Elizabeth, In my experiences getting records from CT and from other states, I've actually found CT to be one of the better states. Yes, I had to join a genalogical society to get records (I joined CT Society of Genealogists), but it was worth the price to me. I'm able to get records for my family and for the family of a good friend (I'm researching his family also). In many other states I'm not able to get the records at all because I'm not a direct descendant. In New York, for instance -- my friend has many ancestors from there and I can't order the records myself; I have to fill out the paperwork and give it to him to sign and mail. I have a lot of ancestors from Iowa and am able to get birth records only for my direct line. I tried to get some for five first cousins who died at birth in the 1940s (the children of my mom's sister) and was told I'm "not entitled" because I'm not a direct relative; even my mother can't get them, and there is no one else alive who is "entitled" (I went round and round with them by letter and phone, trying to explain this, but to no avail). Granted the same information is available on the death records (which I was able to get), but I found a mistake on the first one so would prefer to have the birth records to verify the information. Maybe I've just been lucky so far, but I've found all of the CT town clerks I've dealt with to date to be very helpful. That means a lot because I live in Colorado and am not able to do my own research in CT. In Shelby Co., Indiana, the town clerks don't have time to search the records. A Rootweb volunteer there does it instead. People email her with their requests, and she goes to the courthouse once a week to find and photocopy records. Perhaps this could be done in some of the CT towns where the town clerk either can't or won't search the records. Just an idea anyway. Deborah Bay Denver, CO elizabeth godfrey wrote: > Perhaps someone could set up an e-mail letter to one of the Conn Congressmen > siting the problem their laws have creadte and start a ball rolling to > change this law. I believe it should be someone with good organizational > skills, a knowledge of how to change laws. But you are all right. These > records are cared for by employees of taxpayers. The records are not going > to present anybreach inan individuals identity, These records are 100 years > old, and no social security numbers or records that can help create an > identity will be a violation of anyones privacy. These records belong to > the people as long as tere is no possable use to commit fraud. > > Could someone get the ball rolling? > Thank you to all of you who replied to my initial remarks.