Confidential Intermediaries (CI's) continue giving a third party - in my case the agency - the
control over WHEN and HOW I had contact with my birth daughter. We literally each
talked to the CI and she relayed what each of us said to the other...all
by long distance...and this of course came out of our own pockets. Thus, a
CI is a *filter* for communication...and I believe two people can communicate
better one on one than with another person in the middle. Not to mention
costing a bundle...several hundred $ in my case.
If you are a searcher, it's not a simple matter of requesting
information and receiving it. The C.I. "holds the sealed file" until both parties agree
to communicate, meet or whatever. Quite different from an adult adoptee at
age 21 having the right to have an original birth certificate...just for asking.
In some, but not all, states where there is a confidential
intermediary system, there are interminable waits because there are not enough C.I.s
to handle the applicants. In Colorado, for example, there was a waiting
period of up to 2 years in heavily populated counties like Denver's.
Texas law says today that a judge can open sealed adoption records "for
just cause" and as we know few judges do this. Some will open only to a C.I. -
and this is perfectly legal. And, IMO, perfectly okay.
What I object to in HB 1091 is that there is a whole section on
"qualifying" C.I.s which in essence will "legitimize" the C.I. system. Also, writing
C.I. qualifications into the Texas Family Code will give the opposition to
open adoption records one more reason to object...probably saying
something like, "Well, Texas already has a Mutual Consent Registry and a
Confidential Intermediary System...that is sufficient."
