I guess it would be the only way to maintain the confidentiality of the
birth parents. Never really thought about it that way.
--
Kirstin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
GBallard wrote:
Kirstin,
I am adopted. I live in California and am 41 years old. My birth
certificate shows my adoptive parents only. As Elaine mentioned, my birth
certificate is a re-issue. I know the date when my adoption was final, but
I have not seen the actual adoption papers.
Glen Ballard
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirstin
Martinez
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:43 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] same sex relationships
I have a question about adoption. I don't know how long it's been going on,
but I just asked a client for legal proof that the child was adopted (and
she can therefore sign for him). To my surprise I got a birth certificate
with only her name on it (as mother). The biologic parents names were
removed! That would make it hard to track genetic background if she didn't
know who the biologic parents were. But I guess that's also a privacy issue.
--
Kirstin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
