Creepy, and it doesn't excuse the invasion of privacy in the first place, but I imagine the person who was located would have to sign a release form to be on TV. So if s/he didn't want the nation to watch their awkwardness, s/he doesn't have to.

Still creepy.

The woman with possibly hereditary cancer is right to try to find her daughter. A lot of cancer is much easier to deal with if detected early, and for the daughter, knowing about her risk could save her life.

As for the daughter looking for her birth mother, I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but that doesn't stop lots and lots of people from doing it without a reality show. I do think it's a shame that people with great adoptive families feel the need to hunt down relative who have had nothing to do with them, but I'm not adopted, so I guess I can't judge.

Another red flag that this preview raised for me was that the show could facilitate abusers "getting back in touch with" their victims. In a lot of instances, if people are intentionally out of contact with another person, there are good reasons.

Well Miriam, I agree that reality tv entertaining millions by violating someone's personal space bothers me, as well. However, the part about the mother not wanting to meet the child she gave up, bothers me even more. Instead of focusing on the rights of the mother, perhaps you should focus on the rights of the CHILD. We as mothers have an obligation to the well being of our offspring and if knowing who you real mother is will contribute to that, then we should make that sacrifice. Remember, truly loving someone means putting them before yourself. Lets not fall into the trap of becoming too self-centered like a lot of the women are today.

I watched this show in it's entirety for several episodes.
In ALL cases i saw, the person looking AND the person being sought CONSENTED to the meeting. The host asked BOTH parties if they wanted to go through with it and did not coerce people into agreeing to meet. NO ONE showed up on anyone's doorstep without the doorstep owner's prior knowledge and consent.

For many of these people who are searching, they have been searching for YEARS and referred to Troy as their "last hope."

I am not adopted but even if you have a nice family, I would think it would be nice to know SOMETHING about your biological background, nationality, and medical history.

I understand the complaints, but all in all this does seem a whole lot less exploitative than certain other reality shows out there, and its heart is certainly in the right place, which is definitely a step up.

I'm not sure that it would help abusers get back in touch with victims so easily -- it seems to me that if for no other reason than civil liability the network's lawyers would be all over you if you said you wanted to find someone. They'd ask why, and if you'd ever had a conviction for a felony or more importantly a restraining order.

Miriam, when you say "People's personal lives and space being violated for the entertainment of millions? " I wonder if you have been watching television for the past decade or so?

The premise of this show is not all that new. "This Is Your Life" did something sort of like it way back in the 50s and 60s. This is a more intrusive, tabloid-like version.

And yes, before anyone puts you on TV you have to sign a release. The nature of that release isn't always so clear -- see the legal travails of Girls Gone Wild for examples of how it can get you in trouble if you are not careful, but networks tend to be a mite more professional than Jeff Francis.

And no, before the outrage police show up, I am not endorsing Jeff Francis, his behavior, or whatever, nor am I saying network reality TV is good/bad/indifferent. Just pointing out that what you see on reality TV is often very controlled, if not scripted outright.

And, P.S., why are there so many MEN hosting idiotic shows like this? What gives a male show host the idea that he has jack shit of a right to interfere in a woman's life or judge her just because she once put a kid up for adoption? It just seems like more of people feeling entitled to the lives and bodies of women.

I watched a little bit of this new Jerry Springer-offshoot talk show out of Chicago, the Steve Wilkos Show, a couple weeks ago and it was just ... awful and absurd. I'm frightened to think that the people filling up the studio audience actually like to watch this shit.

I'm signed in, and it says "Welcome, false" at the top of the page. Huh?

This is manifestadestiny. Anyway, I saw this advert for the show, and I heard him say, "I'm here on behalf of the child you gave up," or something similar, but I remember the feeling of shaming that he was giving her at her doorstep.

At first glance I thought it was an anti-choice show going one better than trying to stop women from aborting--now it's time to shame women on television into keeping their children.

indyKat34: as an adopted child, let me assure you that one's "real mother" is easy to identify -- she's the one who has been there, loving and parenting you your entire life. while i am grateful to my birth mother (with whom i am also in contact as an adult) for making the no-doubt-difficult decision to place me for adoption, shared biology doesn't come anywhere near making someone a parent.

i understand that many adopted children are curious and/or desirous of medical history (that's why i got in touch w/ my birth mother) and there's nothing wrong with that...but i'm constantly saddened and frustrated by the way our culture fetishizes biological relationships, presuming "identity" or "real motherhood" or anything else can be found simply because of shared genetics.

allegra, why are so many WOMEN watching Oprah, Rikki Lake, Sally Jessy Raphael, and on and on? They're just as trashy in their own way.

