Philadelphia's Records to be Digitized

The City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania maintained its vital records separate from the State until around 1915. In the news is a codified agreement with Ancestry to digitize these records.¹ One benefit of this project is that potentially, any word on a document could be searched. You could, for example, find all the people buried at a particular cemetery whose records no longer survive. Or you could find all the babies delivered by a particular midwife.

I rarely have people in Philadelphia. My paternal grandfather was born there in 1915, even though the family lived in Newark, New Jersey.

I'm in favor of public and free access to all governmental records.

The issue is that these terms mean different things to different people.

In my home state of New Jersey, for example, births are available to the public if older than eighty years. Births through the year 1925 are on microfilm at the Archives in Trenton. Not through the year 1945. The Archives are not open around the clock every day. You need to physically and geographically access the collection, which makes it out of reach of most people. Alternatively, you can pay $10 for the birth certificate. This is a pay wall, as we say on the internet. Ordering thousands of records is cost-prohibitive for most people and would create a work-load unattainable by the staff. The result is that such access is not very public, in my opinion.

Current technology of the New Jersey State Archives.
Microfilm reader.
December 1, 2025.

Before the internet and digitization, the above scenario in New Jersey was maybe the best that any State could offer.

It's 2026. We can do so much more.

The technology exists to electronically preserve minute details of paper records; however, the custodians of such records usually do not own this technology. Private companies would perform the digitization process. I'm not a technology expert, but from there, the images would be read and made searchable by a program- not a person. The images and index of words would then need hosting on a website. (Remember when we all came together in 2012 and typed the 1940 census? We didn't have to do this in 2022 for the 1950 census because technological advances enabled the reading and indexing of the handwriting, including script!)

All of this costs money. Who should pay?

Ancestry can digitize the records. Ancestry is a company that needs to realize a profit to stay in business. Ancestry either owns the equipment or leases it. They pay people to perform the service, either contractors or employees. Then there are the steps in between the recording and the appearance on Ancestry's website. Hosting costs money, too. You can read about this process on Ancestry's website.

Ancestry's customers pay a subscription to access such record collections, currently hundreds per year. Seems fair, except this is a pay wall, sort of like New Jersey's $10 per certificate.

Should the government pay for some or all of these services of preservation and access? People not interested in genealogy and history might say no. But our taxpayer dollars are already spent on government services we may not agree with or use. I pay a lot for public schools and Medicare, even though I use neither. I would like certain roads paved, but I have no say in which roads are repaired or when other roads are shut down for servicing.

Another complication is ownership and future use of the digitized records. Once an electronic copy is created, it can be promulgated worldwide quickly. Ancestry would understandably not want to spend money digitizing millions of records for release on its own site, only to have another company copy them. If Ancestry owns the digitized versions of government records, it can probably do as it wishes in terms of access- charging high fees or removing access entirely. 

Asking a private entity to allow you access to its record is different from asking the government to allow you access to a government record.

If Ancestry is allowed to copy the records and sell them, why can't a private individual?

There would be a contract. We have no say in that contract and we may never see its wording. The situation with Philadelphia is that Ancestry would host, not own, the government records.

Someone please weigh in on this. My understanding is that Ancestry would own the images it created from these records. The original pieces of paper would be retained by Philadelphia. What happens to the digital images at the end of the contract?

When Ancestry hosts an image collection, you can see it if you have a subscription that covers that image collection. I'll use Newspapers dot com to demonstrate.

A hint was suggested for Gertrude Barsella (1898-1991). Some of the information is butchered because it was automatically created for fast indexing.

Hint at Ancestry linking to a newspaper on the website Newspapers dot com.
The daughter's name was Georgene Zink, not Ueot Gene Zmk.

I can view the image in the Chicago Tribune because I pay for a subscription to Newspapers dot com. After reviewing the obituary and determining that this is the same person in my tree, I can save the hint to Gertrude's profile in my tree.

Result at Newspapers dot com from hint at Ancestry.
The link, not the actual image, will be saved to the tree.

