U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–457 WASHINGTON : 2000

ADOPTION REUNION REGISTRIES AND SCREENING

OF ADULTS WORKING WITH CHILDREN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 11, 1998

Serial No. 105–102

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois

BILL THOMAS, California

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

WALLY HERGER, California

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM HAMSTAD, Minnesota

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa

SAM JOHNSON, Texas

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

JERRY WELLER, Illinois

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee

XAVIER BECERRA, California

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

A.L. SINGLETON, Chief of Staff

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process

is further refined.

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Advisory of June 4, 1998, announcing the hearing ............................................... 2

WITNESSES

U.S. Department of Justice, Kent Markus, Deputy Chief of Staff ...................... 123

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ........................ 40

Bliley, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia ...... 36

Cahn, Naomi, George Washington University Law School .................................. 67

Child Welfare League of America, Ann Sullivan .................................................. 116

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................ 31

Florida Department of Children and Families, Josette Marquess ...................... 57

Levin, Hon. Carl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ............................. 29

Michigan Post-Adoption Support Services, JoAnne Swanson .............................. 76

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Robert Robinson ......................................................................................................................... 99

Sandusky, Carol, Doylestown, PA .......................................................................... 82

Wilson, R. David, Arlington, VA ............................................................................. 92

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, Mark T. McDermott, statement ..... 145

American Adoption Congress, Jane C. Nast, statement ....................................... 146

Bastard Nation, Kirkland, WA, statement ............................................................ 151

Cohen, Barbara, Watchung, NJ, letter .................................................................. 153

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, New York, NY, Madelyn Freundlich,

statement .............................................................................................................. 155

Foltz, Gregory, St. Andre Home, Biddeford, ME, statement and attachments .. 214

Freundlich, Madelyn, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, New York, NY,

statement .............................................................................................................. 155

Greenman, Frederick F., New York, NY, statement ............................................ 158

Groves, Nancy Jane Bustamante, Winter Springs, FL, letter and attachment . 164

Hasegawa, Pamela Quayle, letter and attachments ............................................. 174

Hollinger, Joan Heifetz, Berkeley, CA, statement ................................................ 177

Louisiana Adoption Advisory Board, Inc., Metairie, LA, statement .................... 181

Marvin, John B., Littleton, MA, statement ........................................................... 189

McDermott, Mark T., American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, statement .... 145

Nast, Jane C., American Adoption Congress, statement ...................................... 146

National Council for Adoption, statement ............................................................. 197

Newman, Nancy M., Bryn Mawr, PA, statement ................................................. 207

Oberstar, Hon. James L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Minnesota, statement and attachment .............................................................. 211

St. Andre Home, Biddeford, ME, Gregory Foltz, statement and attachments ... 214

(1)

ADOPTION REUNION REGISTRIES AND

SCREENING OF ADULTS WORKING WITH

CHILDREN

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

room B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. E. Clay Shaw,

Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

2

3

4

Chairman SHAW. Good morning. One of my personal goals as

Chairman of the Subcommittee, is to make adoption easier and to

help find loving families for hundreds of thousands of children in

need. Our Committee has an extensive legislative history of support for adoption. In 1996, we passed a $5,000 tax credit to help defray the cost of

one-time adoption expenses. At the same time, our Subcommittee

wrote legislation that ended racematching policies in adoption that

had resulted in minority children remaining in foster care on average more than twice as long as white children.

In 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act which originated in

this Subcommittee, provided financial incentives to the States to

move more children out of foster care and into permanent, loving,

adoptive families.

Today’s hearing brings attention to two distinct issues that were

raised last year during the consideration of the Adoption and Safe

Families Act. The first issue is the role that Government should

play to make it easier for adult adoptee and birth parents to exchange information. The second issue is State and Federal Government systems designed to check the criminal background of adults

who work with children.

We welcome, this morning, Senator Levin, a longtime advocate

for increasing the Federal role in facilitating the exchange of information between adoptees and birth parents and also, of course, the

brother of my colleague to my left. I am also very pleased that the

Co-Chairs of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, Senator

Larry Craig, Congressman Tom Bliley, and Congressman Jim

Oberstar are here to share their views on this important issue. In

addition, I am informed that Senator Robert Bennett will stop by

later this morning. I also understand that Representative Mark

Souder will also be joining us later in the morning. He has a particular interest in the screening of persons working with children.

After we hear from these distinguished members, our first panel

will focus on how adoption reunion registries work on the State

level; what safeguards are in place to maintain confidentiality, and

the strengths and weaknesses of current policies to facilitate reunions and to protect the privacy interests of all concerned. I am

especially pleased to welcome the coordinator of the Florida Adoption Reunion Registry, Ms. Josette Marquess, who will walk us

through the mechanics of a State reunion registry.

Our second panel will examine existing State practices and Federal guidelines for identifying potential abusive individuals. Members of our subcommittee will recall that in the Adoption and Safe

Families Act, a provision was included that required States to perform criminal background checks for prospective foster and adoptive families. Although States could opt out of this requirement,

none have yet done so. This panel will provide an overview of the

State and Federal systems currently available to check the records

of any adult working with children and how these different systems

interact to ensure the safety of children.

Today, I encourage our members and interested observers to listen carefully to the statements made by our witnesses. The topics

we are considering are highly sensitive, emotionally charged, and

hotly debated. It is my hope that this hearing will not only bring

5

attention to these issues but will create the kind of calm and reasoned atmosphere that will allow a serious and thoughtful analysis

of whether the Federal Government should take legislative action

on either of these issues.

[The opening statement and attachments follow:]

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Levin.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

very much for holding this hearing. We discussed it last year, and

there was a feeling that this hearing would be held, and it’s very

timely. You know, often, in these hearings we state our position in

advance of the testimony of witnesses, and the chairman hasn’t

done that today, and I will not either. I think it would be especially

questionable in review of the fact that one of the first witnesses is

my brother, Senator Carl Levin. But I must confess that I know of

his activity.

My brother has been working on this issue for more than a decade, and I have admired his interest and his tenacity. I’m not sure

of the source of his interest. I am aware of the source of his tenacity. I think it’s just that he’s a very caring individual and came to

view this is an important matter for lots of people in this country.

So, I welcome him. I think this is the first time I’ve ever had him

testify before a subcommittee, and I intend to question him very intensely. I would also like to welcome Senator Craig, a former colleague and present, also distinguished colleague, Tom Bliley. So,

Mr. Chairman, I’ll put my statement in the record and why don’t

we just launch into the hearing.

[The opening statement follows:]

27

28

29

Chairman SHAW. All right. Our first panel is already in place,

and, with that, I think you’ve been introduced, Senator Levin. You

may proceed. We have each of your full statements which will be

made a part of the record, and you may summarize as you see fit,

and we do have a five minute rule over here, Mr. Levin. [Laughter.]

Something that is somewhat foreign, I know, to the other body.

Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Senator CARL LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, members of this subcommittee, first, thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding the hearing

on a topic which has been the subject of a great deal of discussion

in the Senate over the years where we’ve passed this bill a number

of times; where we’ve had hearings a number of years ago, indeed,

on this subject at great length.

There are millions of people who are adopted in this country, and

a significant part of them are searching for their biological parent,

usually the mother. We have a significant number of the biological

mothers who gave up their child for adoption who are seeking to

find those children. We know the numbers are significant—there’s

different estimates—but we know there are large numbers of people who seek to find each other, and this bill only addresses people

who are trying to find each other, and its purpose is to facilitate

people who are searching for each other, sometimes desperately to

find each other. It does not seek anybody out who does not want

to be found. It is a passive registry based on two adults searching

for each other, helping to find each other. It does not open records;

it specifically prohibits that. It does not in any way preempt State

registries or in any way override or affect State registries. It explicitly says it does not do that. It is a very simple bill in a lot of ways.

Its purpose is that at no net expense to the Federal Government

it authorizes HHS to maintain this registry where adults—it has

to be adults; the adopted child must be 21 years or older—is seeking to find a birth parent or a sibling.

So, what is the need for this registry? Many States have registries, different varieties: some are passive, some are so-called

search and consent where one party puts the name in and then the

registry seeks the other party. That is not what this is. This is a

passive registry. But what’s the need, then, for this registry if most

States have one form or another of registry?

There are a number of reasons why a national registry will facilitate, but one of the main reasons is that many adopted children do

not know the State in which they were born. Their birth certificate

does not identify the State in which they were born, and for many

biological mothers, the birth mother, they do not know the State

in which the adoption took place. The child could be adopted in a

different State from the State in which he was born.

So, one of the reasons why people have difficulty using the State

registries—and I think all our States just about have registries;

there’s a few that don’t—but one of the reasons is that you have

that gap in information where the adopted child is not certain what

State he or she was born in, and the birth mother doesn’t know

30

what State the child was adopted in. The child knows what State

it was adopted in but not the State in which it was born.

There’s another reason: when siblings look for each other, and we

have letters here from siblings from five, six, seven different States

with no idea what State in which they were born or in which their

sibling lives. There’s other identifying information, however. It’s actually called non-identifying information, but in simple terms

there’s other information which will permit a match to be made,

and it is that type of information which the registry uses, a passive

registry uses, to make these matches. For instance, age of birth

parents; description of general physical appearance; race, ethnicity,

religion of birth parents; facts and circumstances relating to the

placement; age and sex of other children. There is other information which permits the match other than the name of the parent

or the child and even other than the location of the birth. It is that

so-called non-identifying information—because it doesn’t identify

the name of the parent or the child or even the location of the

birth—which makes matches possible.

The fundamental question is this: If State registries have had no

problems in terms of violations of privacy with these one-parent

matches or reunions—and we don’t know of States that have had

problems; we have letters, for instance, from the State of Louisiana

saying there’s been no problems, and most of the States that have

these passive registries have the one-parent reunion where you

don’t have to get approval of the other parent, and we’ve not had

problems as a result—if the registries and the States that have

passive registries have done so successfully, but if there are limits

to their capabilities to facilitate people searching for each other,

why not do that for people? Why not allow people searching for

each other to find each other?

Michael Reagan, adopted son of President Reagan, came to my

house one night and told me how important this bill was to him—

and I have a letter from him which I’ll submit for the record, Mr.

Chairman—and told me that he really never realized that his father, who was then President of the United States, even loved him

until his father told him he would help him find his birth mother.

That’s how important it was to him, and that’s how important it

is to many, not all—we don’t know the percentage—many adopted

children.

If they don’t want to find their birth mother, fine; that is their

right. If the birth mother doesn’t want to be found, I believe that

is okay too; that is her choice. But where two adult human beings

are searching for each other and where there are limits on State

registries because of the reasons I’ve given and others and where

they’re searching desperately for their sibling and where privacy

has not been invaded of the other birth parent who doesn’t want

to be found, in the experience of these passive registries, the haunting question seems to me, the humane question is, why would we

not want to facilitate that if we can do so protecting the privacy

of the person who does not want to be found? It is not an open

record. It does not displace State law.

Now, misinformation has been circulated about this bill over the

years, and I won’t go into that for a number of reasons not the

least the limitations of time. I want to focus on the positive. What

31

this bill is is a humane way of allowing people to find each other

without invading the privacy of others. It is not an open records

bill; it is not a search and consent bill.

My time is up, and I thank the Chair, and I, again, appreciate—

I’ll just say how appreciative we are, those of us, including Senator

Craig who will speak for himself and Senator Landrieu who is an

adoptive mother; Senator McCain who is an adoptive father, who

are co-sponsors of this bill. We appreciate that you’re giving us the

chance to be heard on this subject.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Craig.

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAIG. Chairman Shaw, thank you very much, Congressman Levin, members of the committee. Like Senator Levin, thank

you for giving us an opportunity to speak to this legislation this

morning and for your interest in it.

As you know, last year, we worked together and passed landmark foster care reform law, the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

I believe now we must complete the process, and I think this legislation is a very important part of that. My comments will be brief

this morning. I understand your time limits—Senators can be brief.

I grew up in the House. I learned that lesson. But also there’s another item on my schedule that has to be tended to.

Let me say at the outset, I was slow to come to this idea. I listened to both sides for a time, but I recognize the importance of

doing this; it is a national and is a human rights issue. I listened

to Senator Levin, and he was also cooperative in allowing me to

work with him to shape the legislation. So, now I strongly support

a national, voluntary, mutual reunion registry for adoptees largely

because of the experience I’ve just related to you but also because

of my own family experience.

