Achieving adoptee rights by amending the laws that seal records is more than simply revising statutes. CARE acknowledges this in EyeBall, inadvertently indicting itself:

“Asking a state which has selected a policy that is unbalanced on the birthparent right to privacy to completely disregard 32 years of regulatory practices and revert to a balance that errs on the side of adoptee rights lacks an implementation strategy.” Stephanie Williams.

This statement wraps CARE’s effort in a big red bow and then sends it straight to the recycling bin. It’s been evident from the beginning of 2009 that CARE was oblivious that to the fact that their effort required the skills and tools necessary to effect social change, not simply revise statutes. They had and have no strategy to effect the social changes necessary to reverse decades of discriminatory law and practice.

I wrote on February 9th that CARE had no answer to the ACLU and the adoption attorneys. CARE minimized the opposition of the ACLU, “they haven’t been around much in Sacramento…” CARE found out, much to their surprise, that the ACLU has a lock on the Judiciary, just as the adoption attorneys have a lock on interpreting family law. What exactly was CARE’s strategy to deal with these groups, other than to roll over and pant?

CARE’s strategy for dealing with the DSS was to tell the Judiciary Committee that social workers and shrinks were leading the charge to open records, only to have the state’s own social service department oppose them from the ground up. Again, CARE’s strategy was to cave and cringe.

All the time CARE was telling the adoption community to not worry, that AB 372 would get better, that we should trust them. EyeBall finally levels with the adoption community, AB 372 is as good as it’s going to get. All that talk about amending it over the next two years, well, those were just words coming out of their mouths and those words don’t mean anything.

EyeBall closes with a plea for incremental change. On its face I have no problem with incremental changes leading to full rights. The problem with AB 372 and CARE’s effort is that their increment doesn’t lead anywhere. They have looked at the existing social dynamic of power and thrown up their hands. This is the BEST THEY CAN DO.

It’s lonely being incompetent; success has a thousand authors, failure only one. EyeBall bemoans the fact that they have no allies… well, get used to it.

Proponents of AB 372 are still shopping the notion that it will benefit 99.5% of California adoptees. I suppose so, if the state has or will be willing to obtain valid addresses for 100% of women who relinquished in California. Otherwise this “statistic” is worse than meaningless, its intellectually dishonest and insulting.

Proponents are also busy writing that they had to include a disclosure veto so the state could CYA for the past issuance of said vetoes. That the State Supreme Court would tear it up. Fair enough, but what’s the rationale for making them prospective? If this is a bill to benefit adoptees, what principle is at play to not only continue the usage of disclosure vetoes, but to tune them up and make them the default in cases where contact is not made? I’ll tell you why, political expedience.

A look at the list of supporters and opponents of AB 372 is enlightening, not for who is on it, but for who isn’t. The ABA, the adoption attorneys, the ACLU. The agencies. All the folks who are inimical to our interests didn’t show up. That’s because they got what they wanted. Because that’s the way they roll and they rolled over us.

But you know what, I’m folding my hand on AB 372, cutting my losses. I may blog on it as it moves forward. At this point I don’t see any chance of stopping it in the Assembly. If the opposition organizations suddenly wake up and smell the coffee and grow their capacity, they might be able to do something in the Senate.

At this point I’m assuming that this bill, with some modifications, will pass and become law. What happens on January, 2011? Not much. It’s not like thousands of California adoptees are going to apply for the OBCs the first month, like in Oregon or New Hampshire. Why should they? If the default is non-disclosure then the benefit will be marginal. No, California adoptees will do what they have done for years, hire search consultants that specialize in California and do a name search through the Birth Index and by doing so they will assert the right to their information that California will still deny them. A few adoptees may drink the kool aid, but their narratives of migraines and frustrations will pepper the internet and dissuade others from using the state system. In other words, the status quo will remain.

I heard some buzz that they’d scheduled a press conference for last week, but then nothing happened. Then there was a rumor that it was going to be held in the Governor’s Office. Then it switched to the Assembly Speaker’s office, leading to general consternation among AB 372’s opponents that this was a tip o’ the hat from the Speaker to the C.A.R.E.