Here's the difference between hosting and owning. This image does not save to the tree. The link to the image saves to the tree. Ancestry does not own this newspaper. The obituary will not be in the Gallery under Gertrude's profile. If you have Family Tree Maker (owned by MacKiev, not Ancestry) on your computer, the obituary will not appear as an image.

Images saved to Gertrude Lutter (wife of George Barsella 1899-1971)
in Family Tree Maker (2024 version).
Her obituary does not appear here because it is saved as a link.

If you wish to retain this obituary for your files, you would need to copy it yourself as a download or a screen capture. Ancestry's contractual relationship with the owners of the Chicago Tribune may end at any time, thereby cutting off your access to this obituary.

Same idea with the records from Philadelphia. If they ever appear on or through Ancestry, you will probably want to download them to your own computer system separate from Ancestry.

We see a similar battle in New York State. The City of New York has digitized about three quarters of its older births, marriages, and deaths. You can view them and download them for free on the website of the New York City Department of Records and Information Services.

Vital records outside of New York City are in the custody of the New York State Department of Health, which will not fulfill genealogical orders. They cost $22 per certificate. (The State has staff to cash the checks but not to copy the record and mail it.) Unlike in New Jersey, you have no public access in any physical form. There is no repository to enter, view microfilm, and print your own copies.

I ordered three death certificates two years ago and another four years ago. These orders remain unfulfilled, though the checks for $22 were quickly cashed.

Last year, the governor of New York vetoed a bill that would have enabled a third party (Ancestry?) to digitize records. This year, the governor promised in her State of the State speech that she would facilitate making the records electronic.

Three neighboring states with different access to records vital to genealogical and historical research

These three states, as well as other custodians of records, are weighing continued control over information along with costs. Reclaim the Records has had to sue entities to release public records. At this point in history, we have the ability to preserve these old records and make them available to everyone. We should do this now.

1. Chelsea R. Cox, "Philly's Deal with Ancestry Could Reshape Access to Public Records," Technical.ly (https://technical.ly/civics/what-philadelphias-ancestry-deal-means-public-records: published 6 April 2026).

Forbidden New York State Records

We aren't going to be seeing vital records from the State of New York any time soon.

The New York State Senate and Assembly passed bills (2025-S7782A and 2025-A8314A) to allow digitization and publication of births, marriages, deaths, and dissolutions of marriage. Governor Kathleen Hochul vetoed the bill in October 2025.

There remains no path to obtaining a vital record from the New York Department of Health if it falls under a genealogical time frame: 75 years for births and 50 years for marriages and deaths.

I await fulfillment of four records ordered from the New York State Department of Health. Three were ordered 21 months ago and the other almost four years ago- after the Department failed to find the certificate the first time around.

Although the Department will not copy and mail the documents, it is able to open the envelopes, remove the form of payment, and deposit same into the State's coffers.

The Department's website has not been updated since January 2023 and still falsely promises:
    1- orders of genealogical records will be fulfilled
    2- orders of genealogical records may take eight months or longer

Website of the New York State Department of Health
falsely offering genealogical copies of vital records

In contrast, New York City was able to digitize and place online a self-reported 75% of its vital records. Ancestry has digitized images of older New York City records.

New York Proposes Rate Hikes to Thwart Genealogical Research

Over the years I’ve written about the difficulties in obtaining copies of vital records from the State of New York. The only way to receive a copy is to print out and physically mail a request, remit $22, then wait a few years for Albany to send a copy.

My latest orders have not been fulfilled. One year for the Cummings and Grant orders; three years for the Sheehy order.

New York claims a backlog of over 10,000 orders and that fulfilling them is almost impossible.

New York was able to figure out how to open the envelopes and cash the checks within weeks.

I suggested making the records digitally available online, which is what is happening with New York City records.

New York has responded. Their solution is to raise fees.

Memorandum in Support of these changes to pertinent New York laws

It is puzzling why Part U- the genealogical section of the Memorandum in Support of the proposed changed is called "Digitize Genealogical Records." Why called digitize? What is being digitized?

Raising the fee from $30 to $45 is their solution to ending the backlog. This is the fee under Section 4174 of the Public Health Law. Is this for only certified copies, of which genealogical copies are not? The current fee is $22, not $30, according to the website of the New York State Department of Health. Is this wrong?