It's not like any of those women was bravely challenging gender stereotypes with their choice of guests or subject matter. The thrusts of all daytime talk and a big chunk of reality TV is fundamentally conservative (not necessarily in a political sense).

The hosting for reality TV is split according to all kinds of criteria, the fact that men are among them (as are women) has a lot more to do with who the network thinks will draw viewers than anything else, hence Padma Lakshmi hosting a cooking competition (Top Chef). You can't tell me choosing Padma had anything to do with her culinary chops, anymore than Regis Philbin was hosting "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" for his knowledge of trivia. I mean, c'mon, Elizabeth Berkeley judging dance?

Thank you, feistyjenn. I couldn't have said that half as well, and might have had difficulty avoiding the use of invectives.

I completely agree with feistyjenn. I was adopted at about two days old and I can assure you that my "real" mother is the one who raised me, cared for me, made me soup when I was sick, provided a shoulder to cry on when I needed one, and above all, loved me. So is yours. It just happens that your "real" mother is the one who birthed you. It really bothers me when people use the term "real" mother to refer to my biological mother. But then, I can't really expect most people to have the same kind of knowledge of adoption that I do, so I hope my correction seems to be in keeping with my general policy of polite correction.

I do have an advantage on many adopted children by having a reasonably close relationship with my birthmom, but it's more like that of a good family friend than anything majorly identity-making or that of a "real" mother.

Also, thanks feistyjenn for putting into words the "fetishizing of biological relationships" that's been frustrating me for so long.

First off, in order for him to do the show, he does have to have permission from all adult parties involved in the process. Personally I am glad that more adoptee/first mother reunions are being discussed in a honest manner. It gives more publicity to the issue of the adoptee rights movement.

You come at this show that the first mother did not want her child. Women who place their child for adoption did so because of social pressures, finances, and other issues. Many of these women wanted to raise their children.

Another thing that really surprises me with the pro life and pro choice movements is that they seem to agree with each other. They both think that these women don't want their children period. I also find it interesting that the pro choice movement takes the adoption industry's word verbatim on first mothers. The adoption industry is in bed with the prolife movement and all of its crisis pregnancy centers across the country. Another thing that these organizations forget is that female adoptees do grow up and become adult females.

I believe that adoptees and their families should have access to their records. With that being said, mothers relinquish their rights. They don't get new ones. Roe vs. Wade is about the right to privacy in the sense of being free from governmental interference into one's private life. Every non adopted American is also entitled to the records with their names on it. If you have adoption in your family whether relinquishment,having adopted or being adopted, you are treated separately under the law in forty four states. For me, its about being equal.

The mother in the show w/ Katie, states over and over that she wanted her child. She was "shamed" into surrendering her child to adoption and felt she had no choice. She isn't alone in that reality, millions of mothers have been forced out of parenting their children, there is an entire era named after it, the BABY SCOOP ERA.

These people consented to the show, or else there wouldn't be a show. Whats alarming is that so many of them were desperate for find the others and that so many families and adoptees are treated as second class citizens and they can't get access to records that document their births, so they have to result to public exploitation like this just to find who they came from, and who they lost.

Its great that some of the adoptees here feel a need to define who their "real" mothers are and that being their adoptive mothers for them, but many don't. We all should have a right to our identity which would identify who we came from. That doesn't mean a right to a reunion, or relationship, but it does mean a right to our ancestry through a right to our records of birth and adoption.

The shaming of women across the nation and world right now, shaming them out of their children should absolutely be a feminist issue. Take a look at how the adoption industry is SO anti-choice, completely anti-abortion, shaming unwed couples for having pre-marital sex and telling them they don't deserve to raise their children because of it. This is happening to and has happened to, millions of women. These same people enact laws in states to keep us separate so the truth of the exploitation of women remains hidden.

Shaming women into keeping their children? I think not. There isn't one documented case of an adoptee stalking their parents who surrendered them. Not one. Records weren't sealed to keep mother and child apart, records were sealed first to hide the illegitimacy of the adoptee, and second to hide the secrets of the black market adoption industry that was built on shaming and forcing women and men away from their children.

