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

Taking the combined view here, it's surely not a big leap to imagine that:

• different local authorities, and individual SWs, interpret guidance differently
• different courts, different judges, also interpret the law to the best of their ability, insight and experience, but will vary
• adopters posting on a public forum are not going to broadcast detailed examples of massive security risks (but think of a worst case scenario and x by a thousand)

To go back to the "due process" point, it is followed, whether or not there is prior combined discussion between adopters and SWs. Nothing is secret or a surprise. The adopters complete part of the AO application; SWs complete the rest. The combined form goes to the court. There is a hearing attended by SWs, open to birth family, which adopters are generally advised not to attend. The judge makes the decision based on the combined evidence, statements, and previous history.

If someone were, oddly, inclined to try and "slip something through", the combined eyes of the adopters' SW, the child's SW, the LA legal advisor, and the judge ALL see the AO application details. All those people discuss it, before the decision is made.

Is it the adoptive parents' duty of care to ensure they consider the short and long term safety of the child? Absolutely. Will that mean later having a potentially difficult and emotional discussion when their adopted child is older, risking the older child blaming them etc etc? Absolutely. But that combined balancing of risks means the adopters putting their child's safety first, which sometimes means keeping all their existing names, sometimes means a small adjustment or moving first name to middle name, and sometimes means a new first name.

There is loss in so many stages of the process - all that can be done is to handle it as honestly, sensitively and ethically as we are able, putting the child first.

Another wave for ironically. You are much missed.

Jellyfish re "Italian, the main point was that it is the child's rights which are of concern here not the bm's rights. Your comment came across to me as a general comment about all bms - is that what you meant?"

I am a bit lost here but here is what I think.

You are assuming that I am not concerned about the rights of the child. But I am. We kept ds's name as we felt it was right for him.

We have also done everything we can, within reason, since the day we took him home to be our son.

I think when social workers are overly concerned about a child, especially a very young child, keeping a birth name I feel that these concerns are primarily about keeping birth family happy. If the concerns about the name are about keeping birth family happy then I feel they are wrong because the only person who everyone should be working towards ensuring has a happy and healthy future is the one person who had no choice at all about their presence in the adoption triangle, the child.

The reason I think birth family are upper in the minds of some social workers is because our lovely (and I genuinely liked social worker) SW asked birth family why they picked names for ds and told us what they said. The reason for the birth parents' reason for choosing a name is only really important for them, not for ds.

The reason I feel that sometimes it is birth family that hold sway and not the concerns about the child are that:

Most very young child would not be alarmed if their name changed. Indeed some want to change it. Our son was quite keen to try a new name, his decision, we chose not to go along with it because we felt it was not in his best interests, although if I am honest if social workers had thought it was I would have considered it. Not because they are always right but because they wold not have caused an issue with it if the idea had come from them.

The cons against changing a name are in my opinion outweighed by the pros for quite young children. Our son was not quite young, he was nearly four and not only did he know his own name, he could spell it! The pros for very young children or for any where there are security issues are in relation to safety, which no social worker can really guarantee, and as I said before social worker won't be there when any shit hits any fans in years to come.

In the modern age of social media, names are a huge thing and to a large extent our son won't be free to use his name on social media very easily IMHO.

I think in 10 years times social workers will advise many more families to name change.

So the reason I comment on birth parents not getting to decide whether a child kept a name was because whatever is done in relation to children in the care system should be in their interests and not in the interests of their birth families, although sometimes those interests will align and of course then we can do things that make everyone bit happier, like potentially letterbox.

Should one do things that are helpful for adoptive parents? Not if it is not in the best interests of the child but if it has no affect on the child then sometimes we have to think that adoptive parents and child's interests will be best served together. For example delays that see children stay longer in care than is necessary may hurt both child and adoptive parents. And collectively this is very unhelpful for all but especially for the child. A child needs a good stable family more than a parent needs a child to be placed with them. Once one is a parent it is all change hopefully the feelings of love etc are all reciprocated. But before placement there is not real love in place, just potential. The potential for a couple or individual to become a parent to a specific child. If the link falls through then the parents may meet another potential child and all go ahead and they become parents. if they never do, it will be very sad, but may not be a tragedy for them.

Likewise for a child if the match falls apart they may also go on to find another equally suitable or even more suitable match. Or things could take a turn for the worse and they do not find a suitable home and grow up in care. For social workers to risk a good link for a child, which could become a forever family, over something of this nature is to me wrong. Because ultimately when parents adopt social services are trusting them to make all kinds of (basically almost every) decision in the lives of the young child and if they do not trust parents to make this fairly basic decision then they should not have brought the family and child to the point of link/match.