Genealogical copies of births, marriages, and deaths are $22 from New York State Department of Health.
The website should have a disclaimer that you will not receive anything.

Raising fees would do nothing to end the existing backlog; however, it would lessen the rate of growth of the backlog by discouraging people from requesting more records. What would really decrease the growth of the backlog would be printing a disclaimer, such as “Our staff will not fill your order, but they will cash your check. Donate $45 to the State of New York now.” The backlog will remain because the orders were not fulfilled.

Also proposed is a research fee of $50 per hour. I'm not clear on when this would be invoked. At present, no research is performed, as no orders are processed. How long could this research endure? For example, minimum research on the part of the New York State Department of Health would have clarified that the request for the death certificate of Edmond Sheehy (died 1893 in Amenia) was incorrectly transcribed in their index as Edward Sheeby. Ten years later and I am still waiting for the death certificate. That is a lot of time.

In comparison, I can retrieve over one hundred certificates from microfilm in an all-day session at the New Jersey State Archives.

Also nervy is changing the statute to dispense with the requirement to maintain indexes to save themselves money after fighting against the request of Reclaim the Records to release those indexes.

In contrast, New York City is digitizing and publishing online for free its vital record collection.

New Jersey began state-wide collection of births, marriages, and deaths in 1848. For thirty years, the information was entered into ledger books and is available on microfilm at the New Jersey State Archives, online at a Family History Center for free, or online at home but behind a paywall at Ancestry. Certificates from 1878 forward are obtainable in person at the Archives in Trenton with cut-offs of 1924 for births and later for marriages and deaths. Mail orders are $10 per certificate with a return time of a few weeks.

Florida costs $10 per certificate with a return time of two weeks- the last time I ordered. More recent years are available than in New Jersey.

If New York cannot copy these records and cannot do it for $10, something is wrong. Very wrong.

Please share this information online to let New York know that its war on genealogy and history is not acceptable.

PS- While we are on the topic, what is the processing time of Connecticut? $20 for a death certificate. Waiting 22 months and counting.

Obtaining Marriage and Divorce Records in New Jersey 1949

Divorce records are an integral part of uncovering the lives of those from past generations.

While researching an ancestor, I happened upon a newspaper article detailing a divorce. The information within this record could prove highly valuable in my pursuits of the family history. The involved parties shall not be named at this point.

I requested a copy of divorce proceedings (also called dissolution of marriage) from Hudson County, New Jersey, circa 1950. Divorces from the year 1949 forward are in the custody of the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Keep in mind that divorces were not a secret in the 1950s. The tea was spilled in the local newspapers, reading like gossip columns. Below are samples in The Jersey Journal from 1950 and 1960.

I emailed the Court. Records after 1948 used to be obtained by writing to an email address within the Superior Court. The return time was usually about one week. The packet arrived via email as a digitized PDF file.

Final Judgment of Divorce, 1952
Names redacted by me as part of an ongoing project.

This time, the response explained the new procedure of registering with JEDS, the Judiciary Electronic Document System. The process was easy enough. Within days, the Court responded via email that only the parties or the attorneys could be sent copies of the file.

The parties are dead. I don't know if either party had an attorney, never mind their names. They are probably dead, too.

The Court invoked a Rule from 2009, which limits public access to certain types of documents that might be found in some modern-day divorce files.

Nevermind that I have received electronic copies of divorce records since 2009. This was the first time I was denied access to an entire file.

Nevermind that the prohibited documents likely do not exist in a divorce file from 1950.

I filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Also denied.

Paper mail response denying my request to view divorce records from 1950 under the Freedom of Information Act.

