Advise please

[Catvsworld]

Hi We are with a agncey

We would like to change our child's name less than 100 children have been born in the U.K. With the name

Also sw admitted that BM had been Facebook stalking siblings

Our sw has told us that though the LA may kick up a stink they can't actually stop us putting the new name on the AO

Is this correct we want to put the old name as the middle name and the new name first

We are one of the couples who had a match fall through because of issues regarding a name. We were matched to siblings whose names when googled together brought up 9 results. Nine. BF had a proven history of internet searching and were members of various 'Social Services Stole My Child' groups which routinely post 'MISSING CHILD' posters online. We floated the idea of altering the spelling of one name, and changing the other to a name that sounded similar in order to mitigate what we felt were serious security concerns. Neither child was old enough to be aware of their identities as people with names, and our concerns regarding the name issue were supported by our SW. The children's SW objected strongly and insisted that their names should remain in order to preserve their link to the BF (the BF that had neglected and abused them). After numerous aggressive and unpleasant conversations, the match fell through. Our SW complained to the placing LA about the issue but we were told that it was their standard practice and therefore no one had done anything wrong - other than us. The fact that they were prepared to write off a match that they had chosen from the dozens of adopters who had enquired about the children, consigning them to several months longer in FC, because of it shows how militant and unreasonable some SW can be - and why people are advising the OP to keep schtum about it.

I'm not sure that you're fully aware of the issues surrounding this topic, Jellyfish. Children now are removed from BF for a variety of issues, very few are relinquished with BF supporting the placement. It is not uncommon for BF to attempt to find their children for years after the adoption. With unusual and uncommon names, names spelt unusally, rare combinations of names etc. the risk of BF searches being successful obviously increase dramatically. Keeping those names resigns the child (and their adoptive family) to a lifetime of keeping a low profile. Never being allowed to have an online presence in their real name, never being allowed to be in the paper for school achievements etc. it means the parents will forever be looking over their shoulders, frightened of using their children's names in public etc. Terrified people will link their children to some missing posters they saw online. Worried about going to public places. How is that a healthy, calm and happy atmosphere to raise a child? Adoption is hard enough without having to deal with unnecessary security risks.

There is a growing argument for name changes to become more common within adoption for these very reasons. There are several books available which explain why for some children a name change is vital for their future security. More progressive LA's are starting to encourage/suggest name changes in some cases, and are beginning to understand and accept the very real risk the internet poses to adoption.

There is also an argument about ensuring the child has an identity which matches their adoptive family and doesn't immediately mark them out as 'different'. This can be especially important for children adopted by families with birth children who have names chosen by the parents i.e Sue and Bob, with their children John, Sarah and Kristil-Neveah. Kristil-Neveah will always stand out as different to her siblings, she'll never be able to 'pretend' she's just like them, her adoption will be very easy to spot and as a result it removes her right to keeping it private and it being something she decides who knows about.

It is also important when changing names to do it from the start of the placement, so you can't wait months and years until you get to the point of applying for the AO before you do it. The child is a year older, and you've been calling them X all that time then suddenly you're calling them Y. As you can see from our experience, SW's have the power to drop a perfectly acceptable match just because you raise the issue of changing names.

No one is arguing about changing names just for the sake of it. The OP states that the child they are matched to has an unusual name, and the BF have a history of online stalking. Are you seriously saying that this isn't a good enough reason for changing their name?

I think Kristina is right, and that you're doing an awful lot of projecting onto this issue, and as a result are unable (or unwilling?) to see the whole picture. You clearly don't understand modern adoption and you're not listening when things are explained to you. You still haven't answered Kristina's question about how long a child has to have a name in your opinion before it becomes their identity, or what your thoughts are on birth parents changing the names of their birth children. You also seem to be under the impression that SW's are a group of people who have great wisdom, some do, unfortunately many don't. You only have to read some of the threads on here to see examples of SW incompetence. Also, SW's who are involved in the removal of children are often not the same ones who place them with adopters.

Finally, your tone and aggressive manner has turned what is always an emotive and controversial subject into a bunfight. Everyone here wants what is best for the children at the heart of the subject, not everyone will agree though.

P.S I have NC for this as the situation is quite identifying, and you seem happy to AS people and then drag up what they've said elsewhere.

tldr yes the same as mine

catsvworld your post is a bit jumbled, sorry. Who is "she"? What question exactly? It is already acknowledged in law that a name can be changed if it is in the best interest of the child and I have also said that. I have said that if a name is so seriously in need of change because of security or other (ie that includes mad names) then there is no need to lie about it or avoid discussion on it. Possibly your judgement is out - is that beyond possibility?