You may already know, I’m an adoptive father. My children had

issues to resolve with their birth father even into their adulthood

and beyond, and I believe that this option could have helped them.

When two adults choose to search for one another, out of the most

fundamental and powerful of human motives—the need to better

understand themselves and their relationship with others—then we

ought to have the ability to help, and I think this proposal gives

us that opportunity.

It is within our power to make this registry a reality, and provide these individuals with a tool for undertaking the impossible

challenge of searching the Nation for one another. I hope that the

subcommittee shares my support for what I think is a very legitimate goal.

I realize that the focus of today’s hearing is not on the justification of this program but on how it works, and I think Senator

Levin has spelled that out very clearly. He’s the expert in the field.

He’s spent a long time, as his brother has related to us, looking at

this and working on it. I’m a relative newcomer to the issue, but

I understand the importance of it.

Our legislation, S. 1487, is very specific about what a national

registry—and I believe this word is important—what a national

32

registry cannot do, but it is deliberately vague about what it can

do and how it might work, and it allows the greatest of flexibility

in designing the system, but it is important that we say what it

cannot do, because I think it alleviates the fears of others who

argue some issues that I think are—at least from my opinion—not

as valid.

For my part, I envision a simple system in which interested individuals supply information that is matched via computer. This information would be verifiable with publicly available data, not

through any kind of open records mandate, and that’s important.

My State of Idaho has a closed system. In fact, our bill specifically

states that it does not preempt any State’s sealed record or records

policy, and we know some States’ registries are able to match people without resorting to sealed records. Surely, we can achieve as

much at the Federal level.

As the subcommittee considers the national registry, I hope unreasonable burdens wouldn’t be placed on the system. It doesn’t

have to guarantee that every union will be a happy one; we

shouldn’t do that. It doesn’t have to provide blood kinship with the

accuracy of a DNA test before a reunion is facilitated. It’s worth

pointing out that the State registries, the privately-operated

Soundex system, and private detectives don’t make such guarantees today. Others here today know much more, as I have said,

about this, and Senator Levin is one of them, but I believe this is

something we ought to do. The Senator has clearly explained how

it works and why it should be a national registry.

When you’re dealing with adults—and we’re not dealing with

States’ rights here; we protect them—our Constitution is very clear

on the right of citizens, and in dealing with adults, we’re talking

about the rights of citizens. We’re not stepping on the toes of any

of those who are responsible for juveniles, because we talk about

adults and adults only and the need for them to come together.

I think it’s an important piece of legislation. I think it completes

very successfully the process we started a year ago to help in this

country not only facilitate adoptions of children who need permanent loving homes but once mature and in search of their identity

and many are, then this, I believe, completes the extension of what

we’ve offered and we continue to support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]

33

34

35

36

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Bliley.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BLILEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Levin,

other members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to

testify today. I am opposed to this bill. My wife and I are adoptive

parents of two children. I think family law is best left to the States.

Forty-eight States currently have a system in place to satisfy the

needs of adoptees and birth parents who wish to meet. I am concerned about the potential outing of a birth mother. A mother who

made a mistake and had a child out of wedlock and offers that

baby up for adoption. She goes on and lives a new life, and what

I fear is an unwelcome knock on the door. I think that’s something

that we cannot overestimate the danger of in this bill. It says, ‘‘any

birth parent.’’ It’s not defined. It could have the unintended affect

of a birth father outing, birth mother or vice versa, and I think

that would be a terrible tragedy.

We talk about confidentiality of the records. We’ve seen just recently as June 6th that a hacker broke into the Army computers.

You’re going to have sensitive information, and there’s a great risk.

I think the State system is working well, and I think, basically, it

should to be left that way. I have a long statement. I ask unanimous consent to put it in the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bliley follows:]

37

38

39

40

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. As I said earlier, the full statement

of all the Members will be placed in the record.

We’re now joined by Senator Bennett.

Senator Bennett.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for

coming in late. I appreciate your willingness to allow me to make

a few comments about this bill.

It passed the Senate by unanimous consent which is the way we

get most things done in the Senate, but, occasionally, that exposes

a lack of diligence on the part of Members of the Senate, and I

should have registered some of these complaints at the time that

it moved through the Senate, and I appreciate the opportunity to

register them here.

My main concern with S. 1487 is that it does not provide details

on how it will work, and since its passage, I have been contacted

by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, an organization to which roughly 70 percent of the constituents in my State

belong and which is involved in adoption of children. This has a

very strong personal impact on me, because it is through the

church’s social services that my latest grandchild came into being.

A delightful young boy, a gorgeous baby who was made available

to my daughter through the adoption process that the church manages.

And the leaders of the church are concerned that S. 1487 will

open the door to a federalized registry in a way that does not adequately protect privacy and that this may very well have a chilling

effect on adoption. The unclear language could create some harmful

situations, and I will provide for the committee some highlighted

provisions in the bill which in the opinion of the church’s legal authority produce the kind of uncertainties that they are concerned

about.

Now, the purpose of the legislation is to reunite people separated

from each other by the adoption process, and in many cases this

is a very desirable thing. It’s a choice on the part of the individuals

and should be available to them. However, if the reunion is desired

by the involved parties, they can take advantage of the systems

that are already offered in the States. Virtually, every State has

sort of system in place that people seeking identification may use.

And, again, if I may be personal, I have a brother and sister-inlaw who were unable to have children; have adopted four children.

Three of their four children decided they wished to make some kind

of contact with their birth parents; the fourth did not. All three

were able to do so without any difficulty under the present system

and did not find it necessary for this kind of legislation to be in

place in order for them to fulfill their desire.

Existing State laws provide what each States deems appropriate

for dealing with the rights and interests of the adoptee and their

adoptive parents, and it’s more logical when dealing with personal

and confidential family matters such as these to work within the

framework of the States instead of opening it up to the Federal

41

Government, and superimposing a duplicate, regulatory procedure,

in my view, would cause confusion and open up more problems.

Many involved in the adoption process were promised that their

identity would be protected and honored by all parties associated

with this for their entire lives. Again, if I may be personal, one of

my nephews had a disease which the doctors decided should be

traced to some kind of genetic background, and for this purpose

and this purpose only he went about trying to find his birth parents. He had previously had no interest in so doing. He did achieve

his goal and had a conversation with his birth mother. It was preceded by a phone call where he asked if such a woman were at

home; was told yes; then asked did she have a child 21 years ago.

There was silence on the other end of the phone, and the individual

said, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ He then spoke to her; achieved the medical

information that he was after, and then she said this has created

a very interesting and difficult situation for me. ‘‘My husband does

not know that I was pregnant with you. No member of my family

had any previous knowledge that I had had another child, and your

phone call will produce some challenges for me in my situation.’’

So, we need to pay attention to the desire of people to keep certain aspects of their lives private, and Federal legislation could

lead to a perceived problem with this kind of privacy. If it causes

less adoptions, again, speaking very—and more abortions—speaking very personally, I would have one less grandchild.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of

speaking with the committee and will file further information with

the committee in written form.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, and I thank all of the witnesses for

your testimony.

Mr. Camp, you may inquire.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the

Senators and Chairman Bliley for coming, and, Senator Levin,

thank you for all your hard work on this. We’ve visited about this

and I think this is an opportunity to try to have a public discussion

about this legislation, and I certainly am sympathetic to the idea

of trying to unite two adults who would both like to be reunited.

Because your legislation is silent on the mechanics, which I understand why it may be, there is some question about how the authenticity of the information; how it’s guaranteed that the identifying information is authentic. You’ve heard the testimony about

whether or not only one birth parent may not have consented or

may not have desired to be reached or a sibling for that matter.

How would the rights of people who do not wish to be identified—

how would they be protected under this legislation?

Senator CARL LEVIN. The passive registries in the States require

that both parties place the information into the registry. It’s only

if both parties want to find each other is there a match. There’s

no search provision in this bill. It’s very explicitly not a search bill,

so the answer would come, I think to your question, by looking

through the processes of the State registries which have not had

a problem. I mean, we have letters from State registries. For instance, we have a letter from the Louisiana registry, for instance,

which says that the single—Louisiana has not encountered any

problems with one-parent reunions with an adoptee, and we don’t

42

know of any registry that have these one-parent reunions which

has had problems with that.

So, the HHS, if they followed this, would follow the kinds of procedures in terms of information which would be in their registry

and that would be matched with each other, that the passive State

registries would have.

Mr. CAMP. Which would—and I apologize for being a little bit

late to your testimony—which would be mainly possible place of

birth, age, or estimated age; those kinds of identifying factors that

you might——

Senator CARL LEVIN. Ironically enough, it’s called non-identifying

information which I think is the accurate name but a confusing

name, because it doesn’t identify the name of either the biological

parent or of the child. It doesn’t even necessarily identify the birth

place. They may not know the birth place. For instance, in the case

of the adopted child, they may not know the birth place. In the case

of the birth mother, for instance, she may not know where the child

was adopted; it may have been taken to a different State for adoption.

This information, typically, is the following—and this is what I

gave before, but let me give you some examples; it’s called nonidentifying information—age of the birth parents, description of

general physical appearance, race, ethnicity, religion of birth parents, facts and circumstances relating to adoptive placement, age

and sex of other children of the birth parents at the time of adoption, occupations, interests, skills of birth parents. Those are the

kinds of non-identifying information which these passive registries

then use to match two people who are looking for each other, and

only if there’s match do they make it.

Mr. CAMP. Well, assuming there are other siblings, for example,

that were in the same family that were adopted. You have one sibling that has a desire to find his or her birth mother that wants

to find her child, but the others don’t want to be found and don’t

want to find their parents. You potentially expose them to being

found out if the two connect and they find there are other children,

do you not?

Senator CARL LEVIN. The registries, the passive registries, in

about 20 States have not had that problem. I think the best answer

is the experience of the registries, the passive registries, and that’s

what we have checked. We have checked with those registries to

see whether or not there has been a problem of the invasion of privacy of somebody who doesn’t want to be found, and the answer is

there has not been. So, the HHS would follow the procedures of the

passive registry States.

Mr. CAMP. And I don’t know if I’ll have enough time, but one last

question: For example, in Michigan, you cannot get this identifying

information if the adoption occurred before September 12, 1980—

between May 28, 1945 and September 12, 1980. There is no release

of information. Those are completely closed adoptions. So, you’re

going to have this patchwork quilt, so you would only be talking

about adoptions after 1980, for example, in Michigan.

Senator CARL LEVIN. In Michigan now?

Mr. CAMP. Yes, and it would require that the parents have not

filed a statement refusing to disclose information. So, if they filed

43

one of these statements or if they failed to do that, it’s presumed

that they can get information at least to locate a birth certificate.

Senator CARL LEVIN. There wouldn’t be a match in that case. In

other words, if that information is not available for the registrar,

you wouldn’t have the match.

Mr. CAMP. Well, I realize you have a non-preemption clause for

a very good reason in your bill, but would that, on the same hand,

the non-preemption clause prevent the implementation of this national registry because of that?

Senator CARL LEVIN. No, it would just mean that in those cases

that you just identified, between 1945 and 1980, there would not

be a match if that was a Michigan birth. There’s not going to be

a match in every case where people want to find each other. It

seems to me what you’re saying is very true; that you could have

situations where people want to find each other where there is no

match, because there’s not enough information in the registry to

permit the match occur, and I think that’s very possible that will

happen. But why where there is enough information available to

people finding each other that the match can be made would we

not want to facilitate two adults who want to find each other, find

each other, just because in other cases there’s not enough information to make the match for two adults who seek to find each other

which is your case?

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much.

Chairman SHAW. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Levin.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Mr. Camp, you referred to kind of the patchwork, and I don’t understand, really, the resistance to this, because

what we now have is a total patchwork, because people who are

looking for each other, if they don’t know where to look, essentially,

are thwarted, and that’s the craziest patchwork of all, it seems to

me.

So, Senator Bennett, welcome, and we’re glad you’re here. Let me

take the case that you gave of the genetic problem. In many cases

where a person, a young man, I think it was, is in need of finding

out some information, if that person doesn’t know where to look

even if his mother also wants to find him, that match may be impossible. There is no system that allows people from one part of

this country to find someone in another part of the country. In your

case, the young man was lucky, because he had some hunch where

to look. Where you have a country of 250 million, 3,500 miles

across, taking a match may be impossible. What this proposal does

is take State registries and put them into a system so people can

find each other. How do you answer the person with the genetic

problem who can’t find his mother or father, because he doesn’t

know where to look?

