California Adoptee Rights

An Adoptees United resource for information about California legislation

Resources

Committee Assignments: Health and Judiciary

by

Senate Bill 1274 has been assigned to its senate committees: Health and Judiciary. Here’s quick information and resources about both.

Senate Health Committee

While the bills sponsor, Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman, was the former chair of the Senate Health Committee, the committee is now chaired by Sen. Richard Roth (D-Riverside). The referral of the bill to this committee was expected. The committee considers bills “relating to public health, alcohol and drug abuse, mental health, public and private health insurance and managed care, food safety, health facility licensing, prescription drugs, emergency medical services, and related institutions.” Members of the committee in 2024 include 9 Democrats and 2 Republicans:

Steven M. Glazer (D-Contra Costa)
Lena A. Gonzalez (D-Long Beach)
Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield)
Melissa Hurtado (D-Bakersfield)
Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara)
Caroline Menjivar (D-San Fernando Valley)
Janet Nguyen (R-Huntington Beach), Vice-Chair 
Richard Roth (D-Riverside), Chair
Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park)
Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles)
Senator Scott D. Wiener (D-San Francisco)

The focus of SB1274 in the Health Committee will be on the bill’s direct connection to vital records, which is overseen by the California Department of Public Health. While arguments will no doubt come up about “privacy” and the California state constitution, those arguments are generally outside the scope of this committee. Instead, they are more likely to be considered in depth in the Judiciary Committee.

Senate Judiciary Committee

The Senate Judiciary Committee is chaired by Senator Thomas Umberg (D), The jurisdiction of this committee is in part the state’s family and probate codes, as well as bills relating to courts, judges, and privacy. Members of the committee include 9 Democrats and 2 Republicans:

Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica)
Angelique V. Ashby (D-Sacramento)
Anna M. Caballero (D-Merced)
María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles)
John Laird (D-Santa Cruz)
Dave Min (D-Irvine)
Roger W. Niello (R-Fair Oaks), Vice-Chair
Henry I. Stern (D-Los Angeles)
Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana), Chair
Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward)
Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita)

The focus of the committee for SB1274 will likely be on its relationship to the family code and to state courts, as well as expected arguments that the bill involves issues of birthparent privacy.

Hearings

Hearings for both committees are in person, though written testimony can be provided through various means, most often through the California Position Letter Portal but also by email directly to the committee. The Health committee generally meets on Wednesday afternoons.

The committees’ guidance for submitting testimony or participating in a specific committee hearing is here:

Resource: Position Letter Portal

We’ve created a video resource to help understand how to sign up and use the California Position Letter Portal. More about that is here (or click on the image below).

California Position Letter Portal Resource

California Position Letter Portal: SB1274 Edition

by

It’s not yet time to submit letters or positions of support through the California Position Letter Portal. But we’ve updated our resource to make it easier once positions are needed for SB1274.

The video below will show you how to submit a letter or positin on SB1274 once it is set for committee hearing. If you do not already have an account with the position portal, you should at least sign up for one here so you are ready to go once positions and letters are needed.

The video is a resource courtesy of Adoptees United Inc.

Current California Law: The Basics

by

California is considered a Restricted State, meaning adult adopted people cannot secure a copy of their own original birth without a court order.

Despite its reputation as an affirming and supportive state for civil and human rights, California is considered one of the most restrictive adoptee rights states in the country, with a punishing legal framework that adoptees must follow to convince a court that a person’s own birth record should be theirs. Court petitions, however, rarely succeed.

Current Law

The following are relevant excerpts of California’s current law related to vital records, including how it controls and restricts the release of an adopted person’s own birth record. The most relevant portions are highlighted.

California Health and Safety Code Section 10625. The clerk of the court shall complete a report upon a form provided for that purpose and forward the report to the State Registrar within five days after a decree of adoption has been entered declaring a child legally adopted by any court in the state. The report shall be forwarded within five days after an interlocutory decree of adoption becomes a final decree of adoption, and not earlier.

Section 10630. The court reports of adoption that are received by the State Registrar for births that occurred in another state, the District of Columbia, in any territory of the United States, or Canada shall be transmitted to the registration authority of the place of birth.

Section 10635. A new birth certificate shall be established by the State Registrar upon receipt of either of the following:

(a) A report of adoption from any court of record that has jurisdiction of the child in this state, another state, the District of Columbia, in any territory of the United States, or in any foreign country, for any child born in California and whose certificate of birth is on file in the office of the State Registrar.

(b) A readoption order issued pursuant to Section 8919 of the Family Code.

Section 102640. When requested by the adopting parent or parents, a new certificate shall not be established by the State Registrar.