Jelly, I'm assuming that you've not yet seen my post, but as you can see there is a reason to avoid discussion with social workers. It is not uncommon for social workers to object to name changes regardless of the situation. Therefore by raising it you are running the very real risk that you may lose the link to a child you have emotionally attached to. Do you understand what we're saying?

Ironincallyanewname I am sorry that you feel that a match failed because of name issues and I am sorry that you feel that your LA was not progressive enough to understand the issues. If I had been in your situation before the match failed I probably would have got advice from a solicitor. Presumably the match may have failed for other reasons even if that wasn't made clear. Issues about inappropriate names are not exclusive to adoption. A court has recently prevented a family from giving a child a particular name. I can assure you I have a pretty good knowledge of the issue - as I said a close family member was a child protection social worker, and I have read up on the subject. And, of course, I was the subject of a court order myself. And prior to that had been in care and fostered. I think it is unhelpful to raise my relevant knowledge as it is impossible to know who has more knowledge, understanding or experience on the subject, you or I. So possibly we should focus on the issues.

In relation to projection I think you misunderstand what it means. In relation to how I feel about my name changes, I think it would be somewhat presumptive for you to say I am projecting in relation to that. It is unlikely you or Kristina would have the professional expertise to decide what is likely projection and what is not. It also seems to be the fallback comment in this section towards adoptees who have an opinion which is found challenging (even if valid).

There is also an argument about ensuring the child has an identity which matches their adoptive family and doesn't immediately mark them out as 'different' I have not seen this argument and as an adoptee I would not agree at all, it simplifies issues of identity and would do more harm than good. In relation to names, names which are used in day to day life can be adapted as per the family there is no need for a change to the birth certificate. Although sometime names should be changed, I agree, i would not agree that sofia should be changed to sophia (as per a pp's comment). The foregoing is a SUBJECTIVE response. Because I am making it clear it is SUBJECTIVE (as i usually do). That means just my opinion. No projecting.

*You still haven't answered Kristina's question about how long a child has to have a name in your opinion before it becomes their identity, or what your thoughts are on birth parents changing the names of their birth children" yes I have. More than once. See my last post to Kristina about when a name because real. In relation to bio parents changing names see what I have written about the fact that the rights are the same as for adopters AFTER the adoption. There are restrictions in place in relation to changing names of birth children for everyone. I have said this a few times...

Finally, your tone and aggressive manner has turned what is always an emotive and controversial subject into a bunfight. Everyone here wants what is best for the children at the heart of the subject, not everyone will agree though. The bunfight is because I have said things which are challenging, not because my tone has been aggressive or because anything I have said is inflammatory or a personal attack. It happens every time someone writes something challenging (but valid). The posts to me have been rude and personal. And you have joined in the attack rather than just focussing on the issues.

P.S I have NC for this as the situation is quite identifying, and you seem happy to AS people and then drag up what they've said elsewhere. As do most of the adopters. My point is that goalposts and opinions shift in this section, and quite often a group of adopters will come on and agree with eachother even if what they have said was wrong, or in contrary to something they have said previously, or rude. I would say that is a clique and bullying and it is not acceptable. I have read numerous posts where adoptees contribute in a perfectly nice way and get told they are projecting. BMs referred as the people who fuck up the children, as a group. Totally unacceptable. So before you criticise me, get your own act together. (And I say "your own" as a group because on some threads a group of you refer to yourselves as "we"... and some of you apparently email eachother in private about what to say next...)

There is a need to not mention it jelly, adopters have no rights whatsoever if SWs object, none.

(Hello ironically! We miss you!)

Holy crap, are you kidding?

Adopters in sometimes talk to each other shocker.

There is nothing here bullying, there is you being in a (very) small minority on this issue, that is all.

It's like banging ones head against a brick wall jelly

I have already said the LA have said no name change no matter the risk or crimstance that's there policey

Like I said if the child's name was hilter poop the name they would require me to keep the name

I am not really sure what part of that your not clear on

So if the stance is no name change even if the child is called fluffy mc fluff many LAs won't even allow the name to be spelt in a traditional way if the name is ok but spelt oddly

So candeee would not be able to ba changed to candy that is there starting point

I think you should have a and leav the thread you clearly wanting to goad other posters and are not providing me support of any useful advise if you have issue please start your own thread on relationships

You are right about one thing though. The match with ironically could have broken down for other reasons. But it certainly looked like it wasn't unconnected.

As the LA don't need to explain, she'll never know though. And she has no right of appeal. And those kids got left in FC.