Senator BENNETT. My concern is not with the concept that we

ought to facilitate situations where there is a legitimate and proper

reason for people to get together. My concern is with the language

of the bill that I consider to be unclear that could create situations

where someone who has very legitimate reasons not to be found

can have that privacy violated.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Can’t we, though—first of all, there has to

be two people looking for each other, but if there is some concomiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:18 May 30, 2000 Jkt 064040 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63457 pfrm03 PsN: 63457
44

tant problem of confidentiality, I assume that we can handle that.

As I understand the laws in both of your States—and I’m not an

expert on this—for example, in Virginia, there’s a search and consent system for someone over 18. This bill doesn’t even go that far.

Both parties have to have said they want to find each other. In Virginia’s case, if someone who is adopted wants to look for their birth

parent, they can obtain the information that is involved in this bill,

and then the person who is found has to say yes or no. That’s the

law of Virginia. This bill says, ‘‘No, we’re not even going to assist

someone who is looking if the other person hasn’t already consented.’’ Now, I don’t understand what the issue is in view of the

fact that most of the States, or a good number of them, already

have either what is in this bill, a passive registry, or something

that goes beyond it.

Mr. BLILEY. Well, I don’t think there’s a need for this bill. It

doesn’t preempt the States. It’s just like Dave Camp pointed out regarding Michigan; prior to 1980, those records are sealed. The reason they were sealed is to protect the privacy of people who don’t

want to be found.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. But then they wouldn’t be in the system. The

law, I think, in Michigan is if it occurred before 1945 or after

1980—but I’m not an expert, and I don’t think it matters. I think

Mr. Camp’s point, essentially, his question is salient. And the answer is there wouldn’t be that system in operation then. There’s a

uniform code suggestion, uniform State law, that essentially says

that if one birth parent and an adoptee register a willingness to

disclose their identities, the identifying information must be disclosed. They want every State to do that. The problem is it’s like

support laws, Mr. Chairman. We’ve had to have a national system

working with the States, not obliterating State law, because people

could not find each other in the sense that the mother usually

could not find the father who had escaped a state’s jurisdiction. In

this case, you have two people looking for each other. They’re looking for each other, but State law won’t be adequate unless you enable states to coordinate with each other somehow.

Mr. BLILEY. Well, it seems to me, that the State law is there. If

the State law says that this is sealed, you’re not going to get the

information anyway.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. That’s true, but this is where State law—and

I’ll finish—doesn’t seal; it allows people to obtain this information

where the——

Mr. BLILEY. But it’s not necessary.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Because you don’t know where to look, Mr.

Bliley.

Mr. BLILEY. People who adopted the child know where the child

came from, and they——

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. But the person who was adopted is an adult,

and that information is not available to that person. It may not always be available to the person who adopted either, and that isn’t

always available. And the question is where you have two consenting adults looking for each other, why not help them?

Chairman SHAW. Mr. McCrery.

Mr. MCCRERY. Gentlemen, I have real mixed emotions about

what’s before us today. On the one hand, I feel for those people who

45

genuinely want to find their birth parent or birth sibling. On the

other hand, I want to encourage adoptions as much as possible in

this country, and I do share Senator Bennett’s fear that this could,

at least at the margin, discourage people from having their baby

and putting it up for adoption. So, I have real mixed feelings about

this.

Let me ask just a couple of questions to try to clear up some

things. I never did get a good answer, Senator Levin—or at least,

I never heard a good answer—to Mr. Camp’s question about nonconsenting parents being exposed, if you will. You have two parents

to a child that was put up for adoption, and let’s suppose that at

the time those parents decided to put that child up for adoption

they agreed never ever to expose their identity to the child, and for

whatever reason, one of the parents changes his mind 20 years

later or 21 years later and puts his name on one of these registries,

or our registry, and, sure enough, the child is wanting to find out,

so he puts his name on the registry. They find each other, and the

one parent says, ‘‘Oh, by the way, your other parent is Ms. X.’’ Is

there anything to protect a non-consenting parent or sibling?

Senator CARL LEVIN. Experience proves that that has not been

a problem. That’s the most direct answer that we can give. The alternative would be to require a sign-off by the other person which

then would require a search. The person may have disappeared;

may be dead; may not be available. So, the choice that the State

registries have had to make is, do we try to make very clear and

carefully make the match and then see whether or not there’s a

problem of this kind—and they’ve found no problem of this kind—

or do we require the consent of the other parent which is frequently not obtainable and then would destroy the possibility, since

you can’t obtain that in many cases where the person has disappeared or died, of making the match. But it’s experience which

is my answer to you. Talk to the registries——

Mr. MCCRERY. Yes, I heard that answer earlier.

Senator CARL LEVIN. Well, let me—if I could just read the Louisiana letter, for instance. Louisiana has not encountered any problems with one-parent reunions and an adoptee.

Mr. MCCRERY. What does that mean?

Senator CARL LEVIN. That means there have been no problems

of invasion of privacy of the other parent.

Mr. MCCRERY. Oh, that’s a specific reference to that problem,

that potential problem?

Senator CARL LEVIN. That is what we asked them about.

Mr. BLILEY. But there is no guarantee.

Mr. MCCRERY. Yes, that was my next question. There’s nothing

in your bill, though, that requires consent of the other parent

or——

Senator CARL LEVIN. We follow the State registry in that regard.

In other words, the State passive registries——

Mr. MCCRERY. Well, in Louisiana, for example, if I’m not mistaken, they require an hour of counseling with somebody who’s

name goes on the record, the registry, and I’m sure in that counseling they probably go through, ‘‘Do you know who the other parent is? Did you have some agreement? Does he have an objection?’’

46

Something like that; that’s my guess that they would go over those

things. So, that could lead to fewer problems.

Senator CARL LEVIN. I think that’s right.

Mr. MCCRERY. But you’re legislation doesn’t have any of that,

does it, of counseling?

Senator CARL LEVIN. Well, we leave the HHS to implement this

by regulation the way they implement a lot of our laws by regulation, and that would surely be proposed as part of——

Mr. MCCRERY. So, HHS could counsel everybody who wants to

join the national registry? And this is supposed to have no cost?

Senator CARL LEVIN. They could require counseling the way

other registries require counseling. No cost means you’ve got to pay

a fee which covers the cost, and if the counseling costs, for instance, in any States’ registry, there’s a cost.

Mr. MCCRERY. So, you anticipate charging a fee to put your

name on the registry that would cover all administrative costs?

Senator CARL LEVIN. That is correct.

Mr. MCCRERY. What about the potential problem of people supplying information to the national registry and that information is

not authentic? It’s not accurate; it’s made up; it’s not authentic. In

the States’ case, they have the records, so they can go into the

records and verify, authenticate, information that’s provided by a

person. We’re not going to have that ability, are we, because we

can’t force the States to divulge their records to us? So, how do we

solve that problem at the national level that the States solve by

going into the records?

Senator CARL LEVIN. I’d have to check out my answer on this

question, because I’m not sure that I’m right, but I don’t believe

that most States with passive registries go into records. I think

those records are sealed, and the match has got to be made on the

basis of information which is available to the registry without going

into the sealed records, but I’d have to double check that to give

you a sure answer to your question.

Mr. MCCRERY. Well, we’re going to have some folks, I think, from

the States in a later panel, so we can maybe get the information

from that panel.

Senator CARL LEVIN. Yes, they could give you a more certain answer. If I could, Mr. Chairman, for the record, If I could put in a

letter from the organization called Adopt a Special Kid, addressing

the abortion issue, indicating in their letter, in their statement,

that there’s no data whatsoever to support the claim that there will

be any increase in the number of abortions?

Chairman SHAW. Without objection, it will be made a part of the

entire record.

[The information follows:]

47

48

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Cohen?

Mr. Watkins?

Mr. WATKINS. I’ve been sitting here trying to wrestle through

this. I’m an adoptive dad. I have an adopted daughter. I know we

can come up with all the different things that might happen. My

adopted daughter’s biological mother was a drug addict and an alcoholic. I’m trying to figure the link or what the situation would

be of protection of the young ladies—I shouldn’t just say the young

ladies—but there are many cases out there where young ladies are

given up because of abuse, sexual abuse, and many other things.

How do we prevent—I know it’s supposed to be, I guess, one parent—how do we prevent that possibility of maybe the other parent

that was abusive from being linked up some way?

Senator CARL LEVIN. Are you assuming that the child and one

parent want to find each other?

Mr. WATKINS. That’s the case——

Senator CARL LEVIN. In your case?

Mr. WATKINS. Yes, in this case, I won’t use that as a person but

as a situation—I know there’s probably case after case like that out

there, and I know probably the most difficult thing I’ve ever done

is to go and to ask that biological mother to give up her daughter,

and the question I have is how do we prevent the young ladies

from having to go through that turmoil again?

Senator CARL LEVIN. But I want to be real clear that in your

question, the young lady wants to find the biological mother.

Mr. WATKINS. Right, and only the biological mother.

Senator CARL LEVIN. Only. Okay, but wants to find the biological

mother, and she’s an adult. The adopted child is now an adult.

That’s your case?

Mr. WATKINS. That’s the case.

Senator CARL LEVIN. Then she wants to find her biological mother, and if her biological mother wants to find her, that’s the case

that we’re talking about? The question is should we help them find

each other? That’s the question, and the answer, I believe, is yes,

and you’re saying what about the possibility, then, that the father

who she doesn’t want to find?

Mr. WATKINS. She was living in a home there. The parents may

or may not still be living together or they have the complications

there, and that turmoil that could occur again in the life of that

young lady.

Senator CARL LEVIN. I think that that’s Congressman McCrery’s

question, although——

Mr. WATKINS. I started to say he was coming close to it.

Senator CARL LEVIN. Yes, and the State registries follow—have

the same question. They face the same question, and they have decided that they will allow two adults who want to find each other

to find each other, and they will help two adults who want to find

each other to find each other and face that same question, what

about that second biological parent, though? Isn’t there a possibility somehow they will find out? Now, through counseling or

other means, the State registries have not had a problem in this

regard that we can determine, but that’s best checked out with the

State registries. They have not had a problem, but then you must

weigh the need of people who are looking for each other to find

49

each other against that possibility which is not proven to be a reality in experience. That’s the answer which I think the State registries will give to you, but that’s the experience of the State registries. It’s the same challenge that they face.

Mr. WATKINS. Senator, if you’ve ever dealt with such an abusive

environment, there is a tremendous amount of manipulation that

takes place in the minds of some people who either have an alcoholic or drug situation or many other problems that They will manipulate any way, shape, form, or fashion to take advantage and

they could put the name on that registry along with the other parent, and it’s concerning, to say the least. How do you protect that

person that maybe would like to try to find that mother to a certain extent, but they don’t want to have anything to do with an experience that they have a real problem about today.

Senator CARL LEVIN. And I think your State registry could give

you the way in which that person has not been ‘‘outed’’—the word

that’s been used here—has not had their privacy invaded in the

practice and reality of State registries that are passive registries.

It has not proven to be a problem. To not allow, not facilitate, two

adults who want to find each other to find each other because of

the possibility that you raised which has not proven to be a reality,

it seems to me, is the wrong solution to a real problem of adults

who seek to find each other.

Chairman SHAW. The time of the gentleman has expired. Go

ahead, do you one quick one?

Mr. WATKINS. First, quickly, what do you consider an adult

ought to be. Have you ever dealt with these kind of people?

Senator CARL LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. WATKINS. The manipulation that comes about?

Senator CARL LEVIN. Yes.

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Jefferson?

Mr. JEFFERSON. I can see both sides of the question, and I know

what you’re trying to do with the nationalizing of this effort to

make sure that people who aren’t in the same State have access

to information from people across other parts of the country as

Sander said, and I think that probably is a reasonable idea. The

bill permits for siblings who are looking for each other to register

here, not just parents and children, right?

Senator CARL LEVIN. Correct.

