Sage, Application of

• Decision Date: 08 November 1978
• Docket Number: No. 2528-III,2528-III
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of William SAGE, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 803

21 Wn.App. 803

586 P.2d 1201

In the Matter of the Application of William SAGE, Appellant.

No. 2528-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel Four.

Nov. 8, 1978.

As Changed Nov. 30, 1978.

Philip W. Dufford, Jeffrey H. Hartje, University Legal Assistance, Spokane, for appellant.

James P. McNally, Pros. Atty., James B. Roche, Deputy Pros. Atty., Newport, for respondent.

McINTURFF, Judge.

This appeal results from denial of a petition by an adopted child, now an adult in his early 30s, for permission to inspect adoption records sealed pursuant to the Washington State Adoption Act.

Appellant, William Sage, lived with his natural parents until the age of 5, when he was taken from his home by the Department of Social & Health Services. He, along with his brother and sister, was subsequently adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Sage. At present, Mr. Sage is married and has two children. In July, 1976, he went to the county clerk seeking access to his adoption records, and upon refusal, he brought this action to establish his discovery rights.

Mr. Sage wishes to inspect his adoption records because he feels an "inner compulsion" to reacquaint himself with his natural family. He is also concerned that his natural father may have died of hereditary heart disease.

This petition raises very sensitive issues upon which there is a conflict of opinion. ¹ In recent years, national attention has been called to the plight of adult adoptees articulating their desire to learn about their genealogical background. Many adoptees have a compelling need to learn about their natural family and are presently seeking ways to satisfy that need. To those of us who are not adopted, it is perhaps difficult to understand the need many adoptees have to discover their "roots." We enjoy our family get-togethers and share a common bond with our relatives through knowledge of our ethnic background. Many adopted people cannot share in these pleasures. Perhaps we take for granted knowledge of the identity of our parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, etc. Adopted persons who lack such fundamental information may indeed suffer a kind of genealogical bewilderment.

Statutes providing for the confidentiality of adoption records have become the subject of recent controversy. Increasingly, adult adoptees are demanding biographical information from the adoption agencies, and a movement is now afoot which is aimed at the repeal of the sealed records statutes. ²

In the adoption context, our courts are directed to make decisions consistent with "the best interests of the child." ³ The sealed records statutes are a codification of that directive. Confidentiality encourages and facilitates preadoption investigation and helps to strengthen the adoptive family as a social unit. The Adult Adoptee's Constitutional Right to Know His Origins, 48 S.Cal.L.Rev. 1196, 1199 (1975). Nevertheless, we must also keep in mind that the adopted child eventually becomes an adult, and one may question whether continued confidentiality remains in the adoptee's best interests once he reaches majority. Although the "best interests of the child" is an important guideline in adoption proceedings, we must also be sensitive to the interests of others who are intimately involved in an adoption the natural parents, the adoptive parents, and the state.

The interests of the natural parents are not likely to be furthered if information regarding their identity and background is indiscriminately disseminated. Many parents chose the course of adoption, as opposed to abortion or black marketing, in reliance upon the statutory guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality. In addition, the private lives of the natural parents should be protected from the disruptive and traumatic effect that may result from the sudden reappearance of a child formerly given up for adoption.

The adoptive parents have interests deserving of our consideration as well. The adoptive parents should be given the opportunity to create a stable family relationship free from unnecessary intrusion. A strong family unit will serve both the adoptee and the adoptive parents. While the adoptive parents lack a biological link with their adopted child, their emotional involvement is no less real. Thus, serious consideration should be given to these interests before adoption information is made public.

Finally, there is the interest of the state, or public interest, in maintaining the integrity of the adoption process. The state's interest has been described as follows:

The primary interest of the public is to preserve the integrity of the adoptive process. That is, the continued existence of adoption as a humane solution to the serious social problem of children who are or may become unwanted, abused or neglected. In order to maintain it, the public has an interest in assuring that changes in the law, policy or practice will not be made which negatively affect the supply of capable adoptive parents or the willingness of biological parents to make decisions which are best for them and their children. We should not increase the risk of neglect to any child, nor should we force the parents to resort to the black market in order to surrender children they can't care for.

Genealogical Information in Adoption: The Adoptee's Quest and the Law, 11 Family Law Quarterly 185, 196 (1977).

With this background, we address the contentions of the parties. Initially Mr. Sage argues that he has an absolute right to inspect his adoption records by virtue of RCW 26.32.150 the sealed records statute. In looking at its legislative history, we find that when RCW 26.32.150 was originally enacted in 1943, it read:

Unless otherwise requested by the Adoptor, all records of any proceeding hereunder shall be sealed and shall not be thereafter open to inspection by any person except upon order of the court for good cause shown, and thereafter shall be again sealed as before. ⁴

(Italics ours.) In 1955, only the first phrase of this statute was amended. It now reads: "Unless otherwise requested by the Adopted, . . ." ⁵ (Italics ours.) According to Mr. Sage, by changing Adoptor to Adopted, the legislature gave the latter an absolute right to inspect his adoption records. In addition, Mr. Sage states that the phrase "unless otherwise requested by the adopted" is the controlling legislative declaration and an explicit grant of inspection rights to the adopted.

Two basic rules of statutory construction guide us in the interpretation of RCW 26.32.150. First,

. . . (A) statute should be construed as a whole in order to ascertain legislative purpose, and thus avoid unlikely, strained or absurd consequences which could result from a literal reading. That the spirit or the purpose of legislation should prevail over the express but inept language is an ancient adage of the law.

Alderwood Water District v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 62 Wash.2d 319, 321, 382 P.2d 639, 641 (1963). Secondly,

Statutes in Pari materia must be construed together. Statutes in Pari materia are those which relate to the same person or thing, or the same class of persons or things; and in construing a statute, or statutes, all acts relating to the same subject matter or having the same purpose, should be read in connection therewith as together constituting one law. The object of the rule is to ascertain and carry into effect the intent of the legislature, and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes having to do with related subject matters were governed by one spirit or policy, and were intended to be consistent and harmonious in their several parts and provisions.

State v. Houck, 32 Wash.2d 681, 684, 685, 203 P.2d 693, 696 (1949).

The state's interest and the legislative purpose of our present adoption act is three-fold: protection of the adoptive child, the natural parents and the adopting parents. In Re Adoption of Reinius, 55 Wash.2d 117, 121, 346 P.2d 672 (1959). There is also a legislative policy of confidentiality. Making adoption records confidential except upon a showing of good cause represents a thoughtful balance between several important interests. Confidentiality encourages the development of the adoptive family as a stable social unit. The principle of confidentiality also demonstrates respect for the right of privacy of the natural parents. At the same time, when the interests of the adopted child demand disclosure, the information can be obtained under the good cause standard.

We believe that RCW 26.32.150 accurately reflects the legislative purposes and policy. As we interpret the statute, it is intended that all adoption records be sealed at the conclusion of the adoption hearing. However, the statute does give the adopted child the right to request that the records remain unsealed. For example, sealing adoption records may serve no purpose in adult adoptions. The adopted child may have other reasons as well for making this request, E. g., tax purposes. If no request is made at the time of the adoption hearing, the records are sealed and Thereafter the records may not be opened unless good cause is shown. These records are intended to be confidential at all times and disclosure is the exception.

The policy of confidentiality is reflected in several other sections of the adoption act. Contrary to the contention of Mr. Sage, confidentiality and not absolute disclosure is the controlling legislative declaration. For example, RCW 26.32.120 provides that the decree of adoption shall be secret unless otherwise provided by the court. ⁶ RCW 26.32.100 provides that the hearing pursuant to an adoption shall not be public. ⁷ RCW 26.32.260 provides that all copies of preplacement reports and all information upon which it is based is confidential and closed to public inspection except upon order of the court. ⁸ RCW 70.58.210 provides for the issuance of a new birth certificate upon an adoption and the Bureau of Vital Statistics is...