First families terminology

[DodoBaggins]

I'm seeing the phrase "first family" being used a lot more when referring to birth families, especially by Adoption UK.

I don't think I'm comfortable with this phrase and I was just curious whether it's just me.

I think I see the term "first" meaning first of many. So, you can go on to have family two, three, four etc. which undermines the permanency messages which are critical.

I could also be completely overthinking it.

I also find it a bit problematic. My son is on his third family but I wouldn't refer to us as his third family. We are his family, his birth family were there at the start and there was a foster family too. Just numbering things seems to lose some of the meaning, to me.

I think it can be easier to understand for children. I usually use "birth mum" or her name, but one of my daughters sometimes uses "old mum" or "first mum". "Birth family" is quite a technical term.

Personally, I am not bothered. I sometimes even say "your mum". We know where we stand and I don't feel threatened. My children have two mums, me and their birth mum. We are both important to them, but I care for them, I am there when they need me and in me they confide. They would not count their foster carers as mums, even though one foster carer was hugely important to them. To me it is a technicality.

To me, it almost makes it sounds like they could then be going on to another family, ie we are family number two and then there will be family number three!

We use 'first mum' though not 'first family' - it makes sense for us as DDs were older when removed, so first mum did a lot more parenting than giving birth. But fathers/extended family didn't play much of a role, so they are 'birth family'.

We also use her name or 'your mum' between ourselves as it is obvious from the context who we mean.

DD2's previous carer is now her godmother and is in regular contact, as are her other godparents who are the parents of her best friend of many years. She knows where we all fit in, and it doesn't stop me from being Mum.

But every family is different, use what works for you.

I am adopted and find the term "birth" family to be upsetting to the point of triggering. I have seen other posts on MN where posters say similar things. I am nor sure it is the best term to be used across the board but in particular not in families where children were not removed at birth.

First family isn't much better though!

In paperwork for our DD they've always been referred to by their first names but in her life story book her BM is called 'tummy mummy' and I'm not keen on that. It makes her sound soft and cuddly

I think it's a nice option for some families where it fits better than "birth" family, after all, they were the first to be blessed with this child. It's better than "natural", or "real". No one has to use it, sometimes it fits sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not "fourth mum"- I'm just mum. That's the highest honour. Other people can be birth mum, first mum, foster mum, step mum, honorary extra mum, second mum twice removed... I'm ok with other people being things, I'm secure in being mum. The highest honour for me is just being mum. Even if I do hear it five billion times every hour, and joke I'm changing my name. (To dad)

notboggeddown

Thank you for adding your perspective as someone who is adopted. What term do you prefer? Or do you use names?

I try to follow my daughters' lead, but of course contribute to the way they shape it.

Hi Allington

I think it is very much a personal thing and helping your dc decide how they feel and what they want is probably the best thing to do, but I have now read your post and see you use "first mum" and the reasons why, and I think that if your dc are happy with that, then that is the most important thing (I hadn't read your post when I posted).

To answer your question, I think using first names or "mum [their name]", depending on context and your dc's feelings, is better than "birth mum", or any other name which is a label, possibly. Tummy Mummy is gentle language used for young children, and if the child was removed at birth, it sounds fine to me for a young child.

I think for court cases "biological parents" would be better than "birth parents", personally.

Referring to a post upthread, the terms "natural" and "real" were the norm for years in the UK, and some people will use them for that reason. "Real" will be used by some adoptees, whereas other adoptees (and adopters) will get offended by it. Just as some adoptees would prefer to be called "adopted person" and others are happy with "adoptee". Language is often a very personal thing in adoption, a lot will depend on upbringing and what is common parlance in the home, and it is hard to find a universal language which doesn't cause offence to anyone.

Language is often a very personal thing in adoption, a lot will depend on upbringing and what is common parlance in the home, and it is hard to find a universal language which doesn't cause offence to anyone.

This is what I was trying to say with less eloquence. Thank you.

To answer your question, I think using first names or "mum [their name]", depending on context and your dc's feelings, is better than "birth mum", or any other name which is a label, possibly.

Good point - I think it is important to emphasis the individuality of experience (sorry, that sounds very... oh I don't know the words! But important to recognise that the woman who gave birth to and mothered our children is a person with her own experiences and personality - not an incubator).