treat adoptees dismissively—even as threats. (See copies of emails written by senior Michigan public health officials how they responded fearfully to my request for my original birth certificate, as just one example.)

I highlight how this prejudice demonstrates a well-documented form of sociological behavior globally and throughout history. Historic and accurate records paint a grim picture of how this human bias translates into harmful actions. Bastards, birth mothers, and illegitimate people have paid a lethal price for their status. Remnants of that prejudice are alive and well today in laws that deny equal treatment to most U.S. adoptees by law, but also in how adoptees are treated when they seek their equal legal rights.