Respectful adoption language

[Offredalba]

Sometime ago there was a brief discussion about why some people might find the term birthmother offensive. Perhaps this will inform and promote understanding.

www.firstmotherforum.com/2016/01/preferred-adoption-language-is-bunk.html?m=1

Devora. Sorry for late reply. I work on Sundays.

I think that birthmother is a term that was imported from America. It is relatively new here and I think that it was originally embraced with good intentions, to enlighten those who inconsiderately and wrongly referred to 'real' mothers.
Unfortunately, I think that it has popularly become a euphemism for an abandoning/neglectful/abusive/inadequate mother (as we can see from the tone of some comments on occasion). Clearly, we hear from mothers on this forum who do not fit that description. They remain concerned and loving. They didn't stop being mothers on the day that they gave birth.

We have all modified our language at times when we have learned that it offends people and personally if someone told me that a word offended them, I would be inclined to find another expression.

I also think that trends in modern family life are leading us to the need to look at the language again. Many children now have multiple mothers, through divorce, various forms of IVF and surrogacy. Is a woman who bears a child to which she has no genetic,citizenship, identity relationship a birthmother, and if so what differentiates her from someone who lost a child that she couldn't care for?

I hope that we can find language that respects all and offends none, as there is enough hurt in adoption as it is..

I've name changed specifically for this as some points are a bit revealing.
My ds came to us at 18 months which means we have had to supply the language for him to use in order for him to understand his background.
At the moment we call her "the lady" or by her first name.
this is someone who drank, took drugs and got into fights throughout her pregnancy. Was so violent thay she had to be moved to a second mother and baby unit because she attacked the staff at the first one. Didn't visit my ds at regular contact meetings and when she did often tried to leave him on his own to go for a smoke or one time took drugs into the conavy centre. She didn't turn up for several sessions because she was ill ( shed actually been having all night parties with men vomitting out of her windows and verbally abusing neighbours.
She didn't turn up for her farewell meeting with my ds, didn't try to stop the court case and hasn't responded or collected any of her letters. (I hope combined02 this constitutes "enough" for you)
I respect that this is not the case for some people who have their child removed. However,I do not think some random person on the Internet should dictate what I call her. For my ds I am his only mummy. I am the only person in his living memory who has loved him, comforted him and been their continuously. The man who created him should not have the title "daddy"or "father" whether it has the prefix birth or not. He has had no contact. My dh has been his daddy.
My ds needs to feel thay he is "normal" not thay he is set apart from his friends at school. He is my son. I am his mummy.
It is traumatic enough for him that he will have to deal with these facts at a later date (including thay she has since kept another child,but didn't care enough to keep him) let alone thay their is somebody else out their who is also his "mummy"??

scarfonthestairs, when I was pregnant and had to be admitted early, there were 2 wards - the nurse told me that I was in the naice ward and indeed we were all lovely, thank goodness, but we could hear some of the shenanigans next door, and one day the police had to come and drag a family member out kicking and screaming, so I am under no illusions.

But not all bio mothers whose babies are adopted are the same, and also situations are not usually black and white. I also believe (and again this is a personal belief and I dont expect everyone to agree) that children's love for their bio parents is so very unconditional that a parent really would have to be very extreme for the child not to care about them. I have heard of adoptive parents being dismissive of bio parents to their adopted children and it was very damaging. This is just one example, and I am not suggesting for moment that every adoptive parent is the same. And that is not really what this thread is about anyway.

What one person means by "harmful" is very different to what another person might mean when it comes to parenting. it was a nosy question but not a heinous crime and I was confident that the person I asked would be discerning.

Yes "harmful" to an individual person is definetly an individual choice of a scale I imagine. However "harmful" to social services and judges is not a personal choice, it is a huge list of people and ruled.