C.A.R.E. finally announced their press conference on their website:

Please Join Us on Monday 4.27.09
Press Conference 9:00am
Assembly Speakers Office

That announcement was up for about a day, and was replaced with this one, which was up the last time I looked [10 am, Sunday April 26, Pacific Time]:

AB 372 Press Conference
Speakers Press Office
11:00
(916)-718-1178

No date… Different time… In the Speaker’s Press Office, which is a room, folks, not an endorsement… So it’s either happening tomorrow morning, during the hearing or today in about an hour…

I had assumed that they were going to hold their presser last week, to give the media the chance to air or publish a story in time to have some sort of effect on the outcome of the hearing… Theoretically you hold a staged event for the press to announce the bill a month out, to build a narrative leading up to the hearing… Having a presser the day before, or the morning of, the hearing doesn’t do you much good, the “news” is the hearing itself, not someone blabbering talking points about what may or may not happen… It’s not like the Sac Bee is going to put out an extra edition between the press conference and the hearing. ABC isn’t going to interrupt GMA to go live at C.A.R.E.’s press conference.

It’s possible that C.A.R.E. will use the presser to announce a deal with DSS, ACLU and other opposition groups going into the hearing. That would actually be “news”. The lamb will agree to lay down with the lions, or more precisely the lamb agrees to surrender a couple of its tenderloins to the lions in the exchange for a promise to live to limp another day… That’s one of the few scenarios that makes sense in terms of the timing of the press conference. But this is just my idle speculation.

Ah well, busy couple of days for CARE, they have to act as beards for Asm. Ma’s fundraiser tomorrow night after they face a grilling at Judiciary…

AB 372 HEARING DRINKING GAME: Take a shot every time a committee member calls adult adoptees “children”. Bonus double shots for every mention of “rape and incest”.

Peace, Love and Soul!

BB

I’m not. I don’t moderate comments on the Funhouse. If a comment is posted, I get an email notice, but that’s just so I know it’s been posted automatically. If folks are trying to post comments and they’re not showing up, then there’s a problem somewhere else, either with your browser or with Blogger…

I like free speech. If you have a problem posting, document the time and date and let me know, my email address is now in my Blogger profile. If it’s a problem with Blogger I can try to address it with them. Otherwise I have no idea that there is a problem and assume everything is okie dokie and everyone loves me…

I’m not going to go too deeply into the conflation of “healing” and the enactment of compromise legislation. But I am going to respond to the main contention in this remark, that a small group of activists, misguided or not, can derail C.A.R.E.’s effort. What does it say about C.A.R.E.’s capacity as an effective organization seeking political change if a small group of folks can cause their failure? Doesn’t this point to a failure on C.A.R.E.’s part?

Personally, I think all the major national adoption reform organizations have problems with the issues of accountability and legitimacy. Even ones that I agree with on ideological matters. None of them have mounted serious membership campaigns, none of them have initiated significant outreach campaigns to reach adoptees outside the small circle that develop an interest in the issues at play and search the organizations out. All of the major organizations make claims in the name of vast numbers of adoptees who don’t even know that these organizations exist, let alone that they’re lobbying to change laws in their name. So C.A.R.E. is not the lone bad actor in all of this.

Nevertheless, if C.A.R.E. is going to blame me, or anyone else, for a failure for their legislative program to gain traction they are missing a valuable educational experience. In other words, they need to look in the mirror. If they can’t overcome the opposition of some lone adoptee blogger, then it’s not the lone adoptee blogger’s fault. It’s not even a matter of my ideas being better or worse than theirs. It’s that they have a very low capacity.

And if I threaten their effort, how are they going to fare against California’s Department of Social Services, which considers AB 372 a hostile bill, or the ACLU (whichever chapter, northern or southern) which can rally thousands of members if it feels the need? How many members can C.A.R.E. rally?

I’m not even going to argue about rights, needs, or law. Whichever strategy an organization decides to follow in California is going to take a maximum effort. What surprises me about C.A.R.E. was how precipitous their effort was, no organizing component at all. The net result: they are threatened by individual bloggers and other “small groups”. What do you think the lesson is? That I’m evil (again, debatable, but ultimately beside the point)? Or that C.A.R.E can’t even handle small threats to its claims of legitimacy?

The proposed changes would place all California adult adoptees under a blanket default disclosure veto. If a California adult adoptee, over the age of 25, applies for a copy of her original birth certificate, “certified, return receipt letter is sent to the best-match address of the biological parent notifying them of the change in law and allowing them to keep their record confidential by signing an enclosed form and returning to the Department of Health.”

If, after six months, “Should the Department not receive a return receipt, the record shall remain confidential/sealed (per status quo).”

So, if your first mother has moved in the last 25 years, gotten married, left the state, died, or is generally not receiving mail at the same address the DSS has on file, you are SOL.

