Category Archives: Rudy Owens

Being disavowed in the official record: the adoptee’s mission inevitable

Rudy Owens and his paternal birth aunt, 2007

Last week I learned two of my three paternal biological aunts passed away, along with another aunt, who had married the younger brother of my adoptive father.

That means I counted three family losses of elderly family members in one week. It also meant I had to run through a lot of mixed feelings about the meaning these deaths as an adoptee.

I never met one of my two deceased paternal aunts. She, like her sister, apparently died peacefully in her 80s. However, I am fairly certain she had known about me since 1989, when I first found my biological father. Since that fateful meeting, neither she nor her immediately family made a single effort to contact me, and she died without ever speaking to me or communicating with me. Though I knew her name, and determined from online records where she lived, I decided not to reach out to her. 

That same day I learned of this aunt’s death, further internet searching revealed I also had lost another of the two sisters, the one I had met. Both had passed away in 2013, and there was never any communication about these deaths that reached me from any family member or contact. That means half a decade had passed since my paternal aunts had died and at least two members of this clan who knew how to reach me did not bother to inform me. For an adoptee, I call that situational utterly normal.

I had met one of the aunts, and along with her daughter, my paternal cousin, in 2007 at their home in a Midwest state. I wrote about that meeting and its meaning in my memoir on the adoption experience called You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are. It was a memorable day for all of us, but in the end, even in the years after we met, I was still the official bastard, the filius nullius, or no one’s son. 

Illegitimate offspring are not counted in the record

I read the official obituaries of both women online and made copies for my files of the strangers who are my kin. Like most obituaries, the columns listed all of the surviving kin, including the surviving sister, offspring (alive and dead), grandchildren, and more. But I, a member of this clan by blood and DNA, was not acknowledged. I am the whited-out person who is not “legitimate,” and thus not a part of the “official story.”

In my aunts’ deaths, I would remain forever “illegitimate” to this family, never to be acknowledged. This is not the case in the obituaries of my maternal grandparents. My name and family status were recognized in their obituaries. I was real kin in their eyes and hearts.

These outcomes for adoptees of my generation provide important lessons we learn after we find our kin, if we are lucky to do that with the system stacked against us to prevent most family reunions. In my case, my bastard status was confirmed, yet again, by the truths that these facts reveal about my place in the world and my meaning to my paternal kin and to others.

I can only guess, still, what my deceased and unknown aunt may have known of me, beyond the meeting I had with her sister in 2007. I do not know if my story ever reached the surviving relatives’ ears. I learned there are surviving grandkids of the aunt I did not meet. So, am I unknown, or am I still that dirty family secret that is hidden in the not-so-benevolent cloak of adoption secrecy that is meant to keep kin like us forever apart?

Another death in the families

At the end of the week, I also learned about the death of one of my adoptive aunts. She was married into my adoptive father’s kin, as the wife of my adoptive father’s youngest brother. We had barely known each other over the decades, except through regular holiday correspondences we kept up for decades. On that count, we connected.

Adoptees, like the IMF team in the Mission Impossible franchise, shown in this publicity still, will be disavowed in life, and their existence will mostly be erased from the official family records.

Along with her departed husband, who died last year, we had a lot of unspoken issues that we never talked about, particularly my adoptive father and his alcoholism and what that meant for him to be taking care of me and my adoptive sister part of the year when he had custodial rights. I describe these awkward skeletons in the closet in my memoir. 

I last saw this aunt in 2015, when I was completing research for my book and revisiting places I had spent part of my childhood in West Virginia and Ohio. Those were perhaps the darkest days of my life. When I met my aunt and my uncle in 2015, they were frail and both suffering from health problems. I felt kindness to them and no ill feelings. In the end, we never spoke about my adoptive father’s terrible drug problems as an alcoholic and his tragic demise or my status as the adopted son. We let the sleeping elephants lie.

By week’s end, I felt exhausted. I was processing the loss of three family members. Yet, in the end, two of them were still strangers, and one was estranged by family ghosts. I felt loss and also I felt emotional distance.

This complicated emotional space that I have navigated my whole life is not new to many adoptees. One reason I wrote my book was to share how hard it is for non-adopted persons to understand this lifelong experience and journey. I explain this complex dance at length in my memoir.

In the end, when the records of our lives are written, the official record will still disavow the illegitimate offspring who were lost to the U.S. adoption system. We are like the IMF team in Mission Impossible, or some CIA team. In many ways we are very similar: We have dual identities, and because of discriminatory legal systems in most states, our records must remain top-secret documents that are never shared with the majority of those separated from their families after they were born.