Mr. JEFFERSON. You’ve said that problems haven’t arisen in various States concerning questions which McCrery and which Watkins raised a few minutes ago, and you said pretty emphatically—

and, perhaps, it’s true—but how do you know that—because of each

one of these passive laws is a little bit different. The one in Louisiana is a little different from the one you proposed here, and what

reports have you gotten about what really happens with respect to

these issues they’ve raised? I mean, how certain are we about the

answers you’ve given? You may have nothing available to you to

show that there are problems, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t

any, and how do we make sure that we have some way to deal with

it in this legislation?

Senator CARL LEVIN. I think that the witnesses that support the

bill will be testifying will address that issue in terms of their research. That is a matter of research. We’ve done research in our

50

office talking to all the registries, but that doesn’t help you satisfy

yourself for me to tell you that we’ve done that research. You

would have to hear, I think, from your own registries on that question, and, perhaps, those of you who have these registries could

check with your own registries in your own States. I think that

would be the best evidence that you could get.

Chairman SHAW. Our registers here, so I’m going to be able to

do that in just a few minutes.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Are there any complications that arise with the

siblings who are looking for each other and who have the good fortune to find each other with parents who are involved but don’t

want to be found? Anything like that going on? Is there any difference between a parent and a child looking for each other and

siblings looking for each other and the complications and implications that result with respect to that?

Senator CARL LEVIN. Not that we are able to determine. In terms

of our survey of registries. We have the experience with these registries in most States, and the issue is since they can’t do the job

under the circumstances which we’ve identified, should we then be

able to do the same thing State registries do and fill in that gap,

but the experience of the State registries in this area, it seems to

me, should be reassuring to us that we’re not creating a new animal here. We’re just simply patterning this over the most modest

of the registries which are the passive registries.

I think the best answer that would come from the registries of

the States—and I can’t tell you that there’s never been a problem

with any match in any registry; I doubt that that would be an accurate statement, but I can tell you that I don’t believe this has

proven to be a problem with the registries, and they would tell you

that these passive matches have worked very well, and they may

have a few wrinkles or problems, but, generally, they have.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Thank you.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. I want to thank this panel. We’re

going to have to—by the way, this is a very complex issue that’s

full of fish hooks and a lot of problems that we’re going to have to

try to deal with.

Senator CARL LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, may I also add to the record

just a couple additional letters including the——

Chairman SHAW. Yes, the gentleman may add anything he wishes to the record.

Senator CARL LEVIN. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Chairman SHAW. We have a vote on the floor. We’re going to recess for approximately 15 minutes, and then we’ll look forward to

the second panel.

[Recess.]

Chairman SHAW. I apologize to those in attendance, and particularly our next panel. We had three votes. And that was the—three

15-minute votes, so that’s where it was.

Our next panel is already seated. Josette Marquess, who is the

coordinator of the Florida Adoption Reunion Registry and the Post

Adoption Services Unit, Department of Children and Families in

Tallahassee, Florida; Naomi Cahn, who is the associate professor

of Family Law at George Washington University Law School; JoAnne Swanson, who’s director of Post-Adoption Support Services,

Wetmore Michigan; Robert Robinson, who is the commissioner, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, from

Portland, Maine; David Wilson, who is an adult adoptee from Arlington, Virginia, and Carol Sandusky, who is an adult adoptee

from Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

Welcome, all of you. We have your full statement, which will be

made a part of the record. And we invite you to summarize.

Ms. Marquess.

STATEMENT OF JOSETTE MARQUESS, COORDINATOR, FLORIDA ADOPTION REUNION REGISTRY AND POST ADOPTION

SERVICES UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, TALLAHASSEE, FL

Ms. MARQUESS. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the

subcommittee, good morning and thank you for the invitation to

testify before this committee on the Florida Adoption Reunion Registry and the possibility of the establishment of a National Reunion

Registry.

My name is Josette Marquess, and I am the Coordinator of the

Florida Adoption Reunion Registry. Our registry is located within

the Florida Department of Children and Families.

The Florida Adoption Reunion Registry was established in 1981

and became operational in Fiscal Year 1982. The registry was originally located with the Florida Bureau of Vital Statistics and was

moved to the Florida Department of Children and Families in 1985.

The Florida Adoption Reunion Registry is a confidential, crossreferenced file of people who are or were the principal parties in

an adoption. This includes adult adoptees, birth parents, siblings,

grandparents and adoptive parents of minor and adult children.

Our registry is passive in that we wait for a match. We do not actively search out either the adoptee or the birth parent to encourage one of the other to register with us. It is the only method that

we have in Florida to reunite adult adoptees with members of their

birth families without either having to take court action.

The success of the Florida Adoption Reunion Registry rests primarily on our ability to carefully verify all information submitted

to us before we enter an applicant into the registry database. All

applicants to the registry are required to provide proof of identification when they submit their registry application. Once we receive

a completed registry application it is sent to the Office of Vital Statistics for verification of the birth and of the adoption. The applicaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:18 May 30, 2000 Jkt 064040 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63457 pfrm03 PsN: 63457
58

tion is then returned to us with notice of verification and only at

that time is an individual listed in our registry.

When we have a match, we determine that there is a match between an adult adoptee and the birth parent by matching several

factors: the maiden name of the birth mother at the time the baby

was born and subsequently placed for adoption; the date and place

of the birth of the child; and, in Florida, the birth registration number shown on the original birth certificate and on the amended

birth certificate are shown to be identical. And, if warranted, we

will look at various other social factors from the adoption record

that they may be needed to confirm the identity of the birth mother.

Each registrant in the Florida Adoption Reunion Registry has

voluntarily indicated that they wish to have their identities revealed and made known to other parties involved in the adoption

in the event that there is a match. If a particular registrant does

not wish to have their identity immediately known, they have the

option of naming another person, agency, or attorney to act as their

agent in the event that there is a match.

As of April of this year, there were 5,600 people in the Adoption

Reunion Registry. The breakdown is: 3,133 adult adoptees; 2,165

birth parents; 74 grandparents; 147 siblings; and 149 others. ‘‘Others’’ are generally the people who have been named as an agent,

for an adult adoptee or birth parent.

We have had approximately 135 matches since the inception of

the registry, the majority of these matches occurring since 1992.

We average two to three matches per month. We have found, as is

the case with most State registries, that as the database grows, the

number of matches increases. We have a number of people in the

registry that we realize there probably will never be matched.

These are older adoptees and older birth parents. However, for us,

hope springs eternal, and we continue to keep these applications

active. There is always the possibility that we may be able to make

a match between siblings or another family member at some later

time.

The cost of the operation of the Florida Adoption Reunion Registry is approximately $16,500 a year. That’s the annual salary for

a part-time employee, who happens to be an MSW student, who

has the responsibility for processing checks, verification of the birth

and adoption information with Vital Statistics, and entering the information into the database.

The position is funded in part by registry fees, which is a $35 application fee for the initial registration, and $10 for the update fee.

The remainder of the salary for this position is paid for out of general revenue funds earmarked for social work students.

Florida is a sealed adoptions record State. That means that at

the time the adoption is finalized in the court that all records associated with the adoption are sealed by State law. The records may

only be unsealed by the court if the adult adoptee or the birth parent or the adopted parent are able to provide to the court sufficient

reasoning to unseal the record.

We see records unsealed in Florida primarily because of a documented medical or psychological illness. We do not unseal records

in Florida to determine if there is a match. We do, however, have

59

access to confidential birth and adoption information from the Florida Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics. This cooperative agreement is allowed for by the statute that created the registry, and it allows us to assure the veracity of the birth and adoption information. When we make a match, we are reasonably certain that we have connected the right adult adoptee with the correct birth mother or member of the birth family. Because of our

verification process, we have assured ourselves, and more importantly we have assured the people involved in the adoption, that

this is a correct match based on factual information. And yet, almost without fail, when we notify a registrant that there has been

a match in the registry, the first question they ask is: ‘‘are you

sure?’’

I was asked to review and consider S. 1487. I believe that without verification of information from both the adoptee and the birth

parent, the possibility of identifying the wrong person is very great.

And it can be heartbreaking for both the adoptee and the birth parent when they finally find out they have been in touch with the

wrong person.

Within the last six months, our office has been contacted by approximately 20 people who have found each other on the Internet.

All were sure that they had finally found the right person that they

were looking for. However, when we have taken them through our

registry process, we were only able to verify two matches.

As I understand S. 1487, it states that no State’s laws regarding

adoption and confidentiality would be pre-empted by this legislation. My concern, then, is how do you put two people in touch with

each other for the purpose of effecting a reunion if you don’t know

for sure that you are reuniting the right two people?

Finally, in my consideration of this legislation, I have some

thoughts that I’d like to take a minute to share with you about

adoption reunions. Not every reunion is happy. Not every reunion

is good for the adoptee, the birth parent, or for the adoptive family.

I have spoken with birth mothers, adoptees, and adopted parents

who have told me they wished they had not pursued an adoption

reunion. I’ve also spoken with birth mothers who have kept their

secret for all of their adult lives; that for 25, 35, 45 years they have

never uttered a word to anyone that they had a child out of wedlock and placed that child for adoption. These women are fearful

today that their adult children would not understand that husbands would leave and that their worlds would be shattered. Many

of these birth moms signed to consent for adoption of their baby

hoping and praying that they had made the correct decision, but

also expecting that the adoption agreement they entered into would

be honored for all of their entire lives.

As I told you before, I am also court ordered to search for birth

moms to obtain medical information and to determine if they wish

to have contact with their adult children. Within the last four

years, a full 40 percent of the birth moms that I have been court

ordered to search for and contact have declined to have a reunion

with their birth child.

My final concern in having a national registry with no method

of verification has to do with the possibility of creating a cottage

industry of private searchers, investigators, agencies, groups, and

60

individuals who are waiting in the wings to verify—to provide

verification that adoptees and birth mothers and families desire.

They are in the search business for financial gain. This is a lucrative business and one that, for the most part, is entirely unregulated. Adult adoptees and birth parents searching are among our

most emotionally vulnerable, and they will pay almost anything to

get the answers they want. As I stated earlier, I am court ordered

to search for both adoptees and birth parents, and a successful

search usually can be conducted for less than $400. Yet it is not

unusual for me to hear from birth parents and adult adoptees who

have paid thousands of dollars for an unsuccessful search.

I would suggest that instead of the establishment of a national

registry that advocates for more openness in adoption and the

sharing of adoption information work instead with their individual

State legislators to move toward more openness and sharing of information in the individual State adoption process.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this information has been helpful to

you, and I thank you and your colleagues in consideration of this

very important matter. I thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to testify before this distinguished committee.

[The prepared statement follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Ms. Cahn.

STATEMENT OF NAOMI CAHN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF

FAMILY LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW

SCHOOL

Ms. CAHN. Chairman Shaw and Members of the Subcommittee

on Human Resources, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify before you today on adoption reunion registries.

And I also want to thank Senators Levin and Craig for their leadership and vision concerning S. 1487, the National Voluntary Mutual Reunion Registry.

My name is Naomi Cahn, and I teach Family Law at George

Washington University Law School here in Washington, where I

am an Associate Professor of Law. I am, however, appearing in my

individual capacity, and my testimony does not represent the official position of George Washington University. I’ve written extensively in the Family Law area, including articles concerning adoption.

In addition to my professional experiences, I also have relevant

personal experiences. My husband, who is with me here today, was

adopted as an infant into a warm, loving, and wonderful family

that I, of course, know quite well. My husband had maintained,

however, for the first 13 years that he and I knew each other that

he had no interest in finding out about his biological parents; and,

in fact, he frequently said he didn’t understand people who had

that interest. He loves his family, and he felt no need to find out

more about his past.

When I was pregnant with our first child, he began to search. He

found out the name of his birth mother, Dorothy Louise Simpson.

He found out that she had been searching for him, too. But he also

found out that she had died of a brain tumor. And my husband was

quite stunned and devastated to discover that his birth mother had

searched unsuccessfully for him.

My husband did find his birth grandmother, still alive at the age

of 85 in a small, rural east Texas town. They have made each other

so amazingly happy: we’ll be going tomorrow to help her celebrate

her 90th birthday. Finding his birth grandmother has changed my

husband’s life in the most wonderful way, and he firmly believes

in the importance of allowing adult adoptees, when and if they are

ready to do so, to contact their biological parents.

