[Women’s Forum] Contributed Opinion
March 18, 2025
[Women’s Forum] Everything You Need to Know About the ‘Right to Know’
by Hee Jung Kwon
Director, Unwed Mothers Initiative for Archiving and Advocacy (UMI4AA)
A newborn, believed to have been born on December 23, 1986, was placed in an orphanage in Iksan (then called Iri), Jeollabuk-do, South Korea. Perhaps because it was close to Christmas, the baby was given the name Sung Tan Jang. A few months later, in April, he was sent to France for adoption through Holt Children’s Services. He grew up, went to school, got married, had children, and lived what appeared to be an ordinary life. But last year, he was diagnosed with fatal familial insomnia (FFI), a rare and devastating disease. To receive an accurate diagnosis, he needed confirmation of his family medical history. That information was also necessary to seek treatment and apply for government assistance. He submitted a request to the National Center for the Rights of the Child (NCRC) in South Korea for access to his birth parent information.
Whether the information can be disclosed is governed by Article 36, Paragraph 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Adoption. The law states: “Where natural parents die or cannot give consent due to other grounds, if the information on adoption is required for a medical treatment of the adopted person or if exceptional circumstances arise, such information may be disclosed irrespective of whether the consent of the natural parents is obtained [...].”
The NCRC responded that the birth mother had received the mailed request but did not indicate her consent. On that basis, the agency argued that the case does not meet the legal standard of the parent being “[unable to] give consent,” and therefore the law does not apply. But when someone is living with a rare and life-threatening condition, shouldn’t the provision that allows disclosure when information is “required for a medical treatment” be interpreted more broadly, and the agency cooperate in releasing the adoption records? One legal expert has pointed to the law’s ambiguity and emphasized the need for more detailed subordinate regulations. That may be true, but time is not on Sung-Tan’s side. According to those close to him, he was still able to communicate when he first submitted the request. Now, he reportedly slips into comas and experiences hallucinations and delusions.
In the aftermath of the Korean War, South Korea sent hundreds of thousands of children abroad for adoption, claiming it was to save those who were starving or abandoned. One of those children, now not yet 40, is struggling to survive. The very agency responsible for safeguarding children’s rights is clinging to legal technicalities while time runs out. The first article of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Adoption, which states that “[the] purpose of this Act is to [contribute] to the promotion of the rights, interests and welfare of the children to be adopted,” now rings painfully hollow.
Photo Caption: On March 12, a rally was held in front of the National Center for the Rights of the Child in Jung-gu, Seoul, calling for the protection of overseas adoptees’ right to medical care and life. [Provided by Montaigne International Adoption Association (MOAA)]
On March 12, a rally was held in front of the National Center for the Rights of the Child in Jung-gu, Seoul, calling for the protection of overseas adoptees’ right to medical care and life. It was organized by the Montaigne International Adoption Association (MOAA), the Bethell Teacher Memorial Association, Children’s Rights Solidarity, the Unwed Mothers Initiative for Archiving and Advocacy (UMI4AA), Find Parents for Adoptees (FpF) Korea, and the Citizens' Association Against Corruption. Together, they demanded that adoptees’ right to know their birth parents be recognized, not only for Sung Tan but for the many future adoptees who will find themselves in similar situations.
Following World War II, the rise of humanitarian ideals in Western Europe contributed to the framing of international adoption of Asian children as both a charitable act and a marker of middle-class respectability. Until the 1970s, the South Korean government upheld policies aimed at limiting overseas adoption. However, as demand for Korean infants surged in the United States and Europe due to a strong preference for Korean adoptees, the government fully opened international adoption in 1982. Adoption processing fees climbed to as high as USD 5,000 at a time when South Korea’s per capita income ranged between approximately $1,900 and USD 2,900. Within this context, the four government-authorized adoption agencies competed intensely to recruit children for international placement. More than 60,000 Korean infants were sent abroad for adoption during the 1980s. Sung-Tan was among them. South Korea acted without discretion in sending its children overseas, and Western countries were no less so in receiving them.
However, the West underwent a significant shift. The longstanding practice of withholding adoptees' birth records gradually gave way to growing recognition of their right to know their origins. Legal and policy frameworks began to shift accordingly, prioritizing the rights of adoptees over the anonymity traditionally granted to birth parents. At the same time, social stigma toward unwed mothers, remarried individuals, and divorced families declined, while public support systems expanded. As a result, fewer women were forced to conceal pregnancies or relinquish their children. In 1975, the United Kingdom amended its adoption law to guarantee that adoptees could access their original birth records upon reaching the age of 18. In the United States and Canada, laws vary by jurisdiction, but a growing number of states and provinces have moved toward recognizing the right of adoptees to obtain information about their birth origins.
Knowing one's biological origins is not a privilege granted under extraordinary circumstances—it is a fundamental human right. To force adoptees to justify their need for this information only in cases of life-threatening illness is already regressive. To deny them even that, hiding behind vague legal language, is an even greater injustice. ----- This column, written by Hee Jung Kwon, director of UMI4AA, was adapted from an article published on Women News on March 18, 2025.
"[Women’s Forum] Everything You Need to Know About the 'Right to Know'" – – Women News (www.womennews.co.kr) The English summary and translation of this article is provided by UMI4AA. |
