BILL ANALYSIS
AB 372
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 372 (Ma) - As Amended: May 7, 2009
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:10
- 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill allows an adoptee, under certain conditions, to have
access to his or her original and unredacted birth certificate.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the state registrar, in cases of medical necessity
regarding a serious health condition, and upon an order from
the superior court, to release an original and unredacted
birth certificate to an adoptee, the adoptee's parent or
guardian, or a person legally authorized to make health
decisions for an adoptee.
2)Requires the state registrar, upon request, to provide a copy
of the original and unredacted birth certificate to an adoptee
who is 25 years or older if the birth parents do not object.
3)Requires the state registrar, for all adoptions taking place
on or after January 1, 2010, to notify the birth parents that
the adoption has taken place and that the adopted child, upon
attaining the age of 25, shall, upon request, receive an
original and unredacted birth certificate unless the parents
object.
4)States that if two birth parents are listed on a birth
certificate and only one objects, the state registrar shall
redact that parent's information before releasing the birth
certificate.
5)Authorizes the state registrar to assess a fee to cover the
costs of this legislation.
AB 372
Page 2
6)Requires the state registrar to develop and adopt any
necessary forms.
FISCAL EFFECT
Based on experience with a similar law in the state of Oregon,
creating the required database, the cost of notifying birth
parents, and processing requests for original birth certificates
will likely be in excess of $8 million costs for each of the
first two years of the program. By the third year, costs will be
in the range of $2 million per year.
The registrar does have the authority to assess a fee to cover
the costs related with this legislation. However, approximately
$4 million of the funding in each of the first two years would
be related to necessary automation changes and the creation of
the database. That upfront funding would be state GF.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This bill is intended to provide adult adoptees and
those adoptees with serious health conditions access to their
original birth certificates, including the names of their
birth parents.
2)Current Law . Currently, when a child born in California is
adopted, the State Registrar issues an amended birth
certificate showing the names of the adoptive parents, among
other information. Only the amended certificate is available
for public inspection, unless a judge authorizes otherwise in
exceptional circumstances. The original certificate showing
the name of the birth parent(s) is sealed, along with other
documents in the adoption file.
Currently, birth parents must be informed at the time of
adoption that they may provide written consent to disclose
their name and address when the adoptee is 21 or older. The
Department of Social Services (DSS) must release the
information if the adoptee requests it and the birth parent
has consented. DSS also maintains a mutual consent registry,
through which DSS or a licensed adoption agency arranges
contact between birth parents and adoptees if both parties
have consented.
3)The Oregon Experience . Oregon passed a similar law over a
AB 372
Page 3
decade ago. When Oregon's law went into effect, in May of
2000 after 18 months of appeals, a backlog was immediately
created by requests from the adopted individuals and by
challenges to the department from birth mothers who did not
want their information released. For comparison between the
two states, California averages 550,000 births each year,
compared to Oregon's annual birth rate of approximately
50,000.
During the first year alone, the Oregon state registrar
received over 10,000 requests for sealed records, and by May
1, 2001, only 6,439 of the 10,000 requests had been completed.
Based on Oregon's experience, California could expect to
receive 110,000 requests for original birth records the first
year. Unless adequately staffed when AB 372 becomes
effective, California could expect to have a backlog of 39,171
uncompleted requests at the end of the first year.
Almost nine years after the enactment of Oregon's law, the
Oregon state registrar continues to receive over 30 requests
each month, thus California could expect its requests to
increase from the current average of 15-20 per month to a
monthly average of 330.
Oregon hired two additional staff to meet the increased
workload, but was unable to meet the demand (i.e., they were
only able to process 6,439 of the 10,000 requests received the
first year). If one staff person can process 3,220 requests
annually (using Oregon's experience), the California state
registrar would need 34 positions to process the 110,000
requests projected for California during the first year of
implementation alone. Before the state registrar can issue a
copy of a sealed record, the record must be retrieved from the
State Record Center (SRC). The additional requests for sealed
records would also increase SRC workload.
4)Related Legislation . AB 1349 (Pescetti) in 2001 would have
permitted adult adoptees to access their adoption records.
That bill was held in this committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081