Now the remainder of my testimony in support of the Federal

registry will focus on three areas: first of all, the general need for

adoption registries; second, the reasons for a specifically federal, as

opposed to state, mutual voluntary adoption registry; and third, the

methods by which the registry proposed in the Senate bill serves

to protect the confidentiality of adoption records.

First of all the need: if both an adult adoptee and a biological

parent are looking at the exact same moment, they may never meet

each other. If they do meet, it is often only after what will probably

be great expense, many frustrations, and many years of waiting; or

worse, too late, as happened in the case of my husband. A Federal

Mutual Voluntary Adoption Registry, as authorized by the Senate

legislation, allows biological parents and siblings to make contact

68

with each other, but only after they’ve each independently and voluntarily filed with the registry.

The need for contact between the unknown members of the adoption triangle is very strong. When you read stories by many biological parents and stories by many of their adopted children, you feel

an enormous sense of pain that they have been unable to contact

each other. Not all, of course, feel that way. For adoptive parents,

who care passionately about the emotional health of their children,

acceptance of their children’s search, if and when the children do

decide to search, is important. I have talked to many adoptive parents, and they understand that finding a biological past may be significant to their children. They also understand that, by searching,

their children do not seek to replace them.

A very brief history of adoption itself shows that it was not the

purpose of adoption reformers to prevent adult adoptees and biological parents from contacting each other when adoption records

first became confidential. Indeed, the proposed federal registry is

entirely consistent with the history of adoption, which is focused on

the child’s best interest and letting the adult adoptee, when ready,

find about her biological parents and siblings.

Now turning to the federal role, there are, of course, state registries, which function quite well, and there are also a host of other

registries, some on the Internet, as well as others that are available that help biological parents and their children, who are adult

adoptees meet each other. But there are logistical difficulties with

these registries.

First, there’s no communication between States with respect to

the people in their registries, and Senator Levin—I won’t repeat

what he said—but he explained quite eloquently the problems

given the mobility of our society with someone who might be born

in one State, adopted in another State, and have siblings in third,

fourth, fifth States. Even if States establish procedures to share information, as proposed by the Uniform Adoption Act, which we’re

going to hear some testimony about in a minute, this would not

solve the problem. States would continue not to collect information

uniformly and might establish inconsistent procedures concerning

when information could be released.

Second, registration with many State and other types of registries may be expensive. Someone who wants to register with more

than registry needs to find out about other registries and may have

to pay fees to register with each one. While some may be concerned

about the need for a Federal registry in the traditionally Statebased area of family law, the Federal registry does not encroach on

State autonomy at all. Unlike other federal legislation in the adoption area, or in other areas of family law, it places no obligations

on States, nor does it require States to change their adoption practices in any way. It simply serves as a resource for adult adoptees

and their siblings and birth parents who want to contact each

other. Moreover, as noted historian Rickie Solinger points out in

statements submitted to these hearings, ‘‘the Federal Government

played a significant role in creating and facilitating adoption policy

in the United States in the decades since World War II.’’ So the

federal government has played a substantial role in adoption in the

past.

69

Finally, let me emphasize that the information that would be

available to a registry, and through a registry, would not violate

State laws on the secrecy of adoption records.

First of all, the Senate legislation itself provides that it would

not preempt State laws on the confidentiality of adoption records.

Second, the information provided to the federal registry would be

information personal to the adoptees, their siblings, and their biological parents.

Third, the federal registry provides a legitimate method for facilitating contact, rather than the current system, in which adoptees,

birth parents, and siblings may seek to circumvent State laws on

adoption by trying, and frequently succeeding, in finding information without the consent of the other party.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I have discussed the proposed legislation authorizing the creation of the Federal Mutual Voluntarily Adoption Registry with many people

throughout the country, some of whom are involved in adoption

issues, but most of whom are not. They simply cannot believe that

there could be any controversy in allowing adult adoptees to contact biological parents or siblings who have also indicated that they

too want contact. What the Senate legislation would authorize is

simply a mutual and voluntarily registry at no cost to the Federal

Government and available only to adults. This can be done, but

only if there is the will to do it.

I want to thank you for allowing me to testify on an issue of such

public, as well as of such personal, significance.

[The prepared statement follows:]

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Chairman SHAW. Ms. Swanson.

STATEMENT OF JOANNE SWANSON, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN

POST-ADOPTION SUPPORT SERVICES, WETMORE, MI

Ms. SWANSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on

Human Resources, I do really thank you for this opportunity to

speak before you. This issue, this bill has great significance for me

both personally and in my work with adult adoptees and with birth

parents and adoptive families in my position as Director of PostAdoption Support Services in Michigan’s upper peninsula. I am

also a birth mother. I am one of the people about whom many of

you are concerned about protecting the privacy, and I really appreciate that. But there are some points about privacy that I’ll get into

my discussion that may cast a little different light on that.

I’m proud of my State of Michigan. I’m proud that we have some

Michiganders here. Senator Levin, of course, co-sponsor of the bill

is from Michigan. We also have two of the subcommittee members,

Congressman Camp and Congressman Sander Levin from Michigan. I really am glad to be among you today.

I would like to hold up Michigan as an answer to some of the

concerns that have been expressed here today. These are all legitimate concerns, and I’m sure they’ve been asked at the State level,

every time that a State has considered a piece of legislation that

would establish a mutual consent registry or that would go a step

beyond and lay out a plan for confidential intermediaries, or even

to give adult adoptees access to their birth records. Those tend to

be the three kinds of legislation that are being considered. And

Michigan has all three. Perhaps you can look to our State to see

how the results of a national registry might impact people in those

categories.

In Michigan, there is a mutual consent registry that has been active since 1980. More recently, legislation was considered to establish a confidential intermediary program, and also to release the

original birth certificates to adoptees in certain categories, beginning those that were released for adoption prior to a date in 1945.

So we have some people who have full disclosure. We have others

who have only partial, non-identifying information, and who can

use the services of a confidential intermediary. Then we have those

for whom, by default—the new adoptees now who turn 18 as of a

date in this year, September—will have the access to their birth information unless there would happen to be a denial in the file.

So we have a little bit of everything. I think this is significant

because many of the concerns that were brought out this morning

have not happened in Michigan. The litmus test for me is that

when the legislation was being proposed to take this a step beyond,

to go to the confidential intermediary process, and to release birth

certificates to this first group of adoptees, all of these concerns certainly would have surfaced at that time. And they didn’t. That, to

me, is significant because ours is one of the oldest mutual consent

registries. All of the potential that has been expressed here this

morning for the outing has been here for 18 years. Yet, 15 years

later, we were able to take this to the next step, to have a what

some people refer to as search and consent. Others call it a confidential intermediary system.

77

If these issues had been a big problem in Michigan, we would not

have been able to get to the next step. Three years after the confidential intermediary system has been in place, we have not yet

had a problem. So I think that Michigan can sit pretty high in paving the way for something like this. But I also want to mention

that it’s not enough. It’s not enough to have a strictly State focused

avenue for adoptees. I want to mention specifically why.

In my work as a confidential intermediary, I work with people

who have no idea what the adoptive process is. Many people don’t

even know that adoption records are kept at the State level. They

have no idea where they’re being kept, and so they quite often will

look to the Federal level. They say, I wish I could get on Oprah.

Maybe I could find my mother.

I just did a case for an adoptee who is 67 years old. We found

three full siblings who have known about her since 1972. They

could have, at any time, filed a mutual consent form with the State

of Michigan, and they could have been reunited—26 years they

waited. One of them lived in Colorado, had no idea what Michigan

law was like. One lives in Wisconsin—thought that the sister had

gone into Wisconsin and hadn’t. Another lives in Minnesota—had

no idea at all. Twenty-six years this family wasted. Through a national registry they very possibly could have been reunited.

I really feel this is an issue we have to consider as a humane

issue for adult adoptees and birth parents. I feel that there’s a bit

of a smokescreen. I want to just mention in closing the concern for

confidentiality, which is a term that is used sometimes, or privacy.

In Michigan, I fit into the category in that middle group where my

daughter, for example, would have had to have used a confidential

intermediary to find me. I’m the group that is being so protected.

Yet, back in 1960, my surname was on the adoption decree. So she

could have gone searching for me. I could have picked up a newspaper and read an ad in the classified section looking for me. My

records are supposedly sealed, so there’s a lot of ambiguity there.

I would rather she could have found me through a mutual consent

registry. I would rather have been able to enter my name. It would

have been much safer and much more protective.

I really thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this

morning. And I urge your support. I believe it’s a worthwhile and

a very safe and a very humane bill. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Ms. Sandusky.

STATEMENT OF CAROL SANDUSKY, DOYLESTOWN, PA

Ms. SANDUSKY. Hello, my name is Carol Sandusky, and I wanted

to give you some highlights from the paper I prepared and sent in

on Friday afternoon.

Thank you for inviting me to come here today. It is rather overwhelming being in front of all these experts and officials, and I’m

very nervous. But I will do my best, and try to answer any questions that you have for me.

I was adopted by Jeanne and Tom Sandusky, my parents, who

are here with me today, to give me moral support. In my five minutes, I want to talk to you about two things. I would like to tell

you my story very briefly, so you will know what can happen to

people when privacy is not protected. I also want to give you some

problems I encountered, tell you some of the rules I have thought

of to take care of some of these problems, and ask you, because of

those rules, not to pass Senator Levin’s Federal Reunion Registry

Law or any other Federal law on adoption records.

I was adopted at the age of 3 from a public agency. My parents

were told I was removed because of abuse. As an adolescent, I rebelled. I was very depressed and out of control, and after several

hospital placements, a group home placement, and lots of love and

therapy from my mother and father, I managed to get back on

track. I was just getting settled in 1992 when a social worker from

the agency where I was adopted called my parents. She said my

older biological sister wanted to contact me and asked for my

phone number and address. My parents said no, but they would

give me the information and message. They told me my older sister

was searching. It was like a bomb had fallen on my family. My parents encouraged me not be scared, and they said they would support any decision I made, including offering to buy a flight ticket

to go see her.

I returned the social worker’s call, who said my older sister really wanted to see me, and then started telling me all sorts of details.

I told her I only wanted my medical history. I had just come

through a difficult time, and I needed time to think. When the social worker asked permission to give my sister my phone number,

I said no.

Within a week, the social worker called back and gave me even

more details. She tried to push me to contact my sister, gave me

my birth mother’s phone number over the phone. I was very upset,

and I repeated that I only wanted medical information. The only

medical information she ever gave me was that cancer ran in my

family.

I hung up the phone. I was very angry. I called my parents, and

we cried together. We just couldn’t understand how a social worker

could give all this information over the telephone while I was at

work. So my family and I called the social worker’s supervisor, and

we were told the social worker had done nothing wrong, and that

my mother and I needed therapy.

Next, we turned to the district attorney. And he had asked that

there be—and we had asked that there be an investigation and

83

criminal charges filed. But he did nothing. A week later, I got a letter from my sister, and you can guess how she got my address. The

letter was full of even more upsetting information I had not wanted.

Next, we called other agencies and asked them if they gave out

confidential information without permission and they said no. They

said this behavior was unacceptable. So then we had to hire an attorney to pay to have letters sent out to these biological family

members to tell them to please stop harassing us and to leave us

alone.

After that, I got another 17-page letter from my birth mother

talking about murder, drug abuse, abandonment, et cetera, et

cetera, which was very upsetting. My birth mother’s letter had

even more names and addresses and numbers of aunts and uncles,

and a letter from my birth father was included. I can’t begin to tell

you the feelings that resurfaced.

Now another letter arrived from my sister telling me not to be

upset with the social worker, enclosing newspaper clippings about

her success in searching, about how she went above and beyond the

law to reunite families; about how she would give information out,

and, even if people didn’t want it, hoping they would do the ‘‘right

thing.’’

Eventually, I decided to hire a lawyer to try to sue. But the social workers are immune from lawsuits if they work for the State.

After years of efforts, we did not get any satisfaction from the laws.

Pennsylvania hurt me, and they hurt my family.

The situation has now calmed down after six years. I have

stopped getting letters and calls, but I’ve had to make many

changes in my personal life to try and restore some small amount

of privacy. I did decide, as a result of the experience I had, that

I would do whatever I could do to try and prevent the same thing

from happening to others, and that is why I have spoken out and

gone on shows and given interviews.

