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

tldrI asked the same question ....

You think people should raise it even though they know it might cause the match to fail?!

OK.

Sorry, I missed the long posts by Italien. Italian, the article in the Guardian was written by a rep for a panel, so I think he would have wide experience of talking to adopters/hearing the issues raised by them, I am sad to say. I agree with you re Hannah and Rihanna.

ratherbeindoors, thanks for mentioning the books.

pockets Yes I do.

Italian forgot to say, re the US document, afaik research findings re adoption in the jurisdictions do not conflict, but the way the research finds it way into policy differs.

jelly

You think adopters should mention it, even though it may cause the match to fail, even though there's no actual requirement on them to do so?

My god.

The only requirement is that they put the new name on the application form, where they'd be putting the new surname anyway (and, again, I note, no-one seems to take issue with that).

tldr is there definitely no expectation that it would be raised? Across the board? How does that fit with blanket policies of no name changes?

I have no idea what any individual LAs policy is. But if no one asks me, and I'm not obligated to tell, and it risks me getting my children, why would I raise it?

Italian, sorry about the piecemeal replies, but when you talk about bio parents changing names without issue that isn't right. Names on birth certificates can only be changed in limited circs - the first name can only be changed at 12 months if the child has been known as that name for the whole 12 months since birth (ie identity issue presumably) or something to do with baptism. A child's name can be changed by deed poll if in the best interest of the child (you have to state that on the deed) but it won't change the name on the birth certificate. But you can get a passport in the deedpoll name, I think. It seems there are issues not related to adoption.

Like I said, our SW raised it with us. We discussed possible names together. DH and i decided which to use (on our own). We told our SW. SW told other SW, no one told panel. No drama.

Last time you referred to matching you said In relation to matching, I appreciate that for an adopter it is a highly emotive subject but it is worth bearing in mind that the professionals involved (if they are doing their job properly) will throw all the info about the adopter into the pot and views on names would be thrown into the pot to form a picture of the adopter. In my situation poor matching was painful both for me and for my adoptive parents, and it took a little while for the poor matching to show (the younger years are usually much easier for both the adopter and the adoptee, generally, I think). I do think that some of the comments of the adopters on here betray a lack of wider understanding - it is ironic that the same comment has been made about me! So there it is.

That clearly implies that there were other factors that ironically wasn't aware of. You can't keep implying things and then saying 'I never said that'. My six year old does that and it's annoying from her...

I'm sorry. I clearly assume too much when I'm posting on the Internet. On this thread I've been assuming that no-one would recommend a course of action which might result in someone having their children taken away. I will clearly have to review those underlying assumptions.

Stand by for threads on 'Playing with fire - fun or folly?' and 'Radical brain surgery - pay the professionals or DIY? '

jelly the reason why they mention a blanket no name change policey because most adopters then get scared and don't dare raise it again not relising that it's nit actually law but a guide line and that if they just keep quite change the name on the adoption order then nothing can be done

We're as if you raise it again or press the matter the match or link and be stopped

So for example a LA my have a blanket policey but a judge may feel that it would be silly for a child to have the same first name as the adopters seconed name William Williams for example and is very likely to see it the adoptes way if the LA even notice at all witch is ironic as lots of adopts who have just changed it at ao stage have said the LA didn't even notice after making quite a large point about not changing the name

jelly just so we're clear and you understand the due process

You are not required to discuss name change with la or any one you get the form and fill it in it is however curtsey to mention any changes your going to make

For example I wouldn't be required to tell LA I am moving house after I got my AO but it's considered polite to do so

I've been staying out of this because whilst we have moved on and accepted what happened, it's still an emotive topic and not a period of time I wish to revisit.... Especially not with someone who has combined such startling levels of ignorance with such aggressive and upsetting posts.

I've come back because I'd like you to clear something up for me. The section of Jelly's post that Pockets has highlighted above (I'm on my phone so can't copy etc), gives the impression that you think we were unsuitable parents for the children because we raised the issue of names and security, Jelly? You imply that you were poorly matched to your parents and that we were also a poor match and as such the social workers were right to pull the plug when they did. Is that correct?