Section 102645. The new birth certificate shall bear the name of the child as shown in the report of adoption, the names and ages of his or her adopting parents, the date and place of birth, and no reference shall be made in the new birth certificate to the adoption of the child. The new certificate shall be identical with a birth certificate registered for the birth of a child of natural parents, except, when requested by the adopting parents, the new birth certificate shall not include the specific name and address of the hospital or other facility where the birth occurred, the color and race of the parents, or both.

Section 102660. If both adopting parents were in the home at the time of the initial placement of the child for adoption the newly amended birth record may include the names of both adopting parents despite the death of one of the adopting parents, upon receipt of an order from the court granting the adoption that directs under the authority of Section 8615 of the Family Code that the names of both adopting parents shall be included on the newly amended birth record.

Section 102670. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an adopting parent who has adopted a child for whom an amended record has already been prepared under authority of this article may have another amended record prepared for the child, upon application, furnishing a copy of the court order made in an action brought pursuant to Section 8615 of the Family Code, and payment of the required fee.

Section 102675. At any time after the issuance of a new birth certificate another amended certificate may be issued, at the request of the adopting parents, that omits any or all of the following:

(a)  The specific name and address of the hospital or other facility where the birth occurred.
(b)  The city and county of birth.
(c)  The color and race of the parents.

Section 102680. The new birth certificate shall supplant any birth certificate previously registered for the child and shall be the only birth certificate open to public inspection.

Section 102685. When a new birth certificate is established under this article, the State Registrar shall inform the local registrar and the county recorder whose records contain copies of the original certificate, who shall forward the copies to the State Registrar for filing with the original certificate, if it is practical for him or her to do so. If it is impractical for him or her to forward the copy to the State Registrar, he or she shall effectually seal a cover over the copy in a manner as not to deface or destroy the copy and forward a verified statement of his or her action to the State Registrar. Thereafter the information contained in the record shall be available only as provided in this article.

Section 102690. For court reports of adoptions received from any court of record of this State, another state, the District of Columbia, or in any territory of the United States, that has jurisdiction of a child born in this State and for whom no original record of birth is on file in the Office of the State Registrar the court report of adoption shall constitute a court order delayed birth registration; provided, the court report contains a statement of the date and place of birth.

Section 102695. A court report of adoption received from any court of record in this State, wherein the birth occurred outside the United States, the Territories of the United States, or Canada shall constitute a court order delayed registration of birth; provided, the court report contains a statement of the date and place of birth.

Section 102700. The court report of adoption shall be filed with the original record of birth, that shall remain as a part of the records of the State Registrar.

Section 102705. All records and information specified in this article, other than the newly issued birth certificate, shall be available only upon the order of the superior court of the county of residence of the adopted child or the superior court of the county granting the order of adoption.

No such order shall be granted by the superior court unless a verified petition setting forth facts showing the necessity of the order has been presented to the court and good and compelling cause is shown for the granting of the order. The clerk of the superior court shall send a copy of the petition to the State Department of Social Services and the department shall send a copy of all records and information it has concerning the adopted person with the name and address of the natural parents removed to the court. The court must review these records before making an order and the order should so state. If the petition is by or on behalf of an adopted child who has attained majority, these facts shall be given great weight, but the granting of any petition is solely within the sound discretion of the court.

The name and address of the natural parents shall be given to the petitioner only if he or she can demonstrate that the name and address, or either of them, are necessary to assist him or her in establishing a legal right.

The 2009 Bill

by

California AB372 was ultimately a bad bill, and parts of it have now popped up in AB1302, today’s pending discriminatory bill.

History of AB372

DateActionDocument
Feb. 23, 2009Introduced in the Assembly (Rep. Fiona Ma)
Mar. 26, 2009Amended to restore a right to the OBC at age 25
Apr. 21, 2009Amended to gut equal rights provisions
Apr. 24, 2009Bill analysis (as amended on April 21, 2009)
Apr. 28, 2009Voted do pass: 10-0, as amended
May 7, 2009Amended to add two provisions (see below)
May 12, 2009Bill analysis (as amended on May 7, 2009)
Jan. 31, 2010 Died in Appropriations Committee

As Introduced (FEBruary 23, 2009)

Assembly Member Fiona Ma introduced AB372 in February 2009. As introduced, it loosened current law only slightly. It otherwise would still require a court petition to request your own birth record, with discretion of the court to deny the request.

As First Amended (March 26, 2009)

The first amendment eliminated prior provisions and set the age to request an informational copy of the OBC to 25. The copy would be provided by the State Registrar upon request. AB372 also created optional birthparent contact preference and medical information forms which did not impact the release of the OBC.