Therefore children who are removed and adopted are not treated in a "harmful" way judged by the (adoptive) patents but in a "harmful" way judged by the law.
My friend is adopted he has no natural feeling of love to his biological parents. Another friend is not adopted hut was treated so hideously by his father he still has no feeling of love for his (biological) father.
I do not and will it talk about the people who bought my wonderful son into the world in a dismissive way bit I will not lie or give fairytale names to them.
I do really wonder where your motivation and your viewpoints for these threads on a fairly "niche" board,are coming from.

You're prepared to accept that what you're saying about a child's love for a parent is your belief, yet you think everyone should live their lives as if your beliefs are fact? I should paint a fairytale picture and refer to my DC's BM as mummy or whatever other lovey-dovey term you like because they're pre-conditioned to love and care for a person the courts have ruled unsuitable to parent them? Bullshit. Whether my DC care about or love their BM is yet to be seen, and I'll accept whatever route they wish to take, but I won't steer them either way. They'll be given facts, love and support.

As for all children loving bio parents - I'm a walking, talking, living proof of that being utter tosh. One of my parents could get run over by a bus tomorrow and I'd not bat an eyelid. I don't love someone because I share DNA with them, I love them because of who they are, not what they are. The fact you believe this makes me suspect you're in the 'adopters can't possibly love their children as much as bio parents love their bio children' camp.

Like Scarf, I'm also interested about why you seem to spend so much time on the adoption board when you clearly disagree with a lot about modern adoption, yet you steadfastly refuse to tell us what your experience of, or link to, adoption is in order for people to accurately weight what you say.

Do you know Ian Josephs at all, perchance?

combined, you are right that not all bio mothers are the same - this is a point you have made a number of times, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by it and by the apparent implication that we need to be told it.

Given your question to Launderette about her assertion that the majority of adopted children in the UK have experienced neglect or abuse from their birth parents, I think you are trying to suggest that there are 'good' birth parents as well as 'bad'? Or am I misreading you? If I've got it right, then I would say that (a) launderette is right, and (b) that doesn't mean we just dismiss birth mothers as bad people. My guess is that most adopters' feelings towards the first mothers of their children are a complex mix, matching the mix of poor life experiences, bad choices, bad luck and chemical substances that usually led to the child being taken into care.

I welcome anyone to the adoption board, and am always up for a good discussion. But people who don't have RL experience usually ask questions, rather than delivering a lecture - which is why others are questioning what your experience is and whether there is a motivation beyond interest?

combined, my DC don't love their birth mum, they don't remember her. But they live every day with the consequences of her actions/inactions, so please don't tell me how to feel about her or how to talk to them about her. Especially not based on being next door to the not naice ward one time.

A lot of negativity here from some posters. I don't think anyone should feel under attack if a person expresses their opinion, regardless of whether it stems from personal experience.

From my pov as an adopted person, I wouldn't see 'first mother', 'birth mother' etc as 'lovey dovey' terms. They simply express the biological reality. My natural mother acted very badly towards me, but I understand that she was a product of her own terrible environment. All that horror does not negate the fact that she is my mother (despite having sometimes wished the opposite in the past).

I wonder if it could be a mistake to try to minimise the importance of birth parents by not referring to them as such. Linguistic gymnastics are often used to try to paper over the child's difficult past and I've always found this very unhelpful.

Actually, combined, you really need to look back at your post and have a think about how you're coming across.

When you were in hospital you heard some shenanigans, and that means you are under no illusions? Are you really claiming this experience has given you understanding of why children get adopted? Is this the experience base you keep hinting at?

But not all bio mothers whose babies are adopted are the same, and also situations are not usually black and white. Why are you telling us this?

children's love for their bio parents is so very unconditional that a parent really would have to be very extreme for the child not to care about them. You are telling us this why?

I have heard of adoptive parents being dismissive of bio parents to their adopted children and it was very damaging. Every adopter on here has said they would want to talk about bio parents in ways that are good for their children, not damaging. So I'm not sure why you go on to concede that, "I am not suggesting for moment that every adoptive parent is the same".