And if you think that's okay just because she raised it, I definitely think you're wrong.

So I just going to ingnore jelly now

So we're due to put the order in soon so I should just put the new name in followed by the old name as the middle name?

Our child only knows her new name now as do out other children we have been calling her by the new name since introductions so she only responds to that name

Have you the forms, cat?

IIRC there's literally a line that says 'Child to be known as' or similar for the full new name.

A blanket policy is insane.

Presumably LA has no problem with changing surname. I don't understand why that's any less of an identity.

Do I print them off?

Do you know, I can't remember. Maybe start a 'how do I apply for AO' thread.

I know it's bizzare however our sw that will go in our favour if they did try and make a noise in court

And our sw is very clear that it's our choice espically with the issues of stalking and the lack of other children with that name

PLEASE NOTE: I haven't liaised with anyone else about what to say, either in this post or any other post I have ever written. I am perfectly capable of composing a response without the input of other people. FYI: Adopters are individuals - we're not a homogeneous mass with only one opinion. People use 'we' to mean the group of previous posters with the same opinion on this matter. On the next thread they might be disagreeing with each other.

Jelly, the fact you think getting a solicitor involved would have changed the situation is a perfect example of how little you understand the process these days. It would have done absolutely nothing to further our cause and would have ensured that the match would fall through instantly. The match did not fall through for any other reason than our concern about names. I am not sure what part of that you're not understanding? Have I not been clear enough? I have written proof that that is the case, and it was also reiterated verbally to both us and our social worker on several occasions.

If we're not allowed to say you're projecting because we're (and I am assuming this includes Kristina?) not suitably qualified in psychology, then what makes you think you can tell us what we're saying happens when you adopt is wrong when you haven't adopted (and appear to know very little about modern adoption)?

I am shocked that you haven't read about the reasons for changing 'mad' names to match the adoptive family if, like you say, you've read up on the subject? Can I ask what books you've read? Given our experiences, this is a topic that we did an awful lot of research on and I'm always keen to read more. (By we I mean DH and I just in case you think I'm frantically PM-ing adopter-HQ about what to say)

If you feel that any of the posts have been a personal attack or that there is any bullying, then you should report them and MNHQ can have a look. I don't agree that any are, and I think you don't like that we're not all instantly agreeing with what you say. This section of MN covers all sections of adoption and we've managed fine for years. There are numerous adoptees and birth mothers who post and who are supported here, along with the majority who are adopters. No one feels bullied (apart from those who come in and tell us how we're all wrong and not doing things right and then take the hump and call us bullies when we don't agree with them).

(just so you know, the fact I know tldr is not proof of us conspiring to write supporting posts)

I wouldn't trust a sw to find their arse with both hands personally. What choice do you have though?

In the interests of complete 'adoption mafia' disclosure I did just text ironically to tell her how sorry I am that some know nothing on the Internet questioned her version of events that were completely heartbreaking for her and suggested that if it had happened to HER things would have been different. Total empathy bypass...

My SW gave me the AO forms so not sure if you can print them off. She just left them with me with no explanation but even I managed it . It does have a section for your legal rep details but unless you have been told you need legal just leave it blank. My local court has a couple of people who specifically look after the admin for adoption/family issues and are really helpful when I call with questions so I would suggest you try yours if you don't want to ask SW or if like me you can never get hold of your SW!

I'm feeling left out, I'm not in anyones gang

What a shame this thread has turned out the way it has. I think naming is a complex and emotive subject but really - this is the ideal place to discuss it and I hope people who are reading this won't be put off getting advice they may need.

Anyway, I think some may not fully understand the game-playing that often goes on in the adoption process, particularly around names. When I adopted dd2 I intended just to shorten her name slightly into a more conventional spelling - because of the security risk, and because of the unique spelling which would lead to a lifetime of people asking if her parents were illiterate. For day to day use, we continued with the nickname she had had since going into foster care at a few weeks old.

Several months later, we discovered that the security risk was far higher than previously thought, and the social worker hadn't bothered to tell us. In fact, she seemed to enjoy winding us up by telling us lurid stories about what the bf was capable of and how we had criminal networks that would allow him to track us down, no question. So I raised the question at a review meeting on how we could be protected. Blow me down, one of the social workers suggested changing her name. I said, stupidly: "But I thought we weren't allowed to change her name?" Social worker says, "Well no, that's what we tell you, but most adopters do." The two other social workers present nodded.

So it seems there's a certain amount of social worker posturing about this. They tell you not to, but they expect you to anyway. But they can't say so, because panel might not like it. That, I think, is why people are suggesting leaving them out of the decision.

