Changing first name

[mollymollymoo]

Hi
It's looking really likely that we've been matched with a little girl - very excited! However - her current name is so identifying and ridiculous that even our social worker has said they can work with us to change it.
She'll be nearly 2 when she comes home.

Does anyone have any experience of this, the practicalities etc?

This is our 2nd adoption and we would have been more than happy to keep her name otherwise.. but really it is awful and not fair on her to have to grow up with it!!

Try posting the text of the first section of the post, to see if anyone recognises it?

This is the section from the latest 'missing' one:

I don't think you can take some situations of the SW minimising the problem and turn that into adopters not engaging honestly with panel and giving themselves cart blanche re deci....

Anyone recognise it?!

The first one (that I don't have a screenshot of) started with Henrik.... I can vaguely remember the gist but I don't want to post it in case I'm wrong. It had occurred to me that someone had posted then asked for posts to be deleted, but MNHQ usually leave the post but remove the content.

@HenrikSabroe I am so sorry your match fell through. Terrible for you and for the children. I am so sorry.

Henrik - helloooo. Hope you are well!

Is there any research on the effects of children who are found before they are ready to meet their birth family.

I am not adopted but met my bio dad at age 30 and whilst I was always curious (resented my mam for not trying harder but understood as an adult wasn't just her place) I think I was only really ready at this age... if this has been forced on me at say early or late teenage years this could have had negative effects....

If we agree to have research on changing name .... we would need research on not changing name and the negative or positive affects of when names haven't been changed and this has affected the adopted child meeting or having contact with birth family to early.

I honestly think this is all a mind field and whilst social workers do minimise risk and behaviours they can at
The time only go on the guidance they have got..

"I honestly think this is all a mind field and whilst social workers do minimise risk and behaviours they can at
The time only go on the guidance they have got"

I'm my experience they dictate not give guidance.

And yes it is a minefield

Italian you say Why are social workers so invested in children keeping names given by Family who could not care for them? can you explain a bit more about what you are concerned about? The advice about name changing goes right back to the 70s at least, it isn't a recent notion and it is based on the research to do with identity, and always has been. Some SWs will have biases, one way or another, although many, I hope, are professional. You have raised this point a lot, and it comes across that you are slightly overthinking it, although to be fair I am not really certain what you have in mind - why would they be over invested in any particular direction as an entire profession?

The other thing to think about is that if you name change to avoid security risks, you are taking the risk of potential long term psychological damage (if you buy into the advice as per the above – which I accept that you don't, but many people do, and it is backed up by a number of adoptee voices as I have said).

In relation to “Chardonnay” being unusual whether there were teasing at school would probably depend on the school, but if a Chardonnay had the right qualifications and personal qualities it wouldn't hold her back in terms of career. I work in quite a conservative profession and unusual or “wrong class” or asian or whatever names do not hold people back. Success in adult life is to do with skills, and self esteem and emotional intelligence. Unusual names are common nowadays (contradictory as that sounds).

Basically I am not arguing one way or the other re name changes because it depends on so many factors, I am just pointing out the above as additional factors to be considered.

Henrik it sounds as though your situation was very difficult. However please don't think that it would happen every time. If you read the OP updates, it sounds as though she is successfully discussing name changes with the SWs for example.

Sparkly I agree with you about the research, and I would imagine that doing things differently in one direction would impact on other issues.

These are just personal opinions, by the way.

henrik I meant to also say that I drafted a post to you about your situation a and b and clicked on preview but decided not to send, I wonder if that was one of the posts you were alerted about?! It basically said that we have heard on this thread about some adopters who have said that they changed the name without “good reason” because they wanted to change the name, so situation a does still happen it seems and in relation to situation b, children were being removed in the 70s and so a baby from then would now be in their 40s, and so yes some of the adoptee voices who are saying the change of name was an issue were removed not relinquished.

In relation to the balancing act and research, it is true that the opinions from psychologists and research on names/identity isn't specific to adoption at the moment as you say, but although there is little guidance specifically about the balancing act, the guidance is still relevant as an important factor – and it is also very relevant when it comes to supporting a child if a name has to be changed ie it can give insight about the issues might be for the child and that would help when talking to the child about it.

Again, just personal opinions.

Oh I missed the post from adopters who said they had changed a name without good reason. Could you quote or give the date / time please ?

I don't think I've ever heard of a recent adopter who's changed a name just for the hell of it. I'm not going to say it's never happened but it would be so rare that I don't think you can extrapolate that into all name changing is bad.

