Ruth faces legal hurdles when trying to find information about her son's adoption. Do you think the barriers put in place to limit access to this information are beneficial? How has this changed in recent years?

Ruth faces legal hurdles when trying to find information about her son's adoption. Do you think the barriers put in place to limit access to this information are beneficial? How has this changed in recent years, particularly with the increasing popularity of consumer DNA testing services (23&Me, Ancestry.com, et.al.)?

I thought the process seemed like a typical bureaucratic paperwork process and the privacy issues require more information be provided. Don’t know if it’s still that way.

The legal barriers are necessary unfortunately needed because otherwise anyone might have access to these records and I am sure how the availability of DNA kits would help unless both parties are looking for information

I absolutely believe it is necessary to have these sort of measures in place to protect minor children especially because while Ruth’s intentions were pure, not everyone seeking that information would have used it for good.

Perhaps years ago, those barriers to a birth mother or father finding a child who had been adopted or the child finding the birth parents made sense. They do not any longer make sense. The records should be open and available for people to search. The people involved then have to decide whether they want a relationship with the child/parent. In my own family, a cousin gave birth to a daughter who was immediately adopted by a loving family. Only after her adoptive parents passed away did my cousin seek information on her birth parents. Since I had my DNA analyzed on Ancestry, we connected there and I was able to tell her about her birth mother. Unfortunately, her mom has passed away, but she got to meet two aunts and a slew of cousins, pre-pandemic, at a reunion.

Seems if the child has “rights” to be born they should also have the right to know who their biological parents are. Especially for medical purposes, everyone should have the privilege of knowing their family's medical history no matter if you're adopted. That being said I feel The parents and the child should also have the right to decline being contacted. I’m sure adoption rules differ from state to state but should have these basic contingency plans in place across the board, although I doubt that will ever happen. Was Ruth’s case even valid anymore since it was administered by a crook? I'm not sure.

Ruth was frustrated by her inability to learn more about her child's adoption, but I think those safeguards are actually really helpful. I think it's up to the adopting parents to tell the child about his or her parentage when they feel it's appropriate. Then, if the child feels the need, they can seek more information even if it has to wait until they're older.

Today, a person may find out about their relatives through DNA testing sites like Ancestry.com. Generally it seems like adults are the ones using the site, so if there are any surprises, they're things someone should have been told long before the revelation, in my opinion.

The people in my life I know that have given a child up for adoption have had open adoptions. Different people handled this in different ways, with some just knowing who had adopted their child to one family I know where, the Mom and her whole family remained involved in the child's life, going to the child's baptism, school events, sports games, birthday parties, graduations. The child knew who is biological Mom was but did not call her Mom. The Mom's parents were considered grandparents. It would be nice if all adoptions could be this way but I am aware their are still ones like Ruth in the story went through, where the records were sealed and hard to access.

I don't know that the barriers have changed - legally anyway. Even with DNA revealing identity both parties have to be in agreement to find the other before they are connected. Rules were set in place to protect the child from emotional conflict. I believe they should still be used. Not all children should know their biological parents. Should they want to find out there are ways.

I'm ambivalent about these barriers. On the one hand, they do offer protection to the mother and child; on the other hand, the barriers leave both parties with unanswered questions, and even inhibit such important things as medical history. At least in my state, things have eased a bit when both parties consent, and even sometimes when one party doesn't. Overall, I think this is a good thing. It may be an innate human need to know where we came from. Many of my friends are adoptive parents under "open" adoptions, and I have seen healthy relationships between the adopted child and the biological parents. These may be exceptions, but are all I have to go on.

Many years ago it was a shameful thing to have a child out of wedlock and many adoptions were forced. I'm sure that was part of the reason to hide adoption facts. I'm glad some of those walls are being broken down. People have a right to know the "truth", good or bad.