Chronology of Adoption Law and Birth Certificate Access in California

California’s adoption laws have evolved dramatically since the early 20th century. The California Vital Statistics Act of 1915 first required birth certificates for public school enrollment, establishing their use for statistical purposes. Social child welfare concerns about the well-being of illegitimate children led to 1927 laws that sealed adoption records from the public but they were still viewable by both sets of parents and the adoptee. This spared all parties from embarrassment or stigma relating to social values of the era regarding infertility, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and illegitimacy.

In 1935, legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Charles W. Fisher of Alameda County mandated that original birth certificates and adoption records be sealed from all parties. Fisher justified the law by citing alleged cases in Southern California where “unscrupulous persons” accessed records and blackmailed adoptive parents by threatening to reveal an adoption. See the Sacramento Bee, Legislative Notes, January 22, 1935 news article below. This law marked the beginning of restricted access for adoptees seeking their origins. When the final bill was drafted, not only the public but adoptees themselves were denied access to their own birth records. Later, this confidential system would provide cover for persons involved in the unsavory practice of forcing impoverished parents to relinquish their children, who were then marketed to wealthier families for, at times, a very substantial fee. One notorious example of exploiting sealed records for personal gain is the story of Georgia Tann, a social worker who for almost three decades ran the unlicensed Tennessee Children’s Home Society in Memphis, TN. Barbara Bisantz Raymond’sThe Baby Thief: The Untold Story of Georgia Tann, the Baby Seller Who Corrupted Adoption, 2007 honors lives altered by this baby trafficker who benefitted from sealed records.

By the 1970s, a growing adoptee rights movement began to challenge the prevailing secrecy and, by the late 1980s, open adoptions where birth parents and adoptive parents are known to each other and maintain some level of ongoing contact gained popularity. This was driven by research showing the benefits of open adoption for both adoptees and birth parents from adoptees seeking answers to the question of identity and origin. Advocates argued that access to original birth records was a matter of identity, personal history, and civil rights. This era saw the introduction of the first legislative proposals aimed at restoring access, though these early efforts were unsuccessful. In 2004, Janine Baer, an adoptee herself, completed research of California adoption history starting from before records were sealed as part of her master’s thesis from San Francisco State University. This valuable history and resource has been published as a book, Growing in the Dark: Adoption Secrecy and Its Consequences.

Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, advocacy organizations and adoptees persisted in their efforts, bringing greater public awareness to the issue. National trends toward open records influenced California’s ongoing debate, with incremental policy changes and increased calls for transparency. Two states never sealed original birth certificates, Alaska and Kansas. As of 2025, an additional 14 states have restored unrestricted access to original birth certificates for adults adopted as children, GA, MN, SD, VT, MA, LA, CT, NY, CO, RI, ME, NH, AL and OR.

Today, California remains one of the states that continues to restrict adult adoptees’ access to their own original birth certificates. Ongoing legislative advocacy seeks to address this injustice, with reform efforts focused on restoring the unrestricted right of adult adoptees to obtain their original birth records. The history of adoption law in California reflects a complex interplay between the outdated social constructs, misunderstanding of privacy vs. secrecy, identity, and the evolving understanding of adoptee rights.