Re. success being based on talents not names, that's true, but it's not the whole truth, and I think you know that. Think about all the situations where someone knows your name before they know anything else about you, everyone makes snap judgements based on your name; why do you think the 'Baby Names' board on here is so busy?!

There have been lots of studies done about BME applicants using 'white' names and having more success getting job interviews. I'd bet money on the same being applicable for the kinds of names we're talking about. Add onto that all the standard identity issues that adoptees often face (irrespective of names), and a name that marks you out as different, doesn't fit with your family's names, your friend's names, your colleague's names etc, a name that gets commented on, that puts you at risk of being traced by people you may/may not want contact with and you've got an awful lot of problems to deal with. All of which could have been prevented very easily.

I'd risk psychological issues over being hunted down, attacked, living in fear etc any day. You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you seriously think children should be brought up looking over their shoulders just to avoid the potential for identity issues over their name. You need to ask adoptees who were raised with the risk of being traced by abusive birth families etc whether they'd rather their names had been changed (changed doesn't mean completely changed, it often means correcting a spelling, or using a very similar name such as the Chardonnay/Charlotte example) and they'd have been able to have a 'normal' childhood.

I don't think anyone has said that not having to change names isn't the ideal scenario, but I think you're imagining a very black and white world where a set of rules could be laid down for when names can/can not be changed. Almost everything to do with adoption is a sliding scale of shades of grey.

Re our situation, I don't for a minute think it happens every time names are discussed (I've got DC upstairs as proof), but I don't think it's rare either. Since you don't want to say what your connection to adoption is, you may or may not be aware that the SWs hold all the cards; you either toe the line or you won't be matched. It's often the case that the only people fighting for the children are the adopters. SWs can get too wrapped up in out of date theory and getting their own way that they lose sight of real life. It was our experience that very, very few of them had even contemplated the impact the internet would have on the security of placements. We used to have a book about it, which we gave to our SW for future use because it explains exactly how dangerous the internet can be for an adopted child. The last I was aware it was recommended reading for SWs and adopters..... and it recommends name changing where there is a risk.

@comehomemax hello! I haven't got the foggiest who you used to be! 

@Italiangreyhound thank you for the flowers. I don't think we'll ever not wonder what happened to them and hope that they're happy, healthy and loved.

@brightsunshineatlast it could be that I've got notifications for previewed posts. From what you've said it sounds very similar to what the preview said. Hopefully MNHQ can sort it out.

henrik please could you let me know the name of the book?

I think from what you have written it sounds as though we both see it as a balancing act but that you and I would manage risks differently and our lines about when it is a good idea to change a name are going to be in different places. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong or vice versa obviously. I don't think that managing risk is ever black and white - it is all shades of grey.

In relation to scenario A being rare, I have seen references to choosing names which the adopter likes fairly often. There are 2 examples in posts I can think of in this thread alone without even reading back, there was also an article in the Huff written by an adopter saying she had changed the name to something she liked better and she thought it was fine, other threads on here from the past... My impression is that it isn't particularly rare. But we don't know numbers so impossible to say.

kristina if you read back you will find fairly easily. If you get really stumped I will send you a PM - otherwise I feel like I am hauling people over the coals.

kristina if you read back you will find fairly easily. If you get really stumped I will send you a PM - otherwise I feel like I am hauling people over the coals

No I’m afraid I can’t find any posts where

we have heard on this thread about some adopters who have said that they changed the name without “good reason” because they wanted to change the name

So perhaps you could show me please ? Please don’t send me a PM as these things are best discussed on the thread.

I’m pretty sure no one will think you are “ hauling them over the coals “ as

A. you are not their boss/ parent / head teacher
B it’s anonymous.

brightsunshineatlast "... You are slightly overthinking it ..." Because if it is detrimental to ds, he and I will be at the sharp end! It's not my job. It's my son.

'...long term psychological damage...' is much more likely to be caused, IMHO, by abuse, neglect and a lot of change of carers than by a change of name.

You are talking about advice from the 70s. We don't live in the 70s we live in an era of social media.

My experience is social workers are very invested in not name changing. I honestly do not know why. I can only assume they have bought into the idea of is better for the child.

Maybe they have some sense of birth family impacting a child in a positive sensible and don't want that link broken. That's a guess!

Social workers find people who will parent children and I think they should empower and trust those parents.

I think if they did real research my guess would be children who had good adoptive experiences and name change would be more likely to not resent the name change, those who had bad experiences and names changes would be more likely to resent the name change.

Thus maybe the name is a symbol of the experience, at least to some degree, just as all out names can be an encapsulation of ourselves. A total guess.