The court Rule is below:

1:38-3 Court Records Excluded from Public Access

    The following court records are excluded from public access:

        (d) Records of Family Part Proceedings

(1) Family Case Information Statements required by R. 5:5-2, notices required by R. 5:5-10 including requisite financial, custody and parenting plans, Financial Statements in Summary Support Actions required by R. 5:5-3 including all attachments, and settlement agreements incorporated into judgments or orders in dissolution and non-dissolution actions, except for parties and their counsel of record;
(2) Confidential Litigant Information Sheets pursuant to R. 5:4-2(g) and Affidavits or Certifications of Insurance Coverage pursuant to R. 5:4-2(f), except for the filing party and his or her counsel of record;
(3) Medical, psychiatric, psychological, and alcohol and drug dependency records, reports, and evaluations in matters related to child support, child custody, or parenting time determinations;
(4) Documents, records and transcripts related to proceedings and hearings required by the Supreme Court pursuant to Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 39 (1995), or subsequent orders of the Court;
(5) Juvenile delinquency records and reports pursuant to R. 5:19- 2 and N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60, except for parties and their counsel of record;
(6) Records of Juvenile Conference Committees to the extent provided under R. 5:25-1(e), except for parties and their counsel of record;
(7) Expunged juvenile records pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-62 f. and 2C:52-15;
(8) Sealed juvenile records pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-62;
(9) Domestic violence records and reports pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-33, except for parties and their counsel of record in the underlying domestic violence matter;
(10) Names and addresses of victims or alleged victims of domestic violence or sexual offenses;
(11) Records relating to child victims of sexual assault or abuse pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:82-46;
(12) Records relating to Division of Child Protection and Permanency proceedings held pursuant to R. 5:12;
(13) Child custody evaluations, parenting time and visitation plans, reports, and records pursuant to R. 5:8-4, R. 5:8-5, R. 5:8B, N.J.S.A. 9:2-1, or N.J.S.A. 9:2-3;
(14) Paternity records and reports, except for the final judgments or birth certificates pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:17-42;
(15) Records and reports relating to child placement matters pursuant to R. 5:13-8(a);
(16) Adoption records and reports pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:3-52;
(17) Records of hearings on the welfare or status of a child, to the extent provided under R. 5:3-2;
(18) Records related to applications for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) predicate orders.
(19) Records of adjudications of delinquency for offenses involving marijuana or hashish sealed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.2;

(20) Records relating to actions to change the name of a minor.

Adopted July 16, 2009; effective September 1, 2009.

See njcourts.gov/attorneys/rules-of-court

Under the court's interpretation of this Rule, this record is forever locked away with no recourse to view it.

In my opinion, the Rule is misinterpreted. If all family court records are prohibited from public access, why does the Rule enumerate twenty types of records that are not public? Why not stop at Records of Family Part Proceedings? None of the forbidden categories are what I need, such as the Complaint, Answer, and Final Decree.

The Court still advertises on its website that records of the Family Division are "available for public inspection." Based on their correspondence with me, this is not true.

Divorce records earlier than 1949 can be found at the State Archives in Trenton.

Microfilm of index of matrimonial actions

Microfilm of dockets of combined cases in chancery court.
Divorces are intermingled with other types of actions. 

Divorcing parties found in the docket of the Chancery Court.
This couple, Prince of Hudson County, will be discussed in an upcoming article.

While divorce records from 1949 are prohibited, the marriage records from 1949 are now available at the Archives.

Eager to view the latest public records-
1949 marriages

Microfilm rolls containing marriage certificates from 1949

Marriage record of Peter Edmond Duryea (1925-1997) and
Mary Catherine Cosgrove (1929-1997).
December 3, 1949 in Ramsey, Bergen County, New Jersey.

Marriage record of Robert Charles Duryea (1924-1998) and 
Marion DeNora (1925-1990).
July 24, 1949 in Little Falls, Passaic County, New Jersey.

These certificates are on microfilm in order by certificate number. To find a certificate number, you can view the images of the index, which are alphabetical by the bride's surname. A digital search of the index is available via Ancestry's database, New Jersey, U.S., Marriage Index, 1901-2016.

Index of marriages in New Jersey for the year 1949

The marriage records from 1949 must be obtained in person at the Archives, not via mail or online. You can try requesting a copy from the Department of Health or by having someone perform in-person research on your behalf.

If you live in New Jersey, please write to your elected legislators in the New Jersey State Senate and Assembly to advocate for ease of access to these records.