The searchers, the social workers, the people who want to change

the laws to destroy privacy says no one minds if people come

knocking. They just told me to say no. I said no over and over and

over again. But no one listened. And the law never once succeeded

in stopping them from stalking me and my family.

I am here today to talk about Senator Levin’s bill because I hope

this important gentleman will understand, now that he has heard

my story, that many people are hurt when privacy is invaded.

Many of us do not want to be contacted, even by a State social

worker. We want to say yes on our own, without pressure, contact,

or guilt trips. It isn’t because we hate or reject anyone, Senator. We

just want to be left alone unless we say yes.

But Senator Levin’s bill just says do a National Reunion Registry. And since I support State Reunion Registries as a part of the

Uniform Adoption Act, you should ask, what’s the difference? The

difference to me is that once the Federal Government gets into the

picture, even if started out with something to protect privacy, there

is absolutely nothing to keep the Federal registry from going little

by little, year by year toward opening records.

I have looked at some of the information on the States that started out with safe, decent sounding laws, which now have almost

84

gone to totally open records. If the legislature in Tennessee can go

downhill to open records, so can the Congress. Go Federal, and you

set up all the adoptees, all the birth parents, all the adoptive parents in the country for invasion of privacy. And if you think I’m

kidding, ask yourselves, why do some of the people who want open

records at the State level seem to be supporting Senator Levin’s

bill. Why do they attack the Uniform Adoption Act? They know

Senator Levin’s bill is the first step to what they have as their real

goal: totally open records of all kinds across America.

I thank you, again, for allowing me to address you, and I will certainly try to answer any questions that you have.

[The prepared statement follows:]

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Mr. Wilson.

STATEMENT OF R. DAVID WILSON, ARLINGTON, VA

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was looking at today’s

date, and I realized it was two years ago that my former boss, Senator Bob Dole, stepped down from the Senate. So I really appreciate the opportunity to come and testify with you here today.

My name is Dave Wilson, and I’m adopted. I hope sharing my

personal experiences will help illustrate the importance of establishing a national registry for adoptees and birth parents.

Nearly 31 years ago to this day, I was adopted by my parents,

Roy and Ruth Ann Wilson. I have always known I was adopted and

have never questioned that the Wilsons, including my three sisters—Tami, Teresa, and Liz—are my real family.

When I decided to seek out my birth parents eight years ago, I

never intended to meet them face to face, let alone establish a relationship. I wanted to thank them for giving me a chance by bringing me into this world. To some, a simple thank you might seem

silly. To me, however, my birth parents gave me the greatest and

most precious gift, the gift of life.

My search began in 1991, when I contacted Lutheran Social

Services in Seattle, where I was adopted. I requested what is

known as non-identifying information about my adoption. I learned

that my birth mother had a brief relationship with my birth father.

After discovering she was pregnant, my birth mother showed tremendous courage, strength, and integrity. It seems to me she had

a couple of options. She could have hidden the truth by having an

abortion, or she could marry my father—birth father, that is.

She chose the latter, which I’m grateful to, and which socially

was the most difficult. No doubt about it, this decision was a tremendous personal sacrifice on both their parts, and one that I will

always be grateful for. Their marriage lasted only a few months,

after which my mother entered the Lutheran Social Services Home

for Unwed Mothers, where I was put up for adoption.

After I received that non-identifying information, I was hesitant

about moving forward for a couple of reasons. First, I did not want

my curiosity to hurt my adoptive family, and I was worried about

how they would react. I did not want to cause them any pain or

somehow make them feel betrayed. My worries were unfounded. I

can still remember my mom telling me and I quote: ‘‘I always

thought you would find your birth parents. Maybe you don’t remember, but when you were a young boy, we used to pray on your

birthdays that God would protect your birth mother.’’

Second, I heard horror stories about adoptees who had spent literally thousands of dollars searching to no avail. This concern also

fell on the wayside, as I knew it was the only right thing to thank

my birth parents for their precious gift.

In the fall of 1995, I began what I call the second phase of my

search by hiring Michele Heiderer. Michele acted as my intermediary, and for those who aren’t really familiar with that term,

an intermediary is a third party who protects one’s privacy until

there is mutual consent for contact. At least that’s supposed to be

the way it works, and, in my case, it did.

93

Michele quickly found my birth parents and, at last, I was able

to say thank you. Since then, I have developed a strong relationship with both my birth parents. Obviously, not everyone is as fortunate as I was. Not everyone can obtain the detailed information

I did from Lutheran Social Services. Not everyone knows where

they were born. And not everyone can even find their birth parents.

For these reasons, I strongly believe in S. 1847, the National registry.

This registry will allow adoptees and their birth parents to share

information in hopes of being reunited. From my personal experience, I can tell you how important reunification is for those who

seek it. In my case, it allowed me to express my gratitude. Equally

important, reunification helped wipe away the guilt and fears that

plagued my birth parents for the last 30 years. Imagine the

amount of pain my birth parents accumulated over that time, not

knowing if they had made the right choice, not knowing if the birth

child resents or hates them, not knowing if their child they brought

into this world is alive or dead. My birth parents had made such

a tremendous sacrifice for me, and they deserved an answer. At

least, I felt they did.

I will share one last story to illustrate how important reunification is to those who chose it. And I would like to emphasize that

term ‘‘chose it.’’ When I first met my birth mother, it seemed to me

that she couldn’t stop hugging me. I remember wondering why. I

mean, was she happy to see me? Was she sad? Or was she just

nervous? I have to tell you her answer overwhelmed me; she said

and I quote: ‘‘I only held you once when you were a baby. I knew

if I held you any more than that I could never let you go.’’ Holding

me once answered all of her concerns.

Reunification is not the desire of every adoptee. It’s a personal

choice, and each adoptee’s motives are different. A voluntary registry—voluntary—will help adoptees and birth parents to find each

other, but only with their mutual consent. That point cannot be

stressed enough.

Mr. Chairman, your committee has the power to wash away

years of anguish facing tens of thousands of Americans—adoptees

and birth parents. A national registry can hold great promise, and

I am hopeful that you will support it. I believe the Craig-Levin bill

will introduce sanity to perhaps a confusing and costly process, a

process which, in the past, has not respected an individual’s rights

to privacy.

I strongly support this bill because it is voluntary and requires

mutual consent. Let me be clear. This registry legislation, as I see

it, should not be confused with something that is known as open

records policy. While both are intended to bring parties together,

their approaches are radically different. A registry specifically designed to respect both parties’ privacy, but open records policy does

not. This is an important distinction, I believe.

With that said, I support this legislation, as it allows mutually

consenting adults to share information in hopes of being reunited.

In closing, I hope my comments prove useful in your deliberations, and I remain open to any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement follows:]

94

95

96

97

98

99

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Robinson.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ROBINSON, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM

STATE LAWS, PORTLAND, ME

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I’m

very honored to be asked here today to testify in this matter. My

name is Robert C. Robinson. I’m an attorney, a member of the law

firm of Robinson, Kriger, and McCallum, practicing in Portland,

Maine. I am also a Commissioner on the National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which is a body of 255 to

300 lawyers, judges and law school professors who have as a mission statement the drafting, preparation of laws where uniformity

is of value to the several States.

Back in 1976, I was appointed by the Governor of Maine and for

the past 21 years, have been reappointed by several other governors.

Now, in 1989, the National Conference decided that there was a

very serious issue confronting the States, and that’s the level of

uniformity with regard to adoption. And so a drafting committee

was appointed.

The drafting committee would ordinarily produce a first reading

at the end of one year, and a second and final reading at the end

of the second year. The nature of the subject matter, however, is

so intense and so complicated, and there are so many people

throughout the country who are so impassioned about their views

in this matter, that it actually took five years in order for the particular adoption act to be completed.

Now, what that means is that the drafting committee would

present their drafting product to the committee of the Whole on the

annual meeting of the committee of the whole. And 255 lawyers

and judges and law school professors, each with a microphone,

would undertake to react to a line by line reading in which they

would redact, modify, amend, criticize, delete. And the transcript of

that was then presented to the drafting committee, and they would

go back to the drawing board for 12 more months. And this was

done for five successive years. During that period of time, while the

debate was inclusive, and the drafting committee invited all of the

advisors, all of the individuals throughout the country who had any

interest whatsoever, to the committee meeting. They were given a

voice. They had no vote, but they were given a voice—whether it

be for open records, closed records, open adoption, closed adoption.

There’s literally no facet of the adoption process that was left

undiscussed. It is our feeling, it is the feeling of the Conference

that the final Uniform Adoption Act, in its present form, was a

very well designed, well crafted, moderate and well balanced Act

that was in many instances developed through compromise, and, as

a result, is now available to be enacted in the several States.

We are, however, very realistic. We recognize that the history of

Uniform Acts is such that States do not automatically come forward and adopt a Uniform Act. But they sometimes choose sections

that are applicable. More and more intelligence is brought to bear.

More reality and recognition of the value becomes apparent. And

100

ultimately, we have every reason to believe that the Uniform Act

will be adopted in the several States.

Now, in the meantime, it’s important to realize that every State

in the Union has an adoption act. Every single State in the Union

has a system whereby identifying information is made available.

The particular acts in particular States, as a result of criticisms

and comments that are justifiably made by those who are in authority and know, indicate that all systems are not perfect. And we

do not consider that they are perfect. But what we do know and

do recognize and accept is that the staff that is undertaking to

manage and control the mutual consent registry and who undertaking to control the fundamental substratum upon which adoption

is based, which is privacy and confidentiality of records, they take

great pride in the dedication that they have to this particular facet

of their responsibility. They are dedicated and they comment with

anyone who wishes to understand that their intention is fully to

protect and secure the privacy of individuals and the confidentiality

of records.

Now, adoption is a matter of State law. There is no Federal

Adoption Act, and there ought not to be. The fact of the matter is

that the various States are operating on a very, very sensitive, individual, family-type situation, which calls for less rather than

more. We really and truly do not need the Federal Government to

come in and duplicate and do what is already being done. A Federal act in the nature of S. 1487 will cause serious duplication of

efforts that are going on throughout the entire country. It will undertake to develop a bureaucracy, a bureaucracy of untold limits

that we cannot possibly control. There will be unnecessary effort

and expense that is yet to be determined, and it will stifle the spirit of local self-reliance of individuals and also deprive people of the

chance to share in the responsibility that they feel so strongly

about with regard to maintaining the State system of adoption and

mutual consent registries.

Now, the particular act, S. 1487, is fraught with land mines. It

is a veritable disaster in so far as the particular language that’s

contained therein.

First, I would point to eight items.

One, the discretion of the Secretary. ‘‘The Secretary in the discretion of the Secretary’’ shall have the availability of the Department

of Human Services. That, in itself, constitutes a wide open area of

intelligence that has heretofore been privately maintained with regard to Social Security numbers, with regard to Medicaid applicants, with regard to welfare applicants. So the discretion of the

Secretary is a matter of question.

‘‘No net cost to the Federal Government.’’ No net cost to the Federal Government is a statement yet to have a conclusion. There is

obviously going to be a great cost, and the question of where that

cost is levied and where it is undertaken and by whom is a matter

of extreme importance.

The language of ‘‘any birth parent.’’ ‘‘Any birth parent.’’ Any

birth parent has been spoken of here several times today with regard to outing a mother. It is not always necessarily the intention

to out a mother, but there may very well be a former putative father who didn’t act as a father, who didn’t conduct himself as a faVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:18 May 30, 2000 Jkt 064040 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63457 pfrm03 PsN: 63457
101

ther, whose parental rights have been terminated. If this particular

individual’s parental rights have been terminated, he certainly

does not, is not, should not be entitled to seek identifiable information with regard to a birth mother.

‘‘Any adult sibling’’ follows the same rationale.

Other data systems that are available—the Social Security, the

Medicaid, Medicare—all of these factors and all of this database intelligence which is available is more likely to be available if this

is taken into a Federal forum rather than the unique qualifying

privacy of the State registries.

Confidentiality ‘‘to the maximum extent feasible.’’ That is very,

very broad language. It is equivocal language that requires interpretation. Maximum confidentiality to the maximum extent feasible is the language of the Act. It is equivocal language. It needs

and must be repaired and amended in order to be effective.

‘‘Reasonable fees’’ constitute a chilling effect on adopting parents.

