According to Hawaii law a new birth certificate is created in certain instances where embarrassment could be involved - including adoption. The original certificate is not altered; in fact, if an unadoption occurs the original BC is reinstated, which wouldn’t be possible if the original had been altered. So when there is an adoption a person has 2 birth certificates that are totally independent of each other, and the legal status of the adoption determines which one is the BC in effect; the other is sealed.
The applicable law can be seen at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0007.htm
The only instance where it talks about the original birth certificate being amended is in the instance of legitimation or paternity being established where it had previously been unknown. In the other cases, there is separate documentation kept as to why a new BC was created - things such as an adoption decree, legal name change order (which the lt gov says there isn’t one for Obama, Soetoro, or Sutoro), etc
Thanks again for your diligent work on this issue. The law you cite contains the language I vaguely recalled:
“When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record.”
So at least in Hawaii, the original BC is kept under seal, along with the evidence used to alter it. What I don’t entirely understand is if there is no indication on the new BC that such a sealed record exists, how would the BC’s owner find out about it once they reached the age of majority and were in a position to inquire about such matters? Since there are very legitimate reasons someone might need to know their true paternity (e.g., need for organ donation, issues related to inheritance), it seems odd to have a system in which such a material fact is literally buried, as opposed to having a “pointer” on the new BC indicating that other pertinent information is under seal.
Absent such a written amendment to the newly issued BC, it would seem that anyone requesting their birth records would need to somehow specify they wanted a copy of their on-file record, but also any other previous versions etc. Again, that just seems bureaucratically cumbersome. Not to say it’s impossible that’s how things are set up: it just seems odd to me.