Question for RFM: Releasing Sealed Records Broke No Laws?

[_mcjathan]

I have a question for RFM and all other attorneys: Were no laws broken by the release of sealed adoption records?

We adopted my oldest son (now 26) through LDS Social Services (LDSSS) when he was two days old. The inviolate nature of the sealed records were pounded into us by LDSSS during the whole process. I find it pretty stunning that McKenna Denson and her biological daughter's privacy were violated as part of a threat / retribution play by the church. Seriously, no laws were broken here?

Jeff

[_cinepro]

I have a question for RFM and all other attorneys: Were no laws broken by the release of sealed adoption records?

We adopted my oldest son (now 26) through LDS Social Services (LDSSS) when he was two days old. The inviolate nature of the sealed records were pounded into us by LDSSS during the whole process. I find it pretty stunning that McKenna Denson and her biological daughter's privacy were violated as part of a threat / retribution play by the church. Seriously, no laws were broken here?

Jeff

I'm not consig, but I think the key point is what, exactly, is "sealed." If the Church had access to the information from its own records, then that access might not be "sealed" in the same way government records might be.

A massive breach of trust and confidentiality, to be sure, but probably different than an actual legal "seal."

[_I have a question]

I have a question for RFM and all other attorneys: Were no laws broken by the release of sealed adoption records?

We adopted my oldest son (now 26) through LDS Social Services (LDSSS) when he was two days old. The inviolate nature of the sealed records were pounded into us by LDSSS during the whole process. I find it pretty stunning that McKenna Denson and her biological daughter's privacy were violated as part of a threat / retribution play by the church. Seriously, no laws were broken here?

Jeff

I'm not consig, but I think the key point is what, exactly, is "sealed." If the Church had access to the information from its own records, then that access might not be "sealed" in the same way government records might be.

A massive breach of trust and confidentiality, to be sure, but probably different than an actual legal "seal."

It would be interesting to see the confidentiality clauses within the adoption agreement between LDS services and the biological mother. There might be something in there that’s actionable.

[_moksha]

I think the key point is what, exactly, is "sealed." If the Church had access to the information from its own records, then that access might not be "sealed" in the same way government records might be.

Pretty sure this matter can be summed up in the words of Juliann from the board which shall not be named, "We are private so we can do anything we like".

There is no need for ethics when you have both the Law of Chastity and nonconsensual immorality.

[_Res Ipsa]

I took a quick look and found this regulation that applies to "Child Placing Adoption Agencies."

G. All adoption records shall be confidential and shall be maintained in a locked file when not in active use. Adoption records shall be accessible only by authorized agency employees. No information shall be shared with any person without the appropriate consent forms, except as required by law.

https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r5 ... -07.htm#T5

[_oliblish]

I have a question for RFM and all other attorneys: Were no laws broken by the release of sealed adoption records?

We adopted my oldest son (now 26) through LDS Social Services (LDSSS) when he was two days old. The inviolate nature of the sealed records were pounded into us by LDSSS during the whole process. I find it pretty stunning that McKenna Denson and her biological daughter's privacy were violated as part of a threat / retribution play by the church. Seriously, no laws were broken here?

Jeff

I'm not consig, but I think the key point is what, exactly, is "sealed." If the Church had access to the information from its own records, then that access might not be "sealed" in the same way government records might be.

A massive breach of trust and confidentiality, to be sure, but probably different than an actual legal "seal."

They probably just submitted a request for a cancellation of sealing which was promptly approved by the First Presidency. Nothing to see here folks. Move along...

[_moksha]

They probably just submitted a request for a cancellation of sealing which was promptly approved by the First Presidency. Nothing to see here folks. Move along...

The basis for this cancellation of the adoption seal is found in the Book of Ruthless Corporations 1:6

Crusheth thine enemies; seeth them driven before thee and hear the lamentations of their women.

[_Dr Exiled]

The adopted daughter might have three possible claims that I can see. Invasion of privacy for publishing her private facts; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and breach of contract as the daughter should be considered a third party beneficiary of the confidential adoption agreements.

[_moksha]

Here is a rather fun thread on the Mormon D&D board regarding Consiglieri's reporting on this sealed records issue:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70478-did-mckenna-denson-meet-with-thomas-s-monson-after-mtc/

As this thread progresses beyond page six I am anticipating that Calm and Smac will volunteer to waterboard Consiglieri and the "mole in the BYU police department" until they confess to some unspecified apologetic charge. Perhaps they will expand the number of waterboardees to include McKenna Denison, certain KUTV reporters, and potentially attorney Greg Bishop (although Greg Bishop may counter that he was just acting as an intermediary for an unnamed corporation).

Pretty sure it will be a series of inspired waterboarding sessions, Smac will bring his particular skill set as a lawyer and Calm will bring the know-how of FAIRMormon.