What one person means by "harmful" is very different to what another person might mean when it comes to parenting. Meaning what, that when a child is taken into care we are operating with subjective judgements that could be disputed by another reasonable person? Do you have any idea how very high the bar is for terminating parental rights?

I'm sure it seems to you that you are getting some aggressive responses on these threads. You may not know that the MN adoption board has a long history of having goady fuckers coming on here to be provocative and undermining. So we're probably a bit sensitised to it. I'm not calling you a goady fucker, but you could reflect on some of the responses you're getting, perhaps do a little less lecturing and a little more listening, maybe demonstrate a bit more thoughtfulness about why, for example, it's considered bad form to ask posters why their children were taken into care.

I don't think anyone was suggesting 'birth mother' etc were lovey dovey, just that the cutesy TummyMummy etc wouldn't always be appropriate.

And please understand that how we talk here about the people who deliberately or through ignorance did so very much harm to our children is not how we talk to our children about them.

Hi Chilleman, I'm not sure I understand your post - are you saying that you think birth mother and first mother ARE good terms, or not?

I've been thinking more about what I do, and I think I tend to use 'birth mother' when talking to other adults. To my child, it's usually 'Helen' (not her real name), and maybe 'your first mum'. If my dd calls her 'my mum' I don't correct her, I just try to keep the conversation natural. I talk honestly with my dd about the fact that the start of her life was difficult and I'm very sad she had to go through that. I try to sound positive about her first mum without romanticising her or allowing any doubt that she wasn't able to provide a safe home for dd.

Sorry to go against the tide but as ours were growing up it was tummy mummy, as they got older birth mum and now either mummy x or x.

We talk about our family being really complex, birth sisters (who are like nieces to us), step brother and step sister, step mum, mum, dad, birth mum - we are all part of a big network joined by love.

We talk about how difficult things were for sisters before they were adopted and we all need to be sensitive to that. So whilst at the moment our oldest would like to see x when he is 18, they know not to ask oldest sister why she has chosen not to.

Sorry to go against the tide - you're not really are you? Most people have said they use terms that work for them and their child. If DS chooses to call his birth mother "tummy mummy" or "first mum" or whatever he pleases to then it really matters little to me honestly - not one jot. I'm not really a "tummy" or a "mummy" type so wouldn't dream of using it but if it works for you i don't see the problem.

DS has a burning curiosity about his birth mother that I would dearly love to be able to satisfy but doesn't feel that she is his mum, not in any way at all though that might change if he were to meet her ever. Not sure how that fits in with combined Utopian view of unconditional love for your biological parent. Interestingly my mother only this afternoon talked about a member of my family's "real" mother and I had to correct her to "birth" mother. Not because I much care but because to DS she feels the very opposite of real, she feels like a figment of his imagination at present, doesn't remember her and knows little about her. He struggles to hear her described as "real" and by implication me as not when he really feels the opposite way around. I used to call his birth mother "Helen" but he's even moved away from that and consistent calls her "birth mother at the moment".

I also disagree that the author of the link wasn't giving a general view but her own personal view. I think her blog absolutely reads as if what she think applies pretty generally as do the comments on it.

It isn;t really a static thing, as your child changes so does how they think of their birth parents (and you!).

There are many areas I find people's views from outside the adoption triangle interesting and helpful and thought provoking, on this particular issue however I will be honest and say that I find them irrelevant and a bit divorced from reality. At least my reality.

(I think I'm about to be accused of being dismissive again)

not "birth mother at the moent" - that would be bizarre!!!! "birth mother" at the moment...

Just noticed the subtitle at the top of that blog, though: first/birth/natural/real mothers. Real? Now that I DO object to!

Sanders I think 'when my girls arrived' is perfect, I will use that (male singular version) - I think it sounds best.

scarfonthestairs I am so sorry for all your poor son has been through, how awful for him but he has a mum who will fight for and love him and I know you will find the right words to tell him his early story in the right way, at the right times.

Chilleman thank you for sharing your views as someone who has experienced being adopted. it is very helpful to hear.