"but if a Chardonnay had the right qualifications and personal qualities it wouldn't hold her back in terms of career." This is not relevant. It's not about imposing middle class name ideas onto kids IMHO. It is about children not being identified by birth family when birth family have been deamed to not be safe or appropriate to be in direct contact with the child. You seem to miss this. You say you do understand why changes are made but you don't seem to.

"there was also an article in the Huff written by an adopter saying she had changed the name to something she liked better and she thought it was fine" how old was the child and was that in the UK?

"But we don't know numbers so impossible to say."

Off the top of my head I can think of 6 adopted children and none of their first names were changed and three of them were babies when adopted. I think it is now very rare.

HenrikSabroe when we had our son come to live with us less than 5 years ago social media was less of a thing! I think some social workers are not aware! I know of a family where birth parent traced, I believe via Facebook.

"...very few of them had even contemplated the impact the internet would have on the security of placements..." This in spades!

comehomemax would I know you! Very keen to trace an adopter on here who o used to chat to. Pm me if you wish!

HenrikSabroe I hope they found fab adopters but the damage of breakdowns with a match is a serious issue for children. And the fact social workers would risk it over this is shocking to me and shows the child is not always at the centre of the process IMHO!

brightsunshineatlast again. This is not personal. It's just that we seem to have very different views on identity. I've lived temporarily in other counties and used the country version of my name. I know not everyone feels the same as me about names and identify.

I just feel really strongly about this and yet we kept our son's name! Based on lack of safety issues.

It's Bubble Wrapped Children by Helen Oakshott. I was wrong in that it doesn't recommend name changing (it doesn't get that far into recommendations for dealing with/preventing the internet risk), but it would be very hard to read it and not understand why name changes should be applied where they're needed. Our social worker (and the rest of their department) certainly recommended that name changing be more frequently used as a result of reading it.

Given that the process at the moment for name changes works well, I wouldn't say it needs to be changed, but the training and guidance that SWs have and give needs to be. Adoption guidance can't be solely based on the past - a large chunk of it needs to be based on the future and how it may impact on the children adopted today. You simply can not base name-changing guidance on adoptees from the 70's. It's not fair on today's adoptees.

There's another book (Sally Donovan's No Matter What) that is about her journey to adopt her children (both of which had fairly typical 'unique' names), and how they were tracked down by the birth family and eventually were advised by Social Services to change names to prevent further issues.

There are also degrees of name changing. To use one of the names in second book as an example - Jaymey to Jamie; is that OK? What about Jaymey to James, but Jamie used as a nickname; is that OK? Jaymey to Jeremy because the Jaymey/Jamie/James was felt to be too obvious; is that OK? Very few adopters would say Jaymey being changed to Charles was ideal for a child any older than a baby, but a baby adopted at days/weeks old doesn't have an identity as 'Jaymey' - and it's very common where name changes have been made for the original first name to be kept as a middle name.

The first book I mentioned covers why living in fear of being traced, and the consequences of contact being made without proper procedures being followed, is hugely, hugely damaging for adopted children who need to know that they're as safe as possible. There's also a line in the book that sums up why adopters are so wary of their children being tracked down; children adopted today are the Baby Ps who didn't die. These aren't people you'd want tracing your children - they're people your children need protecting from. Just because they share DNA etc doesn't make them any less dangerous. I doubt very much you'd want a emotionally/sexually/physically abusive drug addict/alcoholic contacting your children, would you? They're not unmarried mothers forced to relinquish their babies. They have been found, by a court, to have been damaging to their children.

(Obviously not all birth parents are a risk etc. I'm talking about those who are).

If you are changing the surname why do you need to change the first name unless you are called blueberry pie? When I die I consider whether i should put both my names on my headstone as I am both those people, two people in one. One person in two?

Because regardless of your surname, if you've got a rare name, or a rare spelling of a name, there will be a handful of people (and often none at all) with the same first name. Stick just the first name into the search bar and it's very easy to track down that person if only five people in total come up. For someone determined, even a few hundred results would be fairly easy to work through.

In the case of siblings it's the names together that can be the issue. Two 'normal' but not overly common names together won't bring up many google search results. Again, how many siblings sets are there with those exact names?

Basically, it's safety in (internet search result) numbers.

italian and henrik just to clarify, the advice isn't from the 70s, it is longstanding advice which is still prevailing today, which doesn't preclude taking other factors into consideration. The courts take a similar stance. It is not black and white, other factors such as social media are also taken into consideration (though I note that you don't think that SWs as a group are very good at doing so).

henrik thank you very much for the book name. It looks as though the book is more about how being found affects the child, or is it about how children are found? (Or both?)