Wow.

There have been a few comments from C.A.R.E. supporters here on the Funhouse and in other discussions to the effect that the present laws regarding adult adoptee access to California birth records are absurd. You won’t find an argument here. These supporters have maintained that a compromise that allows more adoptees access is better than the present law, even if it codifies the exception of chunks of other adult adoptees. That’s debatable. The changes suggested by Asm. Ma, however, actually make it likely that fewer adult adoptees will be able to access their birth records from the state. It’s difficult for me to see how C.A.R.E. can support these changes even under its limited mission.

Under the current laws, if you want your birth records, you petition the courts. The court order up your records, take a look, and either releases your records or not. If there is a disclosure veto filed, then chances are slim to nil that you’ll get them. But if there is no disclosure veto the judge has the discretion to release the records.

Under the proposed changes the adoptee fills out an application with the State Registrar. The Department of Health sends out a letter into the aether to a twenty-five year old address. If they don’t get a reply, or if the letter is undeliverable, they have no discretion, they reject the application.

How is this an improvement over the status quo?

What is C.A.R.E.’s rationale for supporting AB 372?

I guess C.A.R.E. is feeling pretty frisky lately because they’re sending out invitations for a “celebration” later this month, a very special wine and cheese extravaganza, in honor of justice, equity, and the restoration of rights to California adoptees… no, wait, that’s not right. You can see the invitation by clicking here…

If you read it very carefully you’ll note that C.A.R.E. is not actually hosting this shindig, “individual members of the California Adoption Reform Effort” are. Note that C.A.R.E.’s name is highlighted. This gives the impression that this is a C.A.R.E. sponsored “celebration” although the actual text denies it… ( I used to do this sort of dodge all the time with endorsement lists, put somebody’s name and affiliation with an asterisk next to it, with a tiny note at the bottom informing people that the organization is noted for “identification purposes only”, ha!) Note that this “celebration” is not highlighted on the C.A.R.E. website either.

This is because this “celebration” is a thinly disguised fundraiser for Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, (“make the checks out to Fiona2010″) and C.A.R.E. could jeopardize its 501(c)4 status if it donated money or in-kind resources directly to a candidate. But this is just a technicality, this party is all about C.A.R.E., they’re giving away Jean Strauss swag, they’ll be pouring C.A.R.E. vino, heck, they’ll probably serve chévre and brie curdled from the bitter milk of stoic adopted goats and cows, victims of Pastoral Primal Wound.

It’s not uncommon for organizations sponsoring legislation to hold fundraisers, but the monies usually go to support the sponsoring organization. Media buys and other outreach tools cost money. C.A.R.E. hasn’t incurred that kind of burden, though, because C.A.R.E. doesn’t do outreach.

It’s also not uncommon for organizations sponsoring legislation to host receptions, usually in the capitol building, late afternoon/early evening wine and cheese events, but these are free. As word of free booze and food passes swiftly down the corridors of power, the host organization is guaranteed a steady parade of legislators and glad-handing staff, who line up to shake your hand and proffer their ears so you can whisper your message, “Thanks for coming, I hope you’ll support AB 372”. Substantive conversation is kept to a minimum as mouths are filled with wholesale wines, cracker crumbs and stuffed olives. All told, if you get donated wine and food, the costs are fairly low, your legislative author rents the space under the copula, you get your message out. But again, that would constitute a type of outreach and C.A.R.E. doesn’t do outreach.

C.A.R.E. is hitting up its members and supporters not to benefit their mission, but to benefit their author, Fiona Ma. I know a bit about California politics, and a lot about San Francisco politics. Fiona Ma won re-election last year with 83.3% of the vote. She faces no credible threat to her seat… And here it is, April 2009 and C.A.R.E. is raising money for November 2010? I have to go look at the California SoS database again, but I’d be very surprised if Fiona didn’t have money socked away from last year.

This smells a lot like Pay to Play.