Re I wonder if it could be a mistake to try to minimise the importance of birth parents by not referring to them as such. Linguistic gymnastics are often used to try to paper over the child's difficult past and I've always found this very unhelpful.

I think many of us do refer to birth parents as birth parents, it seems the most logical and factual way to do it and it is generally the word used by social workers. Biological is somewhat 'scientific' to my ear.

Also, I think as much as possible social services are trying to encourage letter box contact and in some appropriate situations other contact, and to ensure adopters do understand the complexities of the adoption triangle (child, birth/first parent/s, adopter/s). Even if you are very young, e.g. late teens, I think things will have probably changed a lot in the last couple of decades in terms of the training and preparation adopters in the UK get.

PS Chilleman where is the negativity you speak of? Genuine question.

There is a lot of negativity, Italian. I have read through thread after thread going back over the last couple of years. I really think the time has come to split the section and have one part as support to adopters/those who want to adopt and another part as support for people who have less than positive experiences of adoption.

I have given opinions on this thread which are just that - opinions. I haven't told anyone how to live their lives.

Devora you mention goady fuckers, but I haven't seen it, having read through thread after thread. I have seen people living difficult lives and talking about their experiences, and people contributing and being told they know nothing by other posters - all completely bizarre to me.

No I don't know Ian Josephs. I know very little about him. I find that question completely and utterly bizarre.

I regret writing the paragraph about shenanigans - it makes me sound very judgemental. At the time I was ill and worried about losing my baby and so I just wanted to stay safe, at that time. I think there are a lot of people who live in very difficult circumstances and their behaviour is as a result of that.

Devora, again, you don't like the word "real" - that is fine, but to me and probably half the world it does NOT imply the AM is "unreal" just like "natural" doesn't imply the AM is "unnatural". Just as Kewcumber has said that the author of the blog is an adult and should not be concerned about the word, which is fine, that is her opinion, surely she should say the same thing to you? I am not trying to be difficult here, just pointing out that the point of this thread is to show that what offends one person does not offend another and vice versa. No one is right or wrong in this respect.

IME when one person feels got at, the other person also feels got at. I have said - well, look, here is another perspective and I am being told I am being offensive. I know that what I am saying is not extreme or unusual because I have read the same issues being discussed in the mainstream. So what you say about listening not lecturing applies to us all, doesn't it?

PS the people I know of who were adopted talk happen about their bio parents as "real", probably because they were adopted a while ago and that was the language used at the time. Some of them having positive feelings towards bio parents, some neutral and some negative.

I guess the debate is what is a real mum. For adoptive or blended families (and those who have spent time around them) real mum is the person who has raised a child rather than given birth to them. Same goes for dads too.

I agree that for a lot of people 'real mum' is the automatic phrase which is used to describe birth mum as it is some sort of short hand. My experience is that this changes when people become exposed to families which are more complex than mum and dad, the 2.4 kids and a Labrador.

My issue with 'real mum' is mostly about it being used in front of my child.

I absolutely think that calling one 'person' (or one 'thing' for that matter) 'real', out of a choice of two or more, implies that the other is not real, unless you specify they are both real.

The same goes for the word 'natural' to a lesser extent. Just think about the implications for the child of the word natural. The natural mum of a child would of course be the woman who gave birth to her or him. But some parents have given up their child for adoption (not very much in the UK) and they have changed that natural relationship. Now i know that possibly this has happened under some form of duress, they may not really have wanted to but they felt it was best or had pressure put on them to do so. And I like many others would feel this was wrong, totally. I (and I am sure all adopters here, would totally disagree with any pressure being put on women to give up their baby, unless they really could not care for their baby). It is financial pressures and society pressures that cause this, not us who adopt in the UK, which has a very different system to the USA and other countries.

So totally that is a crap situation.

But the situation in the UK is that now mums are not encouraged to give up their babies if they can care for them, so those who do have chosen to do that and another person has chosen to care for that child. To imply that that person who chose to adopt is somehow unnatural seems cruel.