I doubt very much you'd want a emotionally/sexually/physically abusive drug addict/alcoholic contacting your children, would you? They're not unmarried mothers forced to relinquish their babies. They have been found, by a court, to have been damaging to their children I posted about this up thread. I think there is more than one issue here. If the family member would potentially cause harm and there is risk then it is widely agreed that measures would need to be taken, and one measure might be changing names. No one is arguing against this. However, we are told that this applies to a small minority of cases. For anyone not falling into this category I am a strong supporter of regular supervised direct contact, at a neutral place if necessary, properly managed and with the right supports given to the children, all with the input of psychologist where necessary - and so risks of unsolicited contact later on are vastly different. This is just one example - how you handle the risks depends on so many factors - sometimes name changing would be the right thing to do but it shouldn't be the go to option other than in specific situations.

In relation to what you said about "white" names I don't know if that still happens but in any event I wouldn't say that is a good reason to change a name of a young child, personally.

PS re the 70s, this is as far as I am aware, I should have said. And these are just personal opinions.

Bright sunshine - can you please tell me how many adoption orders in the last year included contact of the type that describe in your last post?

And could you link to the research that shows this is in the best interest of the child ?

I note you say that in only a “ small minority of cases” is the birth family considered to be a risk to the child or its parents. Could you please link to these figures ?

Could I politely remind you that I’m still waiting for details of the research that supports your claims upthread on name changing ?

"No one is arguing against this." Not on here but someone posted a comment up thread that concerns about the names led to a break down in a link so yes, people (some SWs) are arguing about this in real situations.

"I am a strong supporter of regular supervised direct contact"

I think I am going to bow out now, I think we will likely clash even more.

Parenting is very hard, children are often removed because of neglect or abuse or a combination of these, I don't know that regular contact with the people who neglected or abused you is a good thing for young children but I sense we will go down a twisty turney road with this one so I will just lurk!

Bless you all.

In relation to direct contact as far as I know it is the jurisdictions which plough the most money into research and post adoption (or post placement) support which have direct contact as the norm. Such as Australia and i think countries in Europe which have better social supports structures than we do in the UK.

In the UK the only research I am aware of has been linked on other threads, and basically it isn't extensive. A study done in the 1990s made recommendations to LAs to take forward, which were not taken forward but maybe now will be (and I think more LAs are pro direct contact than before).

In the recent adoption review apparently a significant number of adult adoptees raised the lack of contact an issue for them and it is something which is expected to be taken forward. I can provide a link to the review findings, but would have to go back through threads to find it, someone else may be able to link it.

I realise that direct contact is not supported by all adopters. There is jurisdictional comment that most adopters in the UK do not support it and this affects the orders made. Again, I could find that link too, as it was on a thread on here, and I am not going to spend hours on this. None of this is black and white, none of it is dictating, it is just my views based on my own experiences and the research and policy I am aware of.

I raised direct contact to illustrate that there are other ways of managing risk, used by other adopters.

Could I politely remind you that I’m still waiting for details of the research that supports your claims upthread on name changing? what claims and what research are you talking about? The only thing I made "claims" about was what the law said and I linked it all. When you are talking about my "claims" an actual quote about what I said would help, please. NB I am not going to be spending hours on this today!! I have been polite and accommodating so far, but there is a line.

In relation to henrik's situation A, about adopters wanting to choose names for their adopted children, not where they think that there is risk etc, Kristina has asked me to provide more evidence to support why I think it might be quite common. We don't have exact numbers so it is impossible to say for sure obviously. The article I mentioned is at www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/29/should-adoptive-parents-change-their-children-s-first-names_n_7326896.html - to answer Italian's question it looks like she is UK and the children were 4 or so - there is a typo re one of the ages so not sure of the age. A telling quote is: I'm no Katie Hopkins, but I have a middle-class accent (some have called it posh) and me calling 'Rihanna' just sounded a bit odd.

The article linked by offredalba earlier is written by a panel member, and he writes about his perception of attitudes of adopters in relation to names, again suggesting that many adopters will change the names to names they like if given half a chance (and it appears from what posters have said on here and the lack of guidance notes on the A58 that they are currently given that chance)

kristina I am so sorry but I am not going to post quotes for the reason I gave - if you read through the thread carefully you will find at least 2 references to adopters choosing a name they liked in situations where they seem to accept there is no risk. The posts are not hard to find. Another poster has agreed with the first post, or at least supported the content of the post generally. I suspect that you will disagree with my interpretation of this, which is fine - neither quote were unclear as far as I am concerned, but if you disagree with me then that is your prerogative.