Adopted Californians cannot access their original birth certificates

These maps categorize US states into three primary groups: Unrestricted, Compromised, and Restricted, with definitions and numbers below.  A list of states and restrictions is also available, as well as a changelog to the map over time. 

Opinion 

By Jennifer Wallig Special to The Sacramento Bee 

June 27, 2025 

 California denies adult adoptees access to original birth certificates. 

Explore the fight for equality and identity restoration in adoption laws. 

California has long been a leader in civil rights, but there is one glaring exception: adult adoptees in our state are still denied the right to obtain their own original birth certificates. This injustice affects thousands of Californians who, unlike their non-adopted peers, are blocked from accessing a document that speaks to their identity, their origins and their truth. 

Currently, adult adoptees in California receive only an amended birth certificate — one that lists their adoptive parents as if they were their birth parents. The original document, created at birth, is sealed by the state and kept from the very person it’s about.  This practice not only erases history; it reinforces shame and secrecy in adoption.  It says to adoptees: “You don’t have the same rights as everyone else.” 

This isn’t the case everywhere. As of 2025, 15 states have passed laws granting adult adoptees the right to request their unredacted original birth certificates.  States like Oregon, New York, Colorado, Alabama, Kansas and Alaska already recognize that adoptees deserve equality when it comes to their records. These states have shown that restoring access doesn’t cause chaos, it brings healing. California nearly joined them: In 2023, Assembly Bill 1302 offered hope.  In 2024, Senate Bill 1274 tried again. Both died before reaching the governor’s desk.  Why?  Misinformation, fear and an outdated belief that adoptees shouldn’t “stir up the past.” 

But this is not about digging up drama. It’s about restoring dignity.  Access to an original birth certificate isn’t about reunions, it’s about rights.  Whether or not an adoptee ever contacts a birth parent is irrelevant.  What matters is that they are allowed to know the truth about their own beginnings.  As the daughter of an adoptee, I watched firsthand how frustrating and painful it was for my father to be treated like his identity must be kept secret from him.  

I’m not asking for special treatment, I’m asking for equal treatment.  It’s time for California to stop lagging behind. We should not be a state that preaches equality but denies it to adopted adults.  Lawmakers must reintroduce and pass legislation that grants adult adoptees unrestricted access to their original, unaltered birth certificates.  No vetoes, no redactions and no hoops.  To California’s elected officials and others who have the power to lead on this issue: We are counting on you to act.  In the end, this is not just an adoptee issue.  It’s a human rights issue.  Let’s make California the next state to get it right.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article309324380.html#storylink=cpy

Adult adopted people in fifteen states currently have an unrestricted right to obtain copies of their own pre-adoption original birth records without discriminatory restrictions.  MORE: https://adopteerightslaw.com/maps/

Eisenhower policy of "assimilation" led to adoption

...In 1950, under the Eisenhower policy of "Assimilation" of Native American Tribes, the Gabrielino-Tongva were effectively terminated. The Mexican-American War was settled by the Treaty of Guadalupe, which ceded California to the United States. ... The Eisenhower policy of "assimilation" also lead to the adoption of over 50,000 Native American children into white, often suburban households (until the practice was ended by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978).

[website: http://www.gabrielinotribe.org/TribalHistory/tribal_history.cfm]

California #ICWA

California ICWA Task Force Information and Survey

Posted on January 5, 2016 by Kate Fort | Turtle Talk

Recently the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Children’s Justice, established an ICWA compliance task force with a goal of examining ICWA non-compliance in California.  In support of this effort tribal leaders have come together to provide information to assist the California DOJ in looking at ICWA compliance issues, including cases involving non-California tribes.  This project is an opportunity for all tribes to provide feedback on these important issues.

Letter to tribal leaders from task force co-chairs.

Letter to tribal leaders from California AG.

There is both a call (details in first letter) and a survey is for any tribe with children in the California system, not just California tribes. Survey is here and is due by January 15.

Questions can be directed to Delia Parr at CILS, CALINDIAN@calindian.org

I had a comment on Google+ that California needs to open its adoption records. Anyone know of any organizations working for OPEN RECORDS for California Adoptees? Leave a comment... Trace

Yurok Traditional Adoption

Cal. COA Decides ICWA Case involving Yurok Traditional Adoption Statute by Matthew L.M. Fletcher Turtle Talk on the web

Here is the opinion:

In re HR

An excerpt:

In 2010, legislation was enacted establishing “tribal customary adoption” as an alternative permanent plan for a dependent Indian child who cannot be reunited with his or her parents. Tribal customary adoption is intended to provide an Indian child with the same stability and permanency as traditional adoption under state law without the termination of parental rights, which is contrary to the cultural beliefs of many Native American tribes. In this case, the Yurok Tribe (the tribe) intervened in the dependency proceedings prior to the jurisdictional hearing and recommended tribal customary adoption as the permanent plan for the minor. The tribe now contends the juvenile court erred in terminating parental rights and selecting traditional adoption as the permanent plan. We disagree with the tribe's contention that the court was required to select tribal customary adoption as the child's permanent plan simply because the tribe elected such a plan but conclude that, in the absence of a finding that tribal customary adoption would be detrimental to the minor, the court erred in failing to select such a permanent plan in this case.