It is a mission I never I had choice to accept or decline. It was my fate at birth.

Sharing my story with the public and learning how adoption impacts their lives

Rudy Owens holds a copy of his memoir on the U.S. adoption experience.

I gave my first book reading on my recently released memoir on the U.S. adoption experience and the larger issue of adoptee rights last night (Sept. 25), at the Tigard Public Library. There was a good turnout, and the audience was fully engaged in the topic and the information I shared. My talk covers many of the larger themes in my memoir and study of the American adoption system.

One of the attendees was a respected state lawmaker who I admire, and I appreciate that she took time from a busy schedule to learn more. I had some friends attend as well, which is always welcome. At events like these, you never know who you may meet or why they care about this issue.

After the presentation, one attendee told me a story about a now-deceased loved one who was adopted and who was unable to get their family and medical history. This was critical information because the adoptee had a genetically transmittable illness. That illness was also passed to that person’s kids, who then had to use other means to try and find their family past when they became adults.

This is a very common story, and I have heard variations of this story from many adoptees and loved ones of adoptees, who describe the frustration of having potentially critical medical information withheld from the one they love just because they are adopted.

Harm occurs to adoptees’ families as well as adoptees

This is one of many travesties of our adoption system and the discriminatory state laws that have potentially life-saving information withheld from adoptees and, equally, their loved ones who may be related as offspring. Tens of millions of American likely have medical conditions with genetic origins. The National Institutes for Health reports there are more than 6,000 genetic and rare diseases. These afflict more than 25 million Americans, and about 30 percent of early deaths can be linked to genetic causes.

Book reading at the Tigard Library, Sept. 25, 2018

Many in this country overlook that spouses of adult adoptees and children of adult adoptees are also impacted by the laws that deny basic rights and medical and family history to millions.

This simply must end, and it is a scandal of our public health system and medical system that no major medical group is an ally of adoptee rights groups or is advocating with adoptee rights advocates to restore rights to records for adoptees. I highlight this decades-long failure of our medical, public health, and political system in my book in Chapter Eight. You can order the book online to learn more.

I look forward to many more readings and more conversations with people who care about the much larger story that impacts countless families in the United States, Canada, and other countries that promoted adoption and still don’t give adoptees rights to their past or even their own family medical history. 

AAC highlights Rudy Owens’ memoir on American adoption experience

Rudy Owens’ memoir on the American adoption experience

This month, the nation’s oldest adoptee rights group, the American Adoption Congress, featured an essay I wrote on my recently released memoir. I appreciate being recognized by this national organization that is committed to promoting the rights of all U.S. adoptees. I also appreciate the group for bringing my book, You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are, to the adoption of adoptees nationwide.

You can find a complete copy of the post I wrote here.

Here is my introduction to my essay in the newsletter:

When I began writing my story as an American adoptee, I wrote a mission statement and committed myself to telling a different kind of story with a larger goal of changing how adoptees are treated by law.

That tale would also show how U.S. adoption became a national social-engineering experiment that today remains mired in discriminatory state laws, not equality and fairness. I mixed the stories of my experience with data and research and employed the methods of an investigative journalist and a public health advocate.

Specifically, I used a “public health lens,” examining adoption’s impacts on the people most impacted by it. I also examined the institution’s historic, social, legal, biological, and religious underpinnings, as well as the political forces that created it and still sustain it.

My resulting memoir, You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are, recounts spending decades of my life seeking my family, records, and ultimately justice. On each leg of what I call a “hero’s journey,” I reveal how my tale sheds light on the adoption system that emerged in the post-World War II decades.

By focusing adoptee rights as a public health issue—which it always has been—I call out numerous ways that adoptees and the public can more clearly see underlying inequities in the U.S. adoption system. … [see more]

Rudy Owens’ book reading highlights the U.S. adoption experience

Join Rudy Owens for a free public talk and book reading on his newly released memoir that explores the secretive world of American adoption.

What: Rudy Owens’ book reading and lecture on his memoir, You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are
Where: Tigard Public Library (13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223)
When: Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2018, 6-7:30 p.m.

All media are encouraged to attend. See this press release sent to Portland-area media on Sept. 12.

Owens is available for interviews before and after the event.

Owens’ memoir, You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are, offers insights on the widespread American institution of adoption, a national social engineering experiment that remains mired in discriminatory laws and partisan politics, not equality and fairness.

Let me give you some advice, bastard: a few lessons about records and the treatment of adult adoptees

The character Tyrion Lannister on HBO’s Game of Thrones provides expert advice for adoptees who may forget who they are in the eyes of the law (image used for editorial and commentary purposes).

