Question about birth certificate post-adoption....
February 23, 2021 7:43 PM Subscribe
I was adopted in the 70s. Closed adoption. I have now my original birth certificate (with my birth mother and father's name and my given name and where I was born) as well as the birth certificate that became my official certificate after I was adopted. The dates are weird, though, anyone have knowledge of this kind of thing?
The birth certificate that was issued post-adoption lists my adoptive mother and father as though they were my birth parents. Most of the data is identical including the location and hospital of my birth, date, time. However the date that this second certificate lists as being signed is just four days after my birth. Signed by an MD with a wet signature and then there's a registrar typed in about two weeks after that. But, to my knowledge, my birth mother kept me for a time, maybe six months, maybe shorter. And there was an in-between time where I had been given for adoption and lived with a foster family before I was actually adopted.
I have had an understanding that a new birth certificate was just the done thing in closed adoptions back then and I don't know how it is done today but that signature really blows my mind. Would a doctor sign and certify a birth certificate as though it was the real thing a full 4, 5, 6 months after a baby's birth but with an altered date, suggesting certification right after birth with a different set of parents?
On closer inspection, I see that the signature on the later cert and the original cert list the same individual - on the original it is "attending physician" and on the later one it is "certifier." Kind of weirdly, the signatures are not the same. In fact, I didn't notice that they were the same name until just now because they just don't look alike. Any thoughts on this practice and what it means?
The birth certificate that was issued post-adoption lists my adoptive mother and father as though they were my birth parents. Most of the data is identical including the location and hospital of my birth, date, time. However the date that this second certificate lists as being signed is just four days after my birth. Signed by an MD with a wet signature and then there's a registrar typed in about two weeks after that. But, to my knowledge, my birth mother kept me for a time, maybe six months, maybe shorter. And there was an in-between time where I had been given for adoption and lived with a foster family before I was actually adopted.
I have had an understanding that a new birth certificate was just the done thing in closed adoptions back then and I don't know how it is done today but that signature really blows my mind. Would a doctor sign and certify a birth certificate as though it was the real thing a full 4, 5, 6 months after a baby's birth but with an altered date, suggesting certification right after birth with a different set of parents?
On closer inspection, I see that the signature on the later cert and the original cert list the same individual - on the original it is "attending physician" and on the later one it is "certifier." Kind of weirdly, the signatures are not the same. In fact, I didn't notice that they were the same name until just now because they just don't look alike. Any thoughts on this practice and what it means?
Best answer: Would a doctor sign and certify a birth certificate as though it was the real thing a full 4, 5, 6 months after a baby's birth but with an altered date, suggesting certification right after birth with a different set of parents?
Yes absolutely. That is the entire point of a closed-adoption BC; it should be 100% indistinguishable from an original. Doctors were entirely complicit in this system.
However, it seems likely to me that that in this case the attending on the original birth cert is authentic and the certifier signature on the replacement cert is a court clerk operating in a completely outrageous, utterly egregious, entirely above board manner in the accepted practice of the day.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:24 AM on February 24, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yes absolutely. That is the entire point of a closed-adoption BC; it should be 100% indistinguishable from an original. Doctors were entirely complicit in this system.
However, it seems likely to me that that in this case the attending on the original birth cert is authentic and the certifier signature on the replacement cert is a court clerk operating in a completely outrageous, utterly egregious, entirely above board manner in the accepted practice of the day.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:24 AM on February 24, 2021 [5 favorites]
Best answer: Yes, this was done all the time, what DarlingBri said. The amended BC enabled adoptive parents to lie about the adoption, if they wanted to. Congratulations on getting your original BC, and good luck in your search.
posted by mermayd at 5:04 AM on February 24, 2021
posted by mermayd at 5:04 AM on February 24, 2021
Best answer: Yeah, my BC (I was adopted in the early 80s) has no evidence of it being an adoption and has my adoptive parents on it despite them taking possession of me, as it were, almost a week after the certificate would ordinarily have been issued.
posted by restless_nomad at 6:11 AM on February 24, 2021
posted by restless_nomad at 6:11 AM on February 24, 2021
Response by poster: I think DarlingBri has it.
and the certifier signature on the replacement cert is a court clerk operating in a completely outrageous, utterly egregious, entirely above board manner in the accepted practice of the day.
That makes the most “sense.” It was signed falsely by a third party. I wonder if they had to inform the MD that they had signed on his behalf?
posted by amanda at 6:42 AM on February 24, 2021
and the certifier signature on the replacement cert is a court clerk operating in a completely outrageous, utterly egregious, entirely above board manner in the accepted practice of the day.
That makes the most “sense.” It was signed falsely by a third party. I wonder if they had to inform the MD that they had signed on his behalf?
posted by amanda at 6:42 AM on February 24, 2021
It is also possible the original MD had passed away or left the area before the adoption was complete, so was unavailable to sign the new BC.
posted by soelo at 7:37 AM on February 24, 2021
posted by soelo at 7:37 AM on February 24, 2021
Response by poster: Actually, I did a brief search for him and he was still involved with that hospital and I saw a picture of him dated as recently as 2018! The internet is amazing.
posted by amanda at 8:10 AM on February 24, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by amanda at 8:10 AM on February 24, 2021 [2 favorites]
It was signed falsely by a third party. I wonder if they had to inform the MD that they had signed on his behalf?
No, because it isn't really falsely as the standard was applied at the time. Yes it's a fake signature, but it's literally court-approved and registrar stamped. The legal processes didn't break down in your case; this was the legal process.
You can find out more about the law at the time in your state of birth or adoption from this page.
posted by DarlingBri at 9:29 AM on February 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
No, because it isn't really falsely as the standard was applied at the time. Yes it's a fake signature, but it's literally court-approved and registrar stamped. The legal processes didn't break down in your case; this was the legal process.
You can find out more about the law at the time in your state of birth or adoption from this page.
posted by DarlingBri at 9:29 AM on February 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
It can all be fake. My mother got her original birth certificate a couple of years ago and it lists a fake name for her bio mother. We know this because we confirmed her bio mother years ago through DNA testing.
And my mom also has a baptismal certificate backdated to just after her birth, but listing as her godparents her adoptive aunt & uncle and they did not know her until she was >3 months old. This was signed by the priest. Fake fake fake.
(Yeah, maybe it wasn't "false" in a legal sense, but from the point of view of someone searching for their origins, it's definitely fake made-up nonsense.)
posted by aabbbiee at 9:54 AM on February 24, 2021
And my mom also has a baptismal certificate backdated to just after her birth, but listing as her godparents her adoptive aunt & uncle and they did not know her until she was >3 months old. This was signed by the priest. Fake fake fake.
(Yeah, maybe it wasn't "false" in a legal sense, but from the point of view of someone searching for their origins, it's definitely fake made-up nonsense.)
posted by aabbbiee at 9:54 AM on February 24, 2021
Is it possible the birth date was a guess; that you were born outside of a hospital, not born literally by the attending physician?
posted by Unsomnambulist at 8:57 PM on February 25, 2021
posted by Unsomnambulist at 8:57 PM on February 25, 2021
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by metahawk at 9:08 PM on February 23, 2021 [1 favorite]