Many Minnesotans have become familiar in recent months with the story of Philomena Lee, an Irish woman whose search for her son was documented in the Academy Award-nominated film "Philomena."
Philomena was not fiction. Minnesota has its own Philomenas. They and their lost children populate real-life tales of adults who seek only to know that their children survived or to know from whence they came — to be able to say to a man or a woman, if they so desire: "I believe I am your child. Can we talk?"
It is little to ask and there is even less reason to deny them these opportunities. Yet Minnesota law does precisely that.
How did we get here?
Every person born in Minnesota is issued a birth certificate. The overwhelming majority of us are entitled, as a matter of law, to a copy of our own certificate. The public at large is not entitled to access our records. This makes sense, particularly in an age of identity theft.
One group, however, is not permitted free access to their own birth certificates: those adopted in Minnesota. Their birth certificates are sealed at the time of adoption. A new birth certificate is issued, containing their new name and the names of their adoptive parent(s). The original is locked away.
This has not always been the case. In 1917, adoptees' birth certificates were sealed from public view, purportedly to protect the child from the stigma of illegitimacy. Yet the original certificate remained available to the adopted person. In 1939, the original birth certificate and "all papers pertaining" to it were placed under seal, to be opened only by order of the court or the state registrar. In 1945, the records were sealed against all, "not to be open for inspection by any person" except by court order. The law has been modified on many occasions, each amendment adding another layer of complexity.
Today, access to an adoptee's original birth certificate is determined by a set of laws that consider the date of the adoption, whether a biological parent has filed an affidavit forbidding its release and — in those cases in which such an affidavit has not been filed — whether a judge believes "that disclosure of the information would be of greater benefit than nondisclosure."