Compelling Evidence

I want to address an aspect of pursuing adoption related paperwork that I find deeply troubling and dehumanizing. Not every person applying for their documents will encounter this situation, but even one is too many.

This aspect is that of having to present a compelling argument in a courtroom in front of a judge in order to receive your file.

The first problem I see with this requirement is the vague nature of the phrase “compelling evidence”.

Compelling: (from the Oxford dictionary)

Adj. evoking interest, attention or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way. Also: not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction. Not able to be resisted, overwhelming.

Not able to be refuted or resisted, overwhelming. Inspiring conviction. There are many people who feel that there are irrefutable, overwhelming reasons to deny an adoptee their information. When you present yourself to a judge, you will likely have no idea where this authority figure falls on the spectrum of attitudes towards adoption and adoptee access to records. Because adoption law has traditionally favored the interests of adoptive parents and biological parents, precedent does not favor the adopted adult person. Law tends to lean towards precedent, and creating change can be extremely difficult.

Where I currently reside, compelling evidence is generally confined to an adoptees ability to demonstrate a significant medical need. There is little consideration given to the persons right to their personal history. Emotional health is considered primarily as a safety concern. This is not about the adoptees safety but rather the safety of the first family and adoptive family.

I know of no other group that is required to provide a compelling argument in order to receive original birth documents and medical history and knowledge of family connections. That an individual is put through the mental, emotional and physical demands of persuading a stranger that they are of sound mind but ailing body in order to be successful in their attempt is infantilizing, demeaning, dehumanizing. No one should have to be humiliated in this way.

The second problem I have with the requirement is that of access. Here is an example of what I mean. This example is based on an actual circumstance but names have been changed.

Tim lives in a small town. He works two jobs to support himself and his family. Tim has wanted to apply for his non-identifying adoption records but hasn’t been able to afford the application fees. The county courthouse where he would be required to present himself is three hours from his home. He would have to take a day off from work, and pay for the gas to drive to and from his court date. Tim has heard of intermediaries who he could hire to represent his interests in court, but has no money to pay them. Tim is in good health now, but has adoptive relatives with significant health issues. He has no idea if this could happen to him, as he has no medical history. He is concerned about what the future might hold health-wise for his two children. All of these factors cause him a great deal of stress. He also feels guilty for wanting to know who his family is, but finds the pursuit of medical history a reasonable way to feel less selfish about wanting to spend the money.

Tim’s desire to acquire his records is severely hampered by issues of access. There are other barriers to access. Lack of computer access, lack of ability to understand the law, lack of access because of language barriers, lack of access due to physical limitations, and lack of reliable transportation are also barriers. Stipulating that adoptees must present themselves in a courtroom presents an unreasonable obstacle and is, in my opinion, punitive.

The third disturbing aspect of the law is the necessity to argue your case before an authority figure. I make this a separate issue because of the idea of an authority figure; any authority figure, and because of the public nature of the event. I have been to court. I made the choice to appear before a judge, in an open courtroom, in a county courthouse, to explain and make what I hope was a persuasive argument.* I had public speaking experience. I was acquainted with the judge. I was semi-successful in my discussion with his honor. I was still mortified and anxious to be done and out of there quickly. My face burned and my limbs trembled as I listened to court observers laugh and whisper about my posture, my conversation and my outfit. I wanted to melt into the carpet when the judge gently chastised me at one point during our question and response. I cried in my car in the parking lot.

I was fortunate in that I had no physical barriers to access. My primary barriers were invisible barriers. Emotional barriers are real. Fear, distrust, guilt, grief, and anxiety are just a few of the emotional barriers we can feel when considering standing in an open courtroom in front of a judge.

Adoptees are often taught, either directly or through lived experience, to be people pleasers. We learn to base our words and actions very carefully upon the same cues non- adoptive people do, but with a very real awareness that any misstep on our part may result in ridicule and rejection. We don’t just think this can happen. We know.

We also find ourselves in the position of being , basically, beggars. We are pleading with a person who we may already feel intimidated and frightened by. We want them to like us, and grant our request. We are often uncertain, searching for the magic words and posture that will prove convincing. We have to share our known medical history in hopes that the judge will find what lies within compelling. Have you ever exaggerated a limp in order to get out of running in high school p.e.? We may find ourselves full-body limping.

Public speaking is one of the most common phobias. Combine that fear with fear of failure, fear of rejection, fear of ridicule, fear of displeasing adoptive family, fear of observers listening and sharing your situation with others?

The states and countries that require adoptees to appear in court and present evidence in this fashion need to change. They need to recognize that they are presenting unfair and unequal access to what is a basic human right, our identities. They need to acknowledge that their requirements are trauma-inducing. They need to change their laws so that an adopted person need only perform the exact same steps to procure their records as a non- adopted person.

Adoptees, this should be your non-contested right.

*the court case was not related to my adoption. It was a separate matter.