Let me give you some advice, bastard: Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not.

Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones, Season 1

 

This week I found a very interesting discussion on case law concerning efforts by adoptees to legally annul their adoptions and reclaim their original identities that were taken from them by the states and by state law that governs adoption.

There was a back and forth discussion about the merits of the cases and if adoptees have legal rights to their original identities. I decided to weigh in on the thread, even though it was three years old. Here is the crux of what I shared:

For a good background on how the courts have made clear that adoptees have no legal inheritance rights to biological kin, I suggested reviewing articles by University of Baltimore law professor Elizabeth Samuels. Her 2001 Rutgers Law Review article, “The Idea of Adoption,” makes clear  adoption law is designed to protect all biological parents, including fathers-by-sperm only, from any legal claim to their estates and assets by illegimate children given up for adoption.

Before 1943, Samuels writes, adoptees “were usually permitted to inherit from their birth parents as well as from other birth relatives.” By 1970, 21 states expressly forbid such inheritance. This trend matched the pattern of states creating discriminatory laws that prevented adoptees from knowing their past and obtaining their records, which most could usually access before the 1950s in practice, even in states that had sealed records. For Samuels, these laws reflected a prevailing societal idea promoted by adoption supporters that families created by adoption could be the equivalent of families created by kinship and blood. I, however, see a much different set of forces at play, documented over centuries in the denial of rights, property, and even life of those born illegitimately.

This revival of legal prejudice against adoptees, almost all of whom are bastards in the full sense of the word, is not new. It is a carryover from the English and Catholic and canonical legal tradition of treating illegitimately born humans as outsiders and bastards—filius nulius (children of no one or non-people). Bastard children had no claim to land, title, or property. Many were denied basic care and treated to cruelties we cannot begin to imagine. (See the excellent book on this topic: Bastardy and Its Comparative History, edited by Peter Laslett.) Infanticide of bastard babies has been widely documented up through the mid-1800s in Europe and even colonial America, for example.

Michigan’s Treatment of Adoptees and Bastards

The stamp mark of “SEALED” is meant to show me that I am not a real person in the eyes of the state and that I am an adoptee, who must bear the burden of that status on my legal records, which I am entitled to as a human right.

In my case, the state of Michigan intentionally adulterated the original birth certificate I received in 2016, after a bruising fight and court order. It arrived 51 years after my birth, and after I had petitioned for it over three decades.

In my assessment of both the law and the action by state vital records/public health staff who were handling my court ordered petition, they sought to confirm my bastard status and to affirm I did not have legal rights as the person I was born as. The state of course offered another rationale, but the effect was to imprint my identity document with the legal equivalent of a giant scarlet “B,” as in “bastard.” It was an expression of power of the state over “bastardized” and illegitimately born people, like me.

Legalese conversations about case law and law in general overlook the root and clearly documented history of discrimination that underpins this practice. I discuss this at length in Chapter 9 of my new memoir on the U.S. adoption experience.

One cannot separate historic discrimination of illegitimate people when having any conversation about the law, courts, and treatment of U.S. adoptees. Prejudice taints the entire case record and legal system regarding adoption, and to say otherwise is to ignore the legal reality impacting millions of adoptees today. It is that simple. My memoir on this experience explores this reality and its public health implications for millions of U.S. residents.

Changing Your Name Will Not Change Who You Are

Rudy Owens birth certificate after legal name change, showing the state of Michigan did not remove my adopted name (from 2009)

Before I received my original birth certificate, I had petitioned to change my name to incorporate my original birth name that I had known of since 1989 into my new name in 2009, and I was successful, becoming “Rudolf Scott-Douglas Owens.” My new name incorporated my birth name of “Scott Douglas Owens” with my adoptive name of “Martin Rudolf Brueggemann.”

I then requested Michigan’s vital records office to give me my revised birth record. Yet Michigan denied my right to my past and my former legal identity at the time of my birth by still keeping my amended birth certificate’s adoptive name, “Martin Rudolf Brueggemann,” as the prominent name on my now legally changed birth certificate. The new record puts my new legal name in barely visible micro letters below it, even though my new name is my true legal name that the courts bestowed upon me.

So even as adoptees assert their rights to their legal birth records, names, and identities, state public health agencies like the those in Michigan will assert through the perks of bureaucracy that an adopted bastard will have been erased, even if nearly impossible legal petitions exist for only the boldest and most defiant bastards and adoptees to reclaim their true identities.

Regardless, now I will die with the kin name I was born with, and the state cannot erase that. It tried to do that for decades, and it lost. And this bastard has never forgotten how the world has treated those born into this status.