You said earlier that you'd read about this topic and didn't like the implication that we (as in previous posters) feel we know more about it because you knew just as much. You've since admitted you've not read any books. So, which is it?

P.S I'd like to write something here about hands and bridges but it's not allowed so I won't.

Hmm, someone doesn't agree with you, so they are a troll?

Pockets, yes I did write that, exactly. It was clear and direct. Nothing implied. Nothing specifically about Ironically's situation - all I said to ironically was maybe it wasn't to do with the name change and she said yes it was - end of subject. I think your other comments are a bit inflammatory, and say more about you than they do about me.

Ironically, given that you said I was projecting, I could easily say that you were writing the inflammatory comments not me. And in relation to clearing something up, I have already responded to your misunderstanding - I said that when I had said I had read up on the subject i was talking about modern adoption, not name changes. What I have said on here has not been inflammatory and has not been a personal attack. I am sorry if you have been hurt, but that was not my fault and it is no excuse for some of your comments to me.

Ironically, before you start accusing me of things again, I wrote the following on Fri 20th: "Ironcially. I have read around modern adoption, not about name changing. I have said elsewhere in the thread that I wish I knew more about research around namechanging."

How is it not Jelly? You implied DH and I weren't good enough parents for the children in question because we were concerned about the security issues and our suggested solution was changing a name and editing another; shortly after you said that if it had happened to you, you'd have sorted it with a solicitor. You know nothing about me, the situation or any of the surrounding issues, yet you implied I was either lying, or misunderstood the reasons the match fell through, then that we wouldn't be good enough parents for those children. You consistently say inflammatory and hurtful things, then say you didn't mean it like that when called on it. I think they're pretty solid grounds for being pissed off, tbh.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me - but much like if I turned up at NASA and started started questioning them on rockets etc, they would probably get justifiably annoyed with my insistence that I was right, I think most people on this thread are justifiably annoyed at you posting from your position of knowing nothing about this topic beyond you're not happy about having had your name changed and telling us we're all wrong and don't understand things.

I don't think you're a troll. I do think you have an agenda.

Ironically, you quite clearly haven't been reading my posts - why don't you try, and before reading have an open mind that possibly I wasn't accusing you of anything, and that possibly saying to an adult adoptee that they are projecting (when they clearly haven't been) is a bit of a red rag to a bull? I don't know everything about modern adoption but I know a lot. More than the average person. And when I don't know something I say I don't know.

The comparison with NASA is not exactly apt.

Ironically,by the way I didn't say I would "sort" it with a solicitor. I said I would talk to one. Again, I have explained why when familyvonstrop asked the same question.

Jellyfish re "Italian, the article in the Guardian was written by a rep for a panel, so I think he would have wide experience of talking to adopters/hearing the issues raised by them, I am sad to say."

I am afraid I think that much of what he wrote is taken out of context!

He suggest that people who adopt pick a picture form a 'catologue' based on the child singing out to the. I think he is using the terminology adopters might use but he seems to lack understanding about what adopters do/go through in the process. EG How they weigh up pros and cons, agonize over things... he has taken a few phrases out of context. IMHO.

jellyfish Re"...is there definitely no expectation that it would be raised? Across the board? How does that fit with blanket policies of no name changes?"

I am fairly sure the adoptive parent can change the name with no issues and the social workers can only make a fuss after the fact, if they feel it is worth doing so. But to make a fuss at adoption order time might be deemed as disruptive to the placement as the child would already have been in placement for at least three months (you cannot put the application in before 10 weeks and it would be unlikely to be arranged in a matter of a couple of weeks), most likely 6 months and possibly for even a year.

We were asked if we wanted to keep the name. We could easily have said yes, meaning it, and then changed our minds.

You know what? I'm out. This is pointless. I've got a million and one better things to do with my time than argue with an Internet-know-nothing to borrow Pocket's term.

Here, you can have this as a parting gift -

OP, I hope you're able to change your DC's name without any strife from SS. Good luck.

Can we call it a day then? Because I am a bit fed up of writing the same NOT inflammatroyr NOT ignorant NOT projecting comments over and over and over again because some of you think you are above reading someone's post before telling them they are wrong. It is BORING.