Likewise if a parent has lost parental rights over their child and another person looks after that child, then are they unnatural or unreal? My son thinks I am very real and to give children a language that they would find difficult seems unfair as they are the only person in the adoption triangle who has had no say in the matter!

Of course a birth mum can refer to themselves however they want to. But adoption is not about the parents, birth or adopted, it is about what is best for the child.

I cannot see how this thread is negative. I was asking because I could not see it. Of course people have described experiences that are negative, but that doesn't mean that they are being unrealistic, so one could equally say this thread is realistic, it is about real things that happen, and some are negative things.

Of course in the wider world there are a wide variety of topics discussed by people who know very little about them. That is fine, it is sometimes fun and I for one join in with that too. But on a selection of boards here, such as fertility, special needs and adoption people come with specific experiences and although they might be interested in how the world generally works for regular families, couples, individuals, that is not usually how it is for women or men with fertility issues, families affected by adoption or by children with special needs.

These boards have had a variety of people who post wanting to get a reaction, stir up an argument etc. It is not as common as it is in some other places but it does happen. Possibly those threads or individual comments are reported and deleted, which is why you may not find them.

If people who joined families by adoption or people whose children were adopted out of their families wanted their own section on mumsnet I would have no issue with that at all. I kind of feel it would be a small section of a small section and may not get much traffic but if people wanted it then that would be fine. Most posts here are from people who are thinking of adopting, are in the process of adopting or have adopted, but I am always very keen to hear from anyone who was adopted as a child or who has had children adopted because I want to learn from their experiences. Opinions are fine but I would rather learn from people who had experienced things.

One issue is that adoption is changing, a lot, over the years, and how adopters are trained etc. So people who were adopted as adults 40 or 30 or perhaps even 20 years ago may well have had a very different experience from children who are adopted today. So when people share experiences it is relevant how long ago that was.

Just because I don't necessarily agree with you combined and because I'm a sarcastic bitch with a child who needs more support doesn't mean I haven't had a positive experience of adoption.

I'm just not patient with people who make it sound like what they think is that the solution to just about every issue in adoption is that adoptive parents are more more tolerant and understanding. I'm sure that a bystander really can't mean that but that's what it "sounds" like.

Goady fucker threads aren't recent, but they were a bit relentless for a while and drove many of us off this board and it got very stilted. You need to read a bit more if you haven't found them yet - though to be fiar they aren;t always obvious from the title.

I'm really bored with having the "people who want to make general comments about adoption without getting sensitive adopters upset should have a separate section" conversation. It isn't going to happen, we've talked about it enough. I think it would work better if you just think about the fact that you are talking directly to parents whose children have suffered in some cases a great deal from their birth parents and in most cases have at the very least suffered as a result of the process of an adoption being necessary. We really don't need a lecture on how we need to consider that each birth parent is different and how we need to be more tolerant etc. It just comes across as patronising.

How would you feel if I wrote a post on health or SN about how you should handle the health condition your child has because I'd read about it on the internet or because my brother's child has it?

I really don't need a lecture on what to call my child's birth mother from someone who hasn;t actually had to have a conversation with their child about what they call their other mother, I don't need to be more tolerant or understanding (about DS's birth mother, though perhaps with posters on MN) and I don't need a separate board to spare my sensitive soul. I will just as likely say what I think on a general discussion about adoption than I will on a specific thread. It's always going to reply on people being sensitive to the audience they have - Special needs is open to everyone to post even if you don;t sign up to have it show on your active threads, but it wouldn't be particularly a good idea to join a discussion on a thread there explaining what parents of children with SN ought to be doing. At least not without expecting some pretty robust "discussion".

Everyone might be entitled to an opinion but:

a) not every opinion has to be given the same weight
b) you don't get to have it in a vacuum, people are entitled to have an opinion right back at'ya!

Disagreeing with what people say doesn't = negative. Sometimes people with practical experience will disagree with you for a good reason and calling it being negative is rather dismissive IMVHO