As Amended (APRIL 21, 2009)

The next amendment gutted the prior restoration of a right to the OBC and replaced it with a complicated notice requirement to birthparents, nearly identical to the notice requirements contained today in AB1302. Birthparents must be notified of the change in the law and are given the right to veto the release of the OBC. The OBC would not be released if the birthparents listed on the record did not receive the notice or the birthparents listed vetoed release. If two birthparents were listed on the OBC and only one objected to release, the identifying information of the objecting parent would be redacted. Slightly different but otherwise discriminatory provisions also applied to adoptions finalized after January 1, 2010, including two separate forms sent to birthparents, one to object to release of the record and one to use in the even they wish to revoke a prior objection to release.

Final Amendments (MAY 7, 2009)

Final amendments added two provisions to the existing bill: 1) requiring certified or registered mail, restricted delivery for the notices sent to birthparents; and 2) releasing the OBC if all birthparents listed on the record are deceased and “as verified by the Office of Vital Records.” The bill later died in committee.

Supporters

Only one organization supported AB372 and its discriminatory provisions:

California Adoption Reform Effort (CARE)

Opposition

Four organizations opposed the discriminatory versions of the bills and their restrictions:

Bastard Nation
Bay Area Birthmothers Association
California Adoptive Parents For Open Records
California Open
Ethica

One organization and ten registered individuals supported the equal rights version of the bill (March 26, 2009):

American Adoption Congress

Two organizations opposed the equal rights version of the bill (March 26, 2009):

Academy of California Adoption Lawyers
Family Law Section of the State Bar

The 2001 Bill

by

Introduced in February 2001, AB1349 started off as a general adoption records bill—that is, it was about “records” and not specifically about an adopted person’s own original birth certificate (OBC). It was, however, amended to provide the OBC upon request to adult adoptees. At a committee hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, the bill went south when the committee added discriminatory amendments and created a complex intermediary process unrelated to birth records. AB1349 ultimately died in the Assembly on February 7, 2002.

History of AB1349

DateActionDocument
Feb. 23, 2001Introduced in the Assembly
Apr. 16, 2001Amended to create a right to the OBC
Apr. 17, 2001Bill analysis (as amended)
Jan. 7, 2002Amended to remove release of certain records
Jan. 14, 2002Bill analysis (as amended on Jan. 7, 2002)
Jan. 15, 2002Voted do pass: 10-0, with committee amendments
Jan, 23, 2002Bill analysis (as amended by Judiciary)
Feb. 7, 2002Bill died in Appropriations Committee

As Introduced

Assembly Member Anthony Pescetti introduced AB1349 in February 2001. As introduced, it provided only for release of specific court records; it did not involve the release of a copy of the original birth certificate.

As First Amended

The first amendments came before a scheduled April 2001 hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The amendments essentially rewrote the bill to restore the right of California-born adult adopted people to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificates. Optional birthparent contact preference forms—as well as medical history forms—were also included in the amended bill. It also retained release of the entire adoption file held by the public or private adoption agency.

As Amended Again

The next amendments to the bill in early January 2002 removed provisions related to release of the entire adoption agency file to the adult adopted person. It retained provisions that would restore the right of an adult adopted person to request and obtain a copy of their own original birth certificate.

Final Amendments

The Judiciary Committee amended the bill and eliminated the right of an adult adopted person to obtain their own birth record upon request. Instead, the committee approved bill language to create a complex consent-based intermediary system intended to facilitate contact between birthparents and adopted people. If an adult adopted person knew the identities of the birthparents listed on the original birth certificate, however, the OBC could be released.

Referral to Appropriations

After the Judiciary Committee voted 10-0 to recommend passage of a now completely gutted bill, it was referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, where AB1349 died on February 7, 2002, without further consideration.

Support and Opposition

Going into the hearing on January 15, 2002, AB1349 had the following organizational support:

California Open 2001
Adoptees’ Liberty Movement Association (ALMA)
Adoption Connection of Jewish Family and Children’s Services
Adopt International
Adoption Network Agency
Adoption Triad Ministry
Alabamians Working for Adoption Reform and Education
American Adoption Congress
Americans for Open Records
Association of Korean Adoptees of San Francisco
Association of Korean Adoptees – Southern California
Bastard Nation
Bay Area Birthmothers Association
Birthparents for Open Records Now
California Society for Clinical Social Work
Coalition of Adoptive Parents for Open Records
Concerned United Birthparents
Cooperative Adoption Consulting
Families Adopting in Response (FAIR)
Holt International Children’s Services
Independent Adoption Center
Kids & Families Together
Minnesota Adoption Resource Network
Pact: An Adoption Alliance
Post Adoption Center for Education & Research (PACER)
Sunflower Birthmothers

The following organizations registered opposition to the bill (as amended to include equal rights provisions to the OBC)

Academy of California Adoption Lawyers
California ProLife Council, Inc.
Committee on Moral Concerns
National Council For Adoption (NCFA)