‘‘No preemption.’’ The suggestion that there is no preemption of

the State in order to undertake to raise and articulate the best interests of the Federal system is somewhat of a SOP, it seems to

me. Because it is unusual and very, very strange to find the Federal Government granting ‘‘no preemption.’’ And it would appear

that if that ever came to pass, that judicial review would be required in order to ascertain precisely why the ‘‘no preemption’’ was

given as it was, and what was the reason, and whether or not the

States should or should not be granted that consideration.

Now, I think it is very critical and very important for us to take

great care to avoid casual attitudes about this process, which gives

hope to children and biological mothers. And we must use our best

efforts to do no harm, but to bring together those who, in the spirit

of good will, can resolve our differences and guarantee to the several States a renewed commitment to continue to improve the

adoption process.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and gentleman. I respectfully request and suggest that the Federal Government, if it undertakes to do the things that are being suggested with regard to

bringing consenting adults together, it probably can do it. But it

cannot do it as well as is being done by the States, and the various

burdens that I have delineated which will be concomitant with this

Act would justify, in my opinion, that this Act ought not to pass.

[The prepared statement follows:]

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Mr. Levin, you may inquire.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me give some reassurances to you, Ms. Sandusky. I

don’t know if the social worker there violated State law.

Ms. SANDUSKY. She did. It was considered a third degree misdemeanor and they let her off.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. This legislation won’t affect that one way or

the other. We cannot make up for defaults in the part of State authorities. This proposal says that there has to be mutual consent

by a signed, notarized statement. So I just want you to be reassured on that point.

Mr. Robinson,

Ms. SANDUSKY. Can I just say, in the response to that. Even at

the Federal level, if you say that all parties must be in agreement

to have this happen, if it can happen at a State level, it can certainly happen at a Federal level.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Well, but if we go by that rule, though, there

would be no laws of any kind. I mean, I have more faith in most

prosecutors, State and Federal, and in most committees, State and

Federal. The notion that we would pass something, and there

would be abuse, and we would let things get totally out of hand,

I think, fails to take into account the responsibility of this subcommittee and of this Congress. You know, you can say about anything that there’s a foot in the door or nose under the tent. I have

a little more faith that this is not, in any way, a step towards open

records. In fact, I think it would perhaps discourage such efforts.

Mr. Robinson, the attitude—you know, you talked about the uniform law that you, I guess, helped to draft. It has a provision, does

it not, for communication if there’s mutual desire between an

adoptee and one birth parent, right?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, you’re absolutely right, Congressman? That

is correct. However, you will probably note in my written statement

that I have some reservations with regard to that, which I’m not

totally sure the National Conference of Commissioners agrees with.

I feel——

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. I think they disagree with it.

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, I would say in the incipient stage of development that’s true. But that doesn’t mean that it’s etched in stone;

that it’s forever. I may be successful in convincing there should be

a modification of that. The fact of the matter is——

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Let me just ask you about your own State,

if I might. I think your own State has indicated there’s been no

problems with this, right? Let me just read to you what is—the letter from the Department of Human Services—you’re from Maine?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, I am.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. ‘‘I’m sending this letter in response to your

inquiry’’—this was June 4, 1998—‘‘regarding the Maine State

Adoption Reunion Registry. At this time, Maine has not come

across any problems regarding the reunion between an adult

adoptee and a reunion with one birth parent.’’

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, Congressman Levin, your brother, the Senator, has made that answer to several of the inquiries that were

made to him—that there’s never been a problem.

112

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. No, no, no. He said—look, no one is saying

that there will never be a problem when one child—when a child

and one parent by mutual consent find each other. No one has ever

said that. It’s the process of weighing the experiences given to you

here today, of Mr. Wilson and Ms. Swanson, and the research on

that of balancing the desire, the voluntary mutual desire of two

people to find each other who may live in very different places in

the country with possible negative consequences, not those mentioned by Ms. Sandusky, where there was a clear violation of State

law. There wasn’t a case of mutual consent. She objected, and it

was reprehensible the way that was handled.

Let me just ask you, if I might. There’s this letter——

Mr. ROBINSON. Congressman, may I respond?

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Is it Ms. Marquess? Let me just——

Mr. ROBINSON. May I respond to that? The points you’re making

are valid and meritorious, but they don’t say it all, Congressman.

There is not the slightest question that there are fathers, putative

fathers, who don’t act like fathers who are ultimately denied their

parental rights. And yet, the language that you speak of in the Act

suggests that they would have the right to avail themselves of

identifying information. I think that’s absolutely and totally out of

order. It is not——

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Okay, let me just say——

Mr. ROBINSON. It is not in the spirit of the Act or what is intended.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. But the Uniform Law is reflected in the legislation that was passed unanimously by the Senate; the Uniform

Code proposed by a committee on which you serve. Now, you may

disagree with it, but that’s been the proposal.

Let me just ask, is it Marquess?

Ms. MARQUESS. Marquess.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Marquess. Okay. I wasn’t sure. Do you know

the Children’s Home Society in Florida? Let me just, if I might—

and I’ll finish up, Mr. Chairman—read this letter from them.

They’re a reputable organization? And they’re very active in this

area?

Ms. MARQUESS. In adoption reunion?

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. No, in adoption issues.

Ms. MARQUESS. Yes, the Children’s Home Society in Florida is

active in adoption.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Okay, here’s a letter from the senior social

worker for adoptions, North Central Division. ‘‘I feel even more

strongly now that such a registry is needed on a national basis. We

in Florida have a statewide registry available to adoptees and biological families, but as in other States, many of those persons needing information or seeking to contact biological family do not know

of its existence. Because of the mobility of our society, often persons who were adopted in Florida and who placed a child while living in Florida are no longer residents and do not know that such

a registry exists. We attempt to assist these people, but often there

is little we can do because we do not have their original records.

It would be helpful to be able to refer these individuals to a national registry, where there would be a greater chance that they

may be able to be reunited with the biological family.’’

113

Do you think this expression is not one worthy of attention?

Ms. MARQUESS. Oh, yes, sir. I think it’s worthy of attention. If

I recall correctly, there are nine local units of the Children’s Home

Society around the State of Florida, with a State headquarters in

Jacksonville. Their State headquarters contains all of the records

of all adoptions that they have handled; that the organization has

been responsible for in the State of Florida. It may take an individual worker some time, to get access to those records but their

organization is responsible for maintaining their records. And, as

I understand it, those records are kept at State headquarters.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. What if the records are in Nebraska? I mean,

how—someone comes in to Florida, tries to access the registry, a

child. And the mother has registered in Nebraska. I understand the

depth of emotions here, and there is no 100 percent guarantee of

any system, but the Chairman and I, I think, are trying to get at

the bottom of this. And I think other members are too. There’s no

partisanship involved here. I mean, all that’s irrelevant. We’re talking about individual human beings here. And there will be pluses

and minuses to any proposal, by definition, because we’re dealing

with a myriad of circumstances. But tell me, if the person, the

mother is in Nebraska, where does the person in Florida turn?

Ms. MARQUESS. If the birth mother is in Nebraska?

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Yes. And she filed in Nebraska, and the

child, I don’t know—let’s assume they have the same law as Florida. And the person in Florida signed up in Florida. What is Helen

Irvin, who signed this letter, what does she do? More importantly,

what do the two people do?

Ms. MARQUESS. I don’t know. In Florida, if we can verify that the

person was adopted in Florida or, in some instances, adopted in another State but born in Florida, they are still able to register in the

Florida registry.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. But, but you may not know where the other

person is. What does that person in Florida do?

Ms. MARQUESS. I don’t know.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Thank you.

Chairman SHAW. This subject is much more complicated than I

think any of us had really realized. And I think that’s what hearing are for—instead of passing things by unanimous consent on the

Senate floor. [Laughter.]

I think that’s very dangerous. We heard from Senator Bennett,

who obviously if it’s unanimous, he was somewhere around. He’s

got concerns about it now. And I have concerns about it. I remember when this came through originally attached to a bill, Senator

Levin and I had some discussions as to pulling it off, because I was

concerned about doing this without any hearings. And now we’ve

had one, and I’m really confused.

But I’d like to, Ms. Marquess, follow up with what you were talking about. The bill itself, if we were to pass something like this,

or put something like this out there, the question is how much

background can the Federal Government get involved in delving

into State records and what not in order to see if someone should

properly be put on the registry. Obviously, you don’t want a registry where everybody just dropped by on their lunch hour and get

their name put on the list. That’s not what we’re all about, and

114

that’s not what we’re going to do. And that would make the list absolutely meaningless, really.

Maybe we ought to talk about a network of States communicating with each other rather than a national registry, some way

to exchange information between States so that that what Mr.

Levin is talking about—somebody is looking for somebody in Nebraska—if Nebraska’s got a credible system, perhaps there’d be

some way to work together to compare these records to see if there

might be a match in another State.

What exactly is involved in the background that Florida does before they put somebody on that list? Somebody comes in the door,

they want to be on the list, what do you do?

Ms. MARQUESS. First of all, they have to prove who they are. We

want to be sure that, to start out, that we’re dealing with the right

person. And for birth mothers that means a copy of their driver’s

license, and sometimes, even for them, a copy of their birth certificate. The driver’s license that they carry today does not necessarily

prove that’s who they were 35 years ago, when they gave birth to

the child that they placed for adoption.

Chairman SHAW. Does the biological parent have any proof that

they gave birth to a child on X date?

Ms. MARQUESS. The only way that we verify that she is the birth

mother is by the original birth certificate that’s held by the Florida

Bureau of Vital Statistics.

Chairman SHAW. And the parent, the biological parent, would

have that original birth certificate?

Ms. MARQUESS. No, they do not have that original birth certificate.

Chairman SHAW. They don’t have that?

Ms. MARQUESS. I can access that original birth certificate

through the Office of Vital Statistics.

Chairman SHAW. I know in Florida, when you adopt a child, you

get a birth certificate showing the child was born to you, the adopting parent.

Ms. MARQUESS. That’s right.

Chairman SHAW. And if you show it to a school or whatever—

but that original birth certificate showing the child——

Ms. MARQUESS. That’s sealed by State law at the time the adoption is finalized. And the birth parent does not have access to that

if they did not get a copy of that prior to the finalization of adoption. Once the adoption has been finalized, that original birth certificate is sealed. But we do have—our statute created a cooperative agreement between registry and the Office of Vital Statistics

so that we can determine that a birth mother applying is, in fact,

the birth mother that’s shown on the original birth certificate.

Chairman SHAW. Now, can an out of state resident, who gave

birth in Georgia, to a child, who has reason to believe that the

child might have been adopted in Florida, can they come in and get

on that registry?

Ms. MARQUESS. Yes.

Chairman SHAW. And they don’t have to show any proof except

just what they think.

115

Ms. MARQUESS. Well, if the child was born in Georgia and adopted in the State of Florida? Okay. That adoption record is going to

show where that child was born.

Chairman SHAW. Will the biological parent have that adoption

record?

Ms. MARQUESS. No, the biological parent will not have the adoption record.

Chairman SHAW. Will the biological parent have any idea where

the child is?

Ms. MARQUESS. No.

Chairman SHAW. So.

Ms. MARQUESS. Well, I will tell you what we do for birth parents

in Florida. It was not unusual for birth parents to come to Florida

in the 1950’s, 1960’s, early 1970’s, have their baby, and then return

home. And we hear quite often from those birth mothers who want

to enter our registry. And one of the things that they ask us is

where was my baby adopted? If that baby was born in Florida and

was adopted, we can determine the State of finalization. Because

that information comes from the Courts to vital statistics when

they issue the amended birth certificate.

Chairman SHAW. Would you tell the biological parent that?

Ms. MARQUESS. Yes.

Chairman SHAW. Even without a match, you could say your child

was adopted in Florida.

Ms. MARQUESS. Even without a match, the child that you placed

for adoption was adopted in Florida or New York State in the

spring of 1960.

Chairman SHAW. Is that information generally available?

Ms. MARQUESS. No, I have to get that from Vital Statistics.

Chairman SHAW. No, no, no. I’m sorry. In other States is there

a similar situation where the parent, the biological parent can find

out where the child went.

Ms. MARQUESS. Georgia, it is; and I believe also in Alabama—

the States surrounding us.

Mr. ROBINSON. You can by order of court.

Chairman SHAW. They don’t have to go to court to get that information?

