APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2002-08 > 1030139667


From: "Joan M. Lowry" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Certified vs. uncertified
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:54:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <000001c24ac5$c3b3fa00$e7e1aec7@Sherlock>


Kathy

This is exactly what is going on in NJ. The "informational" copies are
intended to help prevent fraud. And, most certainly, they are better than
having the records closed altogether.

The original Health Dept edict back in the fall 2001 was to disallow any
request from anyone unable to supply virtually all the information on the
certificate in question. They wanted the mother's full maiden name,
father's name, exact date and place of the event, and the full name of the
person on the record in question. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) they made
the mistake of applying this criteria to EVERY request - even for records
from the 1800s. This, as you can guess, stirred up a firestorm of protest
mail from genealogists from all over the country and beyond. (Which is what
led to the more recent developments, I think.)

As of August 1, the Dept of Health has changed their tune some and they once
again are allowing people to request records with less than full information
for years which they have deemed "genealogical, " i.e. births over 80 years
old, deaths over 40 years old, and marriages over 50 years old. These will
be issued as "informational" photocopies unless other criteria are met.

Certified photocopies of vital records are now restricted to "immediate
family members" and others who can justify their need for a certified copy.
For those of us who do probate and estate research - justifying the need for
a certified copy requires a letter stating the name and contact information
of the attorney by whom we have been retained, the name of the pending case
or estate for which the record will be used, and an explanation that the
record is to be submitted as evidence in court, used for proving the family
relationships.

All records from years later than the "genealogical" period are subject to
the more stringent requirements. This is true even for those records that
are needed for court. This leaves us with some serious access problems for
estate and probate research. We can't get the decedent's parents' records
without already knowing everything about them! This is a problem that we
are still trying to address in NJ - but I am not sure that we will have as
much clout to get this fixed as we did with the original records closure.
There simply isn't the same outcry from the public. Just a few of us
professionals crying out...

If anyone out there has any suggestions - believe me I am ALL EARS!

Thanks for a most interesting discussion.

Joan M. Lowry
mailto:


-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Hinckley [mailto:]

This has been an excellent discussion on evidence, but one point has not
yet been made:

The reason that some courts and/or vital record offices offer the
"informational" photocopy is to prevent identity fraud. For example, a
certified birth certificate would only be issued only to specific
persons specified by privacy laws as eligible to receive the
certificate; whereas an informational photocopy could be issued to
genealogists to use in genealogical research. In fact, some courts stamp
"for genealogical use" on some records. This way, the person who
receives the "informational" photocopy cannot use the record to obtain a
driver's license, apply for welfare benefits, etc., etc.

But if the record is going to be used in court to prove heirship or
relationship, a certified copy would be required.

Also keep in mind that the majority of courts or vital record offices do
NOT offer the "informational" or "genealogical use only" photocopy. In
view of privacy advocates attempting to close many records, it would be
in the best interest of genealogists to promote the issuance of
informational photocopies as a solution to keeping records open.

Kathleen W. Hinckley, CGRS
Genealogist & Private Investigator
Family Detective
PO Box 740637
Arvada, CO 80006-0637
(303) 422-9371
http://www.familydetective.com



This thread: