We all know Utah is more than willing to strip a child of their original identity and make them into adoptees. All under the guise of “in the best interests of the child“, of course. That they firmly believe a two parent (male/female) married couple is superior to any other parent is clearly obvious in how they have written their adoption law.
Prospective parents appear to flock to Utah for adoption because it is just so damn easy, and the revocation period is quick and relatively painless, and the fathers rights are so easily stripped - regardless of what state the mother and father actually reside in. Why it’s practically a done deal every single time, even if it requires a long drawn-out court battle, the “best interests of the child” argument by the time all is said and done, seems to cinch the deal more often than not…
After reading above and my many other posts re Utah you would think. No, you would be adamant that Utah in all of its “best interests of the child” talk, and so insistent on creating adoptees, that said adoption law would have an “in case of medical emergency” good cause exception written in, allowing a judge to unseal the adoptees court file. You would automatically assume that potential life-saving measure had been thought of, and written into law, at least in one of the numerous revisions in recent years. Wouldn’t you? It is after all one of the excuses the adoption industry trots out anytime family health history is brought into the converstation.
Well apparently finally someone, Jackie Biskupski, a Utah legislator realized there was no “good cause” written in and submitted a revision THIS YEAR. Now you would assume this revision would breeze through with little concern especially when the elected official is an adoptive parent no less.
A very clean revision that makes so much sense that even the the pro-adoption lobby group could not disagree, one would think…and doesn’t have any mention of allowing just any adoptee to access and receive their original birth certificate making them equal to any other citizen in the USA…only those adoptees whose doctors require that info to treat their patient…really not that much to ask is it?
ACCESS TO ADOPTION RECORDS
2011 GENERAL SESSION
STATE OF UTAH
Chief Sponsor: Jackie Biskupski
Senate Sponsor: ____________
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
Section 1. Section 78B-6-141 is amended to read: 78B-6-141. Petition, report, and documents sealed — Exceptions.
(g) if an adoptee has a medical need to know the adoptee’s biological heritage, a court shall immediately order the unsealing of the adoption record if the need is certified by a licensed physician by testimony or in a written statement.
The bill was submitted as follows on 21 February 2011.
HB0406 – Access to Adoption Records
State Government (UCA 36-12-13(2)(b)): Enactment of this bill likely will not materially impact the state budget.
Local Governments (UCA 36-12-13(2)(c)): Enactment of this bill likely will not result in direct, measurable costs for local governments.
Direct Expenditures by Utah Residents and Businesses (UCA 36-12-13(2)(d)): Enactment of this bill likely will not result in direct, measurable expenditures by Utah residents or businesses.
There is NO cost to Utah, yet see what happens when the bill was submitted as follows on 24 February 2011.
Room W020 – House Building, State Capitol Complex
February 24, 2011
(edited by me attendees and other bills, see link if interested)
H.B. 406 Access to Adoption Records (Rep. J. Biskupski)
At the request of the sponsor, the bill was not heard.
The status of the bill – buried, gone, “as if” it never was.
Last Action: 10 March 2011, House/ strike enacting clause
Last Location: House file for defeated bills
June 13, 2011 The Salt Lake City Tribune ran the story below - I am sure the reason given in the story is just the most politically correct answer for resigning. I wish she would publically say why the revision to the adoption law was buried and did not proceed but I guess we will never know.
Jackie Biskupski has one great reason for leaving the Legislature — her 18-month-old son, Archie.
She’s moving out of District 30 to live in a kid-friendly neighborhood in, as it happens, her Democratic colleague Brian King’s District 28. She needed a bigger house and yard and good schools.
A single mom, she’d also like to adopt another child to round out her family.
you can read the whole story at the link above…
So in reality, if you were adopted in Utah and you get sick and need your family health history YOU are S.O.L., even if you needed to ask a family member if they would donate bone marrow, so you could get a bone marrow transplant to save your life. Adoptees get sick. Adoptees need family health history just the same as non-adopted individuals.
I am absolutely floored this revision did not pass and was actually excited yesterday when I stumbled over this, until I realized it had somehow mysteriously been quashed. I am sure someone objected, because you know you just cannot allow adoptees to know where they came from, or our what is in their future – plus it might bring too many buried secrets out into the light of day, and that might hurt the bottom line.
Wonder how many of those prospective parents who have flocked to Utah because of the oh-so-adoptive-parent-friendly-the-laws-are, ACTUALLY know that Utah is only pro-adoption – not pro-adoptee…and certainly not “in the best interests of the child“
…Utah you can’t have it both ways…