As far as the program goes, the people consent to this. Many have come to someone like Mr. Dunn as a last resort. They agree to be viewed on television in order to finally find that person for whom they have been searching.

The issue of birth record access and "privacy rights" has been mentioned in the discussion here.

Adopted citizens are denied unconditional equal access rights to the factual documents of their own births in 44 states. This is something the non-adopted take for granted. In only six states, Alabama, Oregon, Kansas, Alaska, Main and New Hampshire, are all adopted adults granted the sames rights as their non-adopted counterparts.

This is an issue of an entire group of citizens, adopted adults, being barred from a right non-adopted citizens have. Unequal treatment under the law is discrimination by the state holding the records. This discrimination turns access to one's own birth record from a right to a privilege, based solely on the adoptive status of a person, a condition over which the adopted person had no say or control. No other citizens but adopted adults are expected to grovel before a judge or ask someone else's permission in order to obtain access to their own birth records. This places adopted citizens in a position of being considered suspect and placed in a secondary class compared to non-adopted citizens.

The sealing of birth certificates was not always a part of adoption. At one point in history, no one was denied the right to his or her own birth record, adopted or not adopted. The sealing of these records began in the 1930's. Reasons given for sealing were to hide the shame of 'out-of-wedlock' pregnancy and infertility and to prevent possible blackmail by 'outing' adoptive families. Sealing records was also a means allowing adoptive parents privacy from birth parents. It also provided for the concealment of illegal and unethical practices, such as not having obtained a signed relinquishment document from the mother.

Early legislation sealing records sealed them only from the first (birth) parents and the general public, but left them open to the adoptive families and to the adopted person. Over time, most states eventually sealed records from all parties. However, some states did not fully seal records until much later (e.g. Nevada didn't seal from adopted persons until 1973 and Alabama -- which now has open records again -- not until the 90's.) Two states, Alaska and Kansas, never sealed records from adopted citizens.

For anyone who believes records are sealed in order to protect the anonymity of the natural parents, consider the actual law.

1. It is highly notable that records only seal upon the finalization of an adoption. They only stay sealed if an adoption remains intact. They do not seal upon relinquishment, are not sealed while the child is in foster care and are not sealed while the child is in an adoptive placement that is not yet finalized by the court. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

2. If an adoption fails, i.e. the adoptive parents "return" the child, the original birth record with the natural parents' names on it, is unsealed and re-established as the child's only legal birth certificate. How does this protect the natural parents' anonymity? Incidentally, I'm sad to say that there have been stories in the papers lately about failed adoptions occurring.

3. Adult adopted citizens in states with sealed records can gain access to their birth records as long as they petition the court and get a court order. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

4. No one has ever been able to bring forth a relinquishment document that promises anonymity. Even the greatest opponents of open records, such as the National Council For Adoption, has ever been unable to produce such a document.

5. In some states with sealed records, it is the prerogative of the adoptive parents or the adoptee (if old enough to state a desire) as to whether or not the original birth certificate is sealed. The natural parents have no say. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

Hence, there is no guarantee of anonymity or confidentiality, nor can such be promised under the law as written. Oddly enough, however, I have met natural parents who asked if and when they could contact their relinquished children. They were told that upon reaching 18 years of age, the adopted person could retrieve his or her original birth certificate containing the natural parents' names. Upon reuniting many years later, these natural parents were surprised to find that what they were told didn't pan out because no one had told them that the records were retroactively sealed, despite the information they were given.

Although this is not truly an issue about reunion, the topic always brings with it discussion of reunion. Therefore, I shall briefly cover this issue. Reunions happen all the time under sealed records laws. Several states that allow all adopted adults to obtain their original birth records also have contact preference forms. This is a form that natural parents can fill out stating whether or not they wish to be contacted. The preference can be changed at any time. It is filed with the original birth certificate. A copy of it is given to the adopted person if and when s/he obtains the original birth certificate. Because the adopted person knows right away that the natural parent does not want to be contacted, this greatly, greatly decreases the risk of unwanted contact. In states that do not grant access, natural parents and adopted people will continue to find one another, but there will be no information available as to the preference for contact.

Like other citizens, adopted persons and natural parents are capable of handling their own relationships, without state interference. They do not need others speaking for them or deciding what is best for them as though they were children incapable of doing so themselves. This is an infringement of the free association enjoyed by other citizens in our society.