Which is kind of hilarious because the C.A.R.E. constituency, the adoption reform constituency as a whole, are not “money”. In my experience fund raising for adoption reform you may find a major donor here and there, but the vast majority tap out at 25 bucks. I cannot imagine many C.A.R.E. rank-and-file ponying up 99 clams so they can “celebrate” Fiona Ma, let alone bequeath a grand to her personal political enrichment kitty…

If I wanted to play swami, I’d put on my giant purple turban and gaze with soft focus into my crystal ball… what do I see? I see a bunch of C.A.R.E. folks busily milling around in red aprons, black slacks, white shirts with clip-on bow ties… they’re serving a very small group of donors (the faces are a blur, I can’t make them out) from trays of crackers and cheeses and baby carrots with spinach dip… the exact location is difficult to determine, I see the letters “TBA”, but it looks like a lobbyist’s office… the mood is desultory… at least until Bastardette pops out of the giant “celebration” cake and sprays everyone with a squirt gun filled with skunk juice…

Folks don’t seem to get that as the sponsoring organization for AB 372, C.A.R.E. has privileges of advise, consent and access that others do not. In practical terms this means that C.A.R.E. plans to negotiate and strike compromises with organizations like ACAL and the ACLU and let you in on it afterward. Assemblywoman Ma and C.A.R.E did not invite any other stakeholder organizations to the March 24th meeting described in the memo, although at that point her office certainly was aware of CalOpen and AAAFC’s interest in the bill. But that’s not the way C.A.R.E rolls. They have appointed themselves as the deciders, and they are deciding.

So, why 25? According to C.A.R.E, the California Association of Adoption Agencies and others at the meeting (who dat?) “recommended the age be raised to 25 and a confidential intermediary utilized before the record was released”. This makes sense if you’re a social worker, because the in the word-view of social work we are all clients, some of us are just wandering the Earth without case workers…

Words have consequences. Remember C.A.R.E’s letter to the Judiciary Committee in which they based the argument for open records on the opinions of adoption professionals and social workers… Well, guess what? The California organization representing adoption professionals think open records are fine as long as you’re 25 and you’re mandated an intermediary…

But again, why is 25 the magic number? Because C.A.R.E has not figured out a strategy to deal with the statute that granted disclosure veto power to first parents that was enacted in 1984. 2009 take away 1984 equals 25. Of course, this solves nothing in terms of the disclosure veto, because we can’t stop the clock, and everybody knows this. The memo notes that although C.A.R.E. would not accept a CI, Assemblywoman Ma did accept the age change to 25. There is no mention of how this was received by CAAA. My guess is that the language was changed after the meeting with C.A.R.E.’s sign off, and that CAAA found out about it when the language was released. But that’s just a guess, what is certain is that the memo does not state if CAAA accepted the change, or what their position will be on the bill as it rolls into Judiciary. So we have the typical adoption reform compromise buck and wing, with C.A.R.E. giving away stuff and not getting anything in return. You still wondering why I don’t want these guys negotiating in my interest? These guys couldn’t negotiate themselves out of a revolving door…

So there you have the C.A.R.E. way in a nutshell. Adult adoptees aged 18 – 25, go back to your rooms and pack your bags, you’re out. CAAA frowned at C.A.R.E. like they were misbehaving chihuahuas, and C.A.R.E. peed. Just a little puddle, but now C.A.R.E. is off to meet the adoption attorneys and the ACLU. Better throw some newspaper on the floor….

But what does this mean, what action can we take? I can only tell you what I am going to do, which is to send communications to Assemblyman Ma’s office and the Judiciary Committee outlining my opposition to AB 372 as it has been amended. If an adult adoptee is old enough to serve their country and sacrifice their lives in some souk in Iraq or on some lonely mountain top in Afganistan, then he or she is old enough to access a copy of their birth record. And that’s the way I roll….

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma’s office released new amended language for AB 372 this afternoon. The legislative web site hasn’t updated the status of AB 372 yet but as soon as it does I will post a link to the amended bill. The amendments are substantial, and create a clean bill that creates a process by which adult adoptees may access their unaltered original birth certificates through the State Registrar, and provides a Contact Preference Form, similar to Oregon, for first parents. The amendments strike out the original language revising the petitioning of records through the courts.

The amendment sets the age at which adult adoptees may access their OBCs at twenty-five (not eighteen, not twenty-one). There is also a lengthy subsection attached to the CPF regarding medical histories. If a first parent checks off that they don’t wish to be contacted, they are given the option of completing a long list of questions about their health. It looks like the form you fill out the first time you visit a caregiver. I wonder if this violates federal HIPAA rules. I’ve got some queries out about this and will report back what I find out.

So, that’s what I know right now. I have a pdf of a scanned fax of the new language, but I’d prefer to wait and see the new language in its published form before I comment further.

I will say that Assemblywoman Ma and her staff have been listening to everyone who has been commenting, analyzing and sending in sample law from other states, and that’s a good thing.