Ms. MARQUESS. No, sir, not in Florida. They do not have to go

to court.

Ms. SWANSON. Can I speak?

Chairman SHAW. Certainly.

Ms. SWANSON. I have a situation in Michigan right now where

a birth mother has given her consent. It has been on file for a very

long time. And she was going to take the next step to do a confidential intermediary search. And we have learned that because of

the gray market that existed at the time, her doctors slipped that

baby out of State, and he won’t tell. And there’s nothing—this birth

mother’s rights to the law in Michigan have been foregone because

although our law permits her to be given the county of placement,

county of finalization so that she can complete the process in

Michigan, there is no recourse for her. If her doctor won’t tell

where that baby went, and it was done illegally, she has nothing.

Ms. SANDUSKY. In most cases, when children were thankfully

placed for adoption—you know, adoption is a wonderful option. But

116

in most cases, they were told, these women were told, you would

have confidentiality. And then now we have 30 years later, women

that weren’t validated, women that weren’t thanked and appreciated for the gift they’ve given coming back and searching. And

you never really hear from the adoptees that want their privacy because it’s a Catch 22. You have to come forward and say, hey, I’m

Carol Sandusky, and I want my privacy. And this is inappropriate

also. We need to find a way to work this.

Chairman SHAW. Well, if we’re going to pass such a law, we certainly have a lot of work to do.

I want to thank this panel for your good testimony and for being

with us, and I apologize for the length of time this has taken. But

I think this is about the most balanced hearing I’ve ever seen. I

feel like a ping pong ball. I’m not coming out of here with any clear

picture. But I’m going out of here really knowing a lot of the problems and a lot of the good parts, so it’s going to be for us to think

about. Thank you all very, very much.

Our final panel—Kent Markus, who is the Deputy Chief of Staff,

U.S. Department of Justice; and Ann Sullivan, who is the Director

of Adoption Services, Child Welfare League of America in Washington, D.C. As the other witnesses today, we have your full statement, which will be made a part of the record, and we would invite

you to summarize.

Ms. Sullivan, why don’t you start? I think Mr. Markus stepped

out.

STATEMENT OF ANN SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR OF ADOPTION

SERVICES, CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Ms. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Levin, as you mentioned my

name is Ann Sullivan. I am the Director of Adoption Services for

the Child Welfare League. In the interest of time, I will not be

reading my entire statement.

CWLA is a 78-year-old association made up of over 900 public

and private agencies that serve over more than 2,000,000 abused

and neglected children and their families each year. CWLA member agencies provide the wide array of services that are really

needed to work with abused and neglected children as listed in my

testimony. Nearly 450 of our member agencies offer adoption services. Over 650 of our agencies offer foster care placement and kinship placements.

My testimony today addresses the existing State practices for the

screening of prospective foster and adoptive parents for criminal

backgrounds. CWLA has long been an advocate for ensuring the

safety of abused and neglected children. Our standards recommend

a thorough review of any prospective foster and adoptive parents

to determine that person’s fitness to undertake the responsibility

for the safety and well being of a child.

Conducting such background checks, however, is only one component of assessing an applicant’s suitability to adopt or to become

a foster parent. Many other factors are also taken into account,

such as the individual’s emotional stability, flexibility, ability to

identify and meet the needs of a child, experience with children,

willingness to seek help when problems arise, and type of child desired. These factors are considered in a process of mutual assessVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:18 May 30, 2000 Jkt 064040 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63457 pfrm03 PsN: 63457
117

ment through a series of interviews and training for prospective

foster and adoptive parents. Our CWLA standards on the background checks for both foster care and adoption are listed in this

testimony; I’m not going to read them in their entirety.

As has been indicated earlier, this subcommittee put together a

bill that was passed, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, that now

requires States to provide procedures for criminal records checks

for any prospective adoptive and foster parent before that parent

can be approved to receive a child receiving Title IV–E, Federal

Adoption Assistance, or Fostercare Assistance.

The new law stipulates that the States have in place procedures

for criminal background checks, unless the State elects otherwise.

AFSA allows States to opt out of these new requirements either by

passing a State law that exempts them or by having the Governor

contact HHS in writing, saying that they have elected to be exempt

from these requirements.

CWLA is currently in the process of tracking State’s progress in

implementing AFSA. As part of that effort, we have just completed

a survey of the States to determine their practices regarding criminal background checks.

We found that States are currently in the process of reviewing

their own policies and statutes to ensure full compliance with

AFSA. Key findings include: only two States, New York and North

Dakota, do not require criminal background checks for prospective

foster and adoptive parents. Both of these States will need to pass

legislation to come into compliance with AFSA. All other States reported that they conduct background checks utilizing at least State

data. Twenty States routinely access national data as well as state

data in checking the backgrounds of potential adoptive and foster

parents.

Of the States that utilize only statewide data, the majority indicated that if a family has moved from another State in recent

years, they will also utilize the national databases.

Just a handful of States indicated they will have to make

changes in their laws to comply with the AFSA requirements that

prospective parents may not be approved if a criminal record check

reveals a felony conviction for child abuse or neglect, spousal

abuse, a crime against children, including child pornography, or a

crime involving violence, including rape, sexual assault, or battery.

However, 16 States indicated they will have to make changes in

their State laws to comply with the AFSA stipulation that approval

must be denied if a criminal record check reveals a felony conviction for physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense if the

felony was committed within the past five years.

Finally, no State reported the intention to opt of the AFSA requirement. I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t take 30-seconds

to make a comment about the mutual consent registry issue that

was just being discussed. I would urge the Congressional representatives to look at the research that has been summarized by

Madelyn Freundlich of the Evan B. Donaldson Institute. It shows

overwhelmingly that large numbers of adult adoptees, birth parents, and increasing number of adoptive parents really do want

and need to find each other. I get calls literally every week in my

office from people who have been emotionally tortured, it seems,

118

throughout their whole lives. They have struggled for years with

this lack of information about their backgrounds. I would hope that

the committee would be guided by the research that’s available for

the record on this issue.

At the risk of being even more controversial, I should mention

that the Uniform Adoption Act that was so eloquently promoted by

Mr. Robinson has been actively opposed by the Child Welfare

League of America; by the North American Council on Adoptable

Children, which is the major national adoptive parent organization

in this country; and, most importantly perhaps, was unanimously

rejected by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, the judges that hear the adoption cases.

I hope this information I’ve provided on criminal background

checks will be useful.

[The prepared statement follows:]

119

120

121

122

123

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Mr. Markus.

STATEMENT OF KENT MARKUS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. MARKUS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Levin. It’s a pleasure to be here

today to discuss our shared interest in protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, our children.

The Ways and Means Committee is to be commended, and the

subcommittee also, for its leadership on the issue of adoption and

foster care and the passage last year of the Adoption and Safe

Families Act to increase the adoption rate in the United States.

Certainly, providing stable and caring homes for our nation’s children is a priority that is of great interest, particularly to those at

the Justice Department, and I might say particularly to our Attorney General, who are concerned with reducing incidences of youth

violence.

In a related effort, the Justice Department has been involved

with developing screening guidelines for care givers across the

spectrum—whether they are prospective adoptive parents, foster

parents, day care providers, leaders of youth organizations, or care

givers for elderly or disabled adults.

While these guidelines do not specifically address the issue of

adoption or foster care, the decision model they present can also be

applied when determining screening practices for prospective adoptive or foster parents. And, indeed, that was the objective of this

exercise: Is to have a model that could be applied in a wide range

of different circumstances to determine what type of screening

might be appropriate.

As you know, the 1994 crime law amended the 1993 National

Child Protection Act, and directed the Attorney General to develop

guidelines for the adoption of appropriate safeguards by care providers and by States for protecting children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities from abuse.

In response, the Department of Justice developed the document

recently released by President Clinton during his weekly radio address on May 9: the guidelines for screening of persons working

with children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities in need

of support. That’s this document, and I believe all the members of

the subcommittee were provided a copy of this document that contains the guidelines.

You will note that the guidelines issued by the Department do

not recommend that criminal record checks be required in all circumstances. Instead, they present advice for States and organizations in establishing comprehensive screening practices. The guidelines lead States, local communities or service organizations

through a multi-step approach for assessing their screening needs

in establishing a policy that provides an appropriate level of

screening based upon the specific situation at hand. The suggested

screening mechanisms may include the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s finger-print based criminal records check where warranted.

However, this is not suggested for every scenario. What we have

tried to do in the guidelines is to simply provide the design of a

124

spectrum that helps States and organizations determine what level

of screening might be necessary in a variety of circumstances. This

spectrum ranges from situations where there is little threat, to situations where a child or vulnerable adult could be at real risk. For

example, a parent volunteer, chaperoning a half-day field trip,

probably requires no screening at all.

However the same person, as a prospective adoptive parent,

should be subject to the most thorough levels of screening before

we would allow that kind of activity to take place.

The decision model presented in the guidelines is a three step

process.

The first step assesses triggers that pertain to the setting in

which the care is provided, the care giver’s level of contact with the

person receiving care, and the vulnerability of the person receiving

the care. It is a common sense approach that says, in essence, that

the greater the period of unsupervised contact, the greater degree

of screening is necessary.

The second step is evaluating the impact of what we call ‘‘intervenors,’’ or factors that might limit or affect the choice and level

of screening. This means asking what things might interfere with

an agency’s or organization’s ability to do a particular screening.

For example, do State laws allow an organization to have access to

criminal history background information? Do you have the financial or human resources available to do the screening that might

be called for?

The third step is the selection of the screening to be used. At a

minimum, this decision model assumes that every employer and

volunteer should use some basic screening. Basic screening includes a formal written application, a signed statement, personal

reference checks with telephone contact, and a comprehensive personal interview. If the assessment and evaluation steps indicate

that more than basic screening is necessary, a number of other

screening measures can be used. These measures range from

checks of central child abuse registries to home visits, to FBI fingerprint checks. Many of these screening mechanisms are already

in use by States and adoption organizations in screening prospective adoptive and foster parents, as the last witness indicated.

In determining the level and type of screening appropriate for

the setting, it should be pointed out that all screening practices, including FBI fingerprint checks, have limitations. Screening cannot

guarantee that all individuals who pass through the screening will

not abuse those in their care, nor is screening a guarantee of competency. Screening must be seen in the context as one tool that can

prevent harm. In order to establish our goal of protecting the vulnerable in our nation, we must incorporate screening as part of the

broader abuse prevention practices we develop.

The Department of Justice is pleased to have provided a framework for States and organizations to use in determining appropriate screening. While we have focused our discussion on screening procedures applicable to all vulnerable—politicians—populations—and vulnerable politicians, I would also be happy to answer questions specific to their application to adoptive and foster

families.

[The prepared statement follows:]

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

Chairman SHAW. You’re not going to——

Mr. MARKUS. It may be subject to abuse if we’re not careful.

Chairman SHAW. Does that conclude your remarks?

Mr. MARKUS. Yes, sir, it does.

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Levin?

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. Oh, I don’t have any questions. We appreciate the testimony from both of you. It’s an important subject. And

Ms. Sullivan, thank you very much for taking 30-seconds of your

testimony to refer to the earlier subject, and you did refer to work

of Madeleine Freundlich?

Ms. SULLIVAN. Freundlich—the Evan B. Donaldson.

Mr. SANDER LEVIN. And she did submit some testimony that will

be in the record, and I hope that everybody reads it showing I

think perhaps a somewhat surprising, clearly large percentage of

people who want to find each other.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the hearing.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, and, Sandy, I appreciate your comments and all the witnesses comments. This is a tough subject. It’s

one that we want to accommodate, but we don’t want to open up

some other problems, and it’s a tough, tough issue for us. And we’ll

be thinking about it and talking about this over the rest of the

year, for sure. I appreciate your time to come and testify as well

as, of course, all of the other witnesses.

Congressman Oberstar, who was supposed to be part of our first

panel, he was tied up in another hearing. As you know, he is the

ranking Democratic member on the Public Works and Transportation Committee. His statement will be made a part of the record

without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oberstar follows:]

138

139

140

Chairman SHAW. And with that, Congressman Souder, who I understand cannot come, has a statement to also go on the record. So

both those statements will go on the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]

141

142

143

144

Chairman SHAW. The hearing is concluded. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the hearing adjourned subject to the

call of the Chair.]

[Submissions for the record follow:]

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231