Ratherbeindoors thank you for setting out the process, and what you have said in your first para is exactly right - no big leap there at all. I note your view that even if adopters are being advised by some other adopters not to raise name changes in advance you still consider due process to be being followed. The articles I attach discuss reasons for names changes other than security and how common it is, in case you are interested.

Pockets you wrote "Adopters can ask about changing names, they shouldn't worry about situations like that which ironically has described because those situations don't really exist. That's true because you read it somewhere.". I have NOT said I don't believe the serious situations exist and I have NOT said name changes are not ever justified - I have said the OPPOSITE. I hadn't done any reading before I started posting on this thread - in the post you quote I wanted to quote something in writing from an adoption body website to illustrate what I had said, although that quote certainly doesn't indicate that security issues do not exist either.

Pockets I meant to also say that I have NOT said that I do not believe Ironically or others when they say that matches could fall through because of name changes issues either.

PI should clarify that my views on pros and cons are about unusual names or unusual spellings or multiple namesWhen the child has a fairly regular bog standard name with a bog standard spelling I cannot see any reason to change it unless, again, there are special circumstance or a child in the family with the same name etc.

I've known adopted children with really the most popular names where you would not bat an eye lid and a few with quite unusual names that might encourage questions like 'how do you spell that' and people getting it wrong, perhaps a lot.

Italian thank you for explaining your views. I certainly wasn't suggesting that you would not do the best you could for your adopted child, I am quite sure the opposite is true. I have read the rest of your post too. I would doubt very much that the key reason why name changes are discouraged is to do with bm interests and instead are all to do with child's interest. Most very young child would not be alarmed if their name changed I don't think that there is any evidence whatsoever which supports that and most of the information available seems to go the other way - but if you know of research please let me know. My bet would be on no name changes in 10 years - I wonder which of us will be right! In relation to the bits of your final 2 paras which relate to care, ie foster home vs adoptive home, again I don't agree, or at least I think it is more complicated than that, but I absolutely respect your opinions.

I thought the reason for keeping the birth name was because it was one thing the birth parent did for the child and it was the child's link with the birth family, not to keep the birth parents happy..

It's hardly " the one thing the birth parent did for the child " ! How insulting to birth parents . The mother conceived the child , carried it and gave birth . Some people also parent for months or even years .

Both parents give the child it's compete genetic heritage . Which is the main determinant of their physical appearance , their height, build, colour of hair, eyes and skin . It had a huge influence upon their character, personality , intelligence , interests etc etc

All of these things link the child to their birth family . I'm linked to my family by things as big as my intelligence ( or lack of it ) to tiny things such as the type of salt we like . My sister and I have the same hands . My dad and I enjoy the same sport .

Honestly , sometimes I think that people just come out with this trite rubbish without even thinking .

Absolutely true, I stand corrected.

I am not talking about security situations. I am talking about the situation ironically has recounted where her match failed because of her asking about changing a name. You have clearly stated that adopters can ask about changing names because you read that somewhere. You have been told that is NOT the case because we know of at least one case (ironically's) where raising that question resulted in the failure of the match.

And you HAVE questioned her version of these events - you did it here for one:

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

I've done lots of things on MN but I don't normally have to ask people to read their OWN posts!

Your posting style of implying things quite belligerently and then backtracking is really familiar...

Jellyfish I've no empirical evidence a name change won't affect a child but as was mentioned before birth families change names of children sometimes and on Mumsnet when this is discussed no one comes on to the thread asking about it and saying that the name should not be changed.

I know two mums who told everyone their child would be called XYZ then came back and said ABC. In both cases I am not aware of any issues.

As I explained if a name is a standard name then I would say not to change it. I would only change where a name was identifying (because of security issues) or liable to lead to bullying, or would make the child stand out in their peers.

At my dd and ds's school there are quite a lot of unusual names so really a name would need to be fairly unusual to stand out.

The thing about evidence that a name change is troublesome/difficult etc for a child is that in addition to the name change an adopted child would have (at the very least) the trauma of the removal from a birth mother/family and most children nowadays are not simply removed from birth parents (e.g. relinquished). They would also have certain risks invitro, such as alcohol and/or drugs - and/or problems early or later on in the family home.

These difficulties could all add potentially to any difficulties experienced by the child, so how would one be able to isolate that the name-change was a factor. A child might fixate on a name, but how could one really say, my name was changed and that did me more harm than the fact my mum took drugs when I was in the womb!

