So, Elizabeth's adoption was finalized almost 2 years ago, in March of '09. About 7-8 months after that, I recieved her new birth certificate in the mail. On it, it listed me as the mother, and under father, it was blank. When Elizabeth first came to me in 11/07, I was given a copy of her original birth certificate, which of course listed her birth parents J and K under mother and father. Now, I admit, I get a huge thrill out of looking at her new birth certificate and seeing my name listed under "mother." Because I AM her mother. But...I did not give birth to her. On Wednesday, July 11, 2007, I worked all day, and then went to an evening class I was taking at the time. I was not, however, in a hospital near downtown San Diego delivering a baby. It seems like they (whoever "they"is) could could/should come up with a better legal document. My opinion- they should keep they original birth certificate and attach an adendum denoting the adoption, and naming the adoptive parents. But it seems like a lie to list me as E's mother on 7/11/07. I wasn't her mother then. Why can't E's biological parents be kept on the birth certificate, instead of being erased like they never existed? They are part of Elizabeth, and always will be. I thank God every day for E's birthparents. Without them, this beautiful, smart funny little girl, my daughter, would not exist.
It's late, and I'm kind of tired, so I hope this made any sense. I feel like I'm rambling so I guess I'll say good night for now :)
1 comment:
I struggle with this one too. The knowledge that our adoption is open and there will always be ongoing contact with the birthfamily is what keeps me grounded. I tell myself the BC is mostly used for identification purposes and is not always a true record of a person's lineage.
Post a Comment