I'm quite cross about it because I think it has left us a bit exposed. We could have changed her name at 6 months old (I would have given her her birth mother's middle name as a first name, and kept her uniquely spelt first name as the middle name), but by 18 months it felt too late to confuse her.

Well some of them expect you to. And some of them react like ironically has described. And how on earth are you supposed to know which kind you have?

It's an entirely virtual friendship mintylizzy

but only because you'd need to be milk tray man to get to ironically in her high tower

Adoption will always be an emotive subject some people will always believe children should stay in birth families, not many birth families will ever agree that removal was best for the child and I think you have to be a very special and kind person if as an adoptor you don't hold any ill feeling towards those that neglected and often abused your children. There will never be perfect way of doing it because unfortunatly as human beings we will always find a new way to be awful to others, the temptations are only increasing for those who have addictive personalities and budget cuts are seeing so many people with MH issues left untreated. Is a vicious circle for many generations and can be a hard cycle to break. The system isn't perfect and I for one wouldn't know where to start in having a 'perfect' system. Adoptors 20 plus years ago didn't have half the issues today's adoptors face in terms of social media, the world is shrinking and is only getting smaller. It is a sad fact that many children are given such random names by BF as they know the children are going to be removed and do so with the express purpose of believing they can track them via social media in a few years. Some BF may be seen as more of a threat I.e have made specific threats but even in relatively straight forward cases and no matter how low risk the BF family are they were considered unfit for very good reasons and I for one feel sick to think that when my DS hits his teens and is no doubt on social media he is contacted by them out if the blue. If and when my son decides he wants to know more or reach out I want to ensure it is done in a safe and managed way. Just as there are child/parent relationships within birth families that aren't great the same can be said for adopted families. We all have our own experiences but I still have i believe an open mind and don't 'tarnish' all with the same brush. Identity is VERY important HOWEVER safety both physically and emotionally must come first. I would much rather work with my son to understand the reason why we became a family and who his first family are rather than pick up the pieces of secret contact. As parents we must judge what we see as a threat and everyone will have differing opinions on what is a threat and what isn't. It's impossible to have everything as top priority and it's impossible to have a set order of priorities because our children have such varied backgrounds and needs.

There have been some very valid points made about our adopted children 'fitting in'. How different would they feel having an outlandish/clearly made up name with siblings like John and Sarah, I feel it would do more harm to their identity to beforever 'the adopted one'.

Modern day adoptors also agree to share their child's background with them as they grow. I have a contract with my own LA that DS will know everything I do about his background before coming to me by the time he is ten years old. I also believe that many adoptors do far more work with their children re identity that a birth family ever would.

I am not mocking you, I am not being sarcastic or rude and I am not disbelieving anything you have said about your own background .

When I ask you for facts, you see it as a personal attack . It's not . It's called a discussion.

You have repeatedly suggested that adoptive parents ( like many people here ) should have fewer rights than biological parents ( like you ) . Thats a very radical suggestion . Some people might find it offensive.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain logically why you think that a group of people should lose some of their legal rights and you have failed to do so . Except to say " well I don't like the decisions that my parents made" .

If you came on here saying " well I think that black people should have fewer rights than white people " , you would be asked to explain and justify your argument .

It wouldn't be convincing to say " because I don't like the decisions that one black person made " .

You have accused other people of dishonesty and doing things that are illegal. When it's been pointed out that you are wrong , you have NOT withdrawn your allegations. You have just said " well that's my opinion " .

You have based your arguments on a string of facts that are wrong ( I got a new BC, judges don't know the contents of an adoption petition , identity is all about name, names are decided soon after birth and never changed , SW are experts on this issue ) and your own opinions ( adoptive parents cannot be trusted the way other parents can ).

Your argument basically goes

1. I don't like the decisions my parents made.
2. Because I don't like it, that makes it wrong.
3. All adopters make bad decisions and need supervised by someone In Authority
4. Adopters should not have the same rights in law as other parents .
5. Adopters here who have taken decisions that I dislike are morally wrong and perhaps doing something illegal.
6. Adopters who do things that I don't like are not considering the welfare of their child .

You have failed to provide evidence of any kind for any of the above , apart from " well that's how I feel " . I think that the adopters on these boards who you have accused and attacked have been very patient with you .

I suspect that people have cut you some slack because you are an adoptee and adopters generally like to learn more about adoptees views .

But I can see that this is going in circles and so I will bow out .

Oops I'm sorry , I hadn't refreshed the thread and I see I'm replying to a post from yonks ago and the discussion has ( thank goodness ) moved on .

Sorry peeps