Before I became an adopter I read about potential 'issues' for birth parents (not of children relinquished at birth) and read things like mental health issues, learning difficulties, drugs, alcohol, and I thought, ah it's one of those four things.... but the reality was many families had at least two of these issues in the family. These things and the loss of a birth parent and the loss of a foster parent/family will all impact a child. How does one isolate a name change?

The safest way (IMHO) is to say not to change the first name unless their are compelling reasons to do so. But when there are compelling reasons to do so, then these should be discussed and a way forward found. The reality is there is no discussion of it, because social workers discourage it.

And I may be wrong and my memory of four years ago failing me but I think a social worker said something like the name is the only thing birth parents give there child!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I find it hard to believe the person who wrote the Guardian article is aware of adoption at all!

He said "For prospective parents, some aspects of the adoption process share an unhappily common aesthetic with brochure shopping: snap judgments are made based on a picture and a little bit of information."

I cannot imagine any family, couple or individual seeking to bring a new child into the family, with all the potential issues that that may bring about, and making the decision based on snap judgments based on a picture. That is very insulting and frankly ludicrous!

"It's a queasy process all round, and one prospective adopters just have to wade through, not thinking too hard about it. They look at photographs, read profiles, wait until a face starts to sing out, and make the appropriate inquiries." Sorry but this is utter twaddle. When we adopted our son we had to face the prospect that what we were choosing to do have serious repercussions for our existing child as well as ourselves, would we have done this on the basis that his picture sang out to us! No, we did not even see a picture to start with.

The linked to Mail on Sunday article states about children named after alcoholic drinks. The main reason anyone would not want a child to be named after an alcoholic drink is because said child might be bullied at school, not because it would offend the delicate sensibilities of an adoptive parent!

The factsheet from MN adopt (which is an organisation in the USA where adoption is very different to here) is interesting but not something that most UK adopters would not know about these days IMHO.

The clue that it was not from the UK, the thing that made me look to see where it was from, was that it mentioned international adoption, which is very rare in the UK.

The factsheet states...

"For many adoptive parents and adoptive children, there is extra meaning in claiming a child through
naming. The parent gives the child the family’s surname to fold the child into their “clan.” Many adoptive
parents also give their adopted child a new first and/or middle name, and this is the stage where the
concept of name = identity can get more muddled."

I think this statement is muddled. There is a big difference between changing a first name when it is known by a child and adding a new middle name and/or changing a new middle name. Why conflate the two things in one statement. Maybe so you can say ...many adoptive
parents. And I do not think that this statement is true of UK adopters. Many I know have kept their child's birth first name. The one I can think of who changed it this was due to it being identifying.

My son did not believe the middle name his parents gave him was his middle name. He did not even know it! He did not want it and social workers still encouraged us to keep it! - which we did!

Plus this fact sheet really seems to be talking about children much older than the usual child at adoption, referring at one point to 'Talking to the youth about naming...'.

Apart from that it does have some interesting things to say but it is not anything most UK adopters would not have been faced with and it does not address safety and security issues which is, I think, the main reason adopters on mumsnet ask about name changes.

To be honest I am not sure I liked the Huff post article much more and you may be surprised to know that I don't agree with them changing their daughter's name from Rhianna to Hannah.

Although I do agree with the change from Abbey to Abigail, as to be honest it is less of a name change and more of a name extension! Plus, most significantly of all, the choice came from the child.Yes, the change to Hannah came from the child in the end but was it because she felt it was needed to fit in.

I'd have loved to elongate ds's name - say Bob to Robert or shorten it, say Alfonso to Al.

But he knew his name and was happy, and we were satisfied there were no security risks.And if he ever does catch up with birth family it would make life easier for him to have the same name.

At the end of the article it says "The girls themselves haven't forgotten their old names and, like the rest of their story, we talk openly about it all whenever they want to." This is crucial.

The story of our children is their story, from beginning to end.

Kr1stina I have just reread my post and I only said it was 'one thing given to the child by its parents' not 'the' one thing.
A small child won't be aware of physical attributes or personality traits, but it will be aware of its name.

I have also re read and I see that you are right. I apologise for misquoting you . I do however note that you say it is " the child's link with the birth family ". Which does imply that it is the ONLY link. Otherwise surely you would have said

" one of the child's LINKS with the birth family " .

Along with the many thing I mentioned before. And other things I didn't mention , like sexual and physical abuse, neglect , exposure to drugs and alcohol , mental illness and domestic Violence .

I can assure you that my children will carry these links with their birth family throughout their lives . No decision of the court, no piece of paper or deed poll can ever fix that .

You say children are aware of their name but not their appearance . But at in fact most young children with are usually aware of things like their appearance( I have brown hair and brown skin and you have blond hair and blue eyes ) , their sex ( I'm a girl and you are a boy ) and their age ( I'm 3 and in nursery and and you are dad ) . All these things are determined by their birth parents .

But we are taking about adoptees of all ages, surely , not just " young children " ? So that woudl include 3 month old babies and men of 50. They both have identities I think .

Great comments Italian. I'm also going to add that I don't find newspapers (or blogs) to be compelling sources of evidence in the complex psycho-social field of adoption. Find me something peer-reviewed or academically published, or supported by Adoption UK etc, and I might read it with more interest. To my knowledge at the moment, there is not a separate piece of research, although broader questions of identity are explored in numerous reference books (see Kim Golding, Dan Hughes, Amber Elliott, Louise Bomber, Kate Cairns, Joy Rees - if you're interested Jellyfish). I believe, so far, that it has not been possible to separate out specific causes of post-adoption difficulties, into those caused by pre-natal experience, early neglect, the trauma of one or multiple moves, and any neurological or other medical concerns. To further sub-divide that into categories that get down to a change of name AND demonstrate none of the other potential causes of trauma, would end up with a study group of zero, I suspect.

I am not minimising the impact of a change of name, or suggesting it should be considered for reasons other than security/right to a private childhood. However, others may be under-estimating the vast day to day investment of time in helping a child assimilate their roots, through life story books and talks. All the adoptive parents I know (and me) work extremely hard to help their child understand their beginning, from a very young age. I realise I don't know all the adopters in the world, so this is a self-selected sample group, but I can say it is entirely in line with training and guidance adopters receive.

Kr1stina my apology still stands. I do not always think through my posts.
My experience is of very young children going from fostering to adoption, not older children.

I agree totally with Italian and ratherbeindoors. The articles linked are individual opinions of people within the adoption world - I don't see that they carry any more weigh than opinions here. As you can see from the articles themselves, none of them link to any actual research into the impact of names, just reiterating current thinking which previous posters have shown they are aware of. The internet has totally changed this issue and social workers broadly haven't caught up with it yet. They will have to.

I didn't even make it to end of the Guardian one, though to my surprise I thought the Daily Mail one linked from the Graun was quite interesting.

jelly I also want to address the point you made about ironic and how you would have spoken to a solicitor in her situation.
That would have been a pointless exercise with a high price tag. A solicitor won't advise you on another organisations policies unless they are legal points. They may well have worked with the LA many times but they won't know all the procedures and policies for the LA - why would they? And they certainly won't advise you what might piss of a particular social worker. As we've said a few times - these aren't rules set in stone - it's current thinking, best practice and opinions.

Ironic explained - there was a match deemed suitable by all parties and progressing however one with a glaring security issue for the child. A question about that issue resulted in the link being terminated and the impact that has on all parties involved. In a different LA (mine), a match was deemed suitable by all parties and was progressing however one with a glaring security risk. We changed the name without issue. That's the issue here the OP was asking advice on - if she raises a name change in conversation, her LO might be removed, she may have to attend meetings to get bollocked about it by an angry LA, she may get no reaction at all. She has no rights. So she has to decide does she just fill in the form with the new name and see if anyone notices or raise it officially and risk uncertainty.

And a third LA (mine) where the LA actually suggested name change. (We'd been too nervous to raise it.)

pockets you are getting it wrong, I am afraid, not me. You quoted what I wrote to Ironically and I have already said to you that I wrote that and after I wrote that Ironically then said she had had it confirmed by letter so that was definitely the reason - and I have said I have no reason to doubt her words. I have said this in reply to you already.

I have not said you "can" talk about it because I have "read it somewhere", I have said that if and when you are required/expected to discuss it then that is what should be done even if there is a risk the match will fail ie follow due process. I don't mind you disagreeing but I haven't backtracked or changed anything....

jelly
In your interpretation does 'due process' require adopters to mention it if no-one else does?

thefamilyvonstrop I agree that the two articles are opinions and carry the same weight as those on here - they each see things from different angles. The third document contains guidelines and I think that the guidelines probably do indicate what research says? In relation to what you say about Ironically I do fully understand what has been said already. I understand you feel you have no rights at that stage. I understand sometimes bad decisions are made and it makes adopters fearful.