AIBU to think if this is a genuine reason to not adopt....

[Janoschi]

.... then really you'd be a shit parent?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140586/Scandal-babies-parents-wont-adopt-theyre-called-Chrystal-Chardonnay.html

I mean, SURELY you can nickname anything to make it bearable? Chardonnay could be Charlie, or Donnie...

Sounds like bullshit to me tbh

I read that and thought it was a load of bollocks tbh, the hoops people jump on the adopt they aren't going to turn a child down due to name. It might be an irritant but not a blocker.

It's far more likely the ongoing contact with undesirable family is the issue as that means you are not just accepting the child but all those scumbag relatives into your lives.

that or why couldn't they use a known as name

Bit of an attention grabbing headline. Reading between the lines of the article, I'd say that the requirement for continuing contact with the birth family - particularly in cases where drugs, crime or violence were involved - would be more off-putting.

Sounds as fake as the blue in the baby's eyes to be honest.

surely they could keep the birth name for all official legal reasons, and use another name?

bloody hell so the DM blame the social workers. For not changing the name of a child to something more "acceptable".

So they think it would be better for these children to lose their parents, home AND their name!

Apparently this isn't fake at all - people who know they are not going to be allowed to keep their children give them unusual names to make them easier to find later on. And a child with a very odd name is going to stand out in an extended family/area where people don't use those names; it wouldn't be easy for children or parents to have one child who was obviously not "theirs".

It does sound like a load of rubbish.

I had a friend at school whose adoptive parents changed her name from the original unique spelling to the usual version.

I suppose if they are older enough to know and spell their name it's a bit harder.

This does happen, apparently. I've heard of kids being turned down by potential adopters because they have red hair too.

The simple fact is that many adopters are middle class and the kids up for adoption are not. I really don't see why an adopting family can't change the child's name if s/he is still young enough to not be upset by it. TBH I wouldn't want a child called Chardonnay, Champagne or Chrystal. Would you?

"under 2s will have no memory of their birth name"
My DD is 2y6m and knows her name and address. I don' think that's anything out of the ordinary

Brianbutterfield

The childs name can be changed though cant it? Whatever anyone says, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of changing a name, if a child is happily settled with adoptive parents and the name is changed, what will happen? SW still have to act in the best interests of the child.

I'm 99.9% sure that children however young keep their birth names as one of the few things they do get to keep.

However if these babies have been forciably adopted and taken into care later rather than sooner they could already have a whole ream of developmental issues that may not be resolved by love and good parenting alone.

Emotional and physical neglect on young babies can damage them forever as it causes non/under development of certain areas of our brains - something that can't be tested and assessed accurately under clinical trials but there is a growing awareness of this causing huge lifetime issues.

No idea what the answer is though

Well, I'd not be KEEN on those names but I'd be adopting because I'd want to help a child stuck in care. I think I could honestly rise above it.

Chrytsal = Chrissie
Chardonnay = Donny
Champagne = ... cripes... erm.. Penny?

Or move them to 2nd name status.

an adoptive parent is the legal parent of the child.
they can change the name if they want.

there can't possibly be a law that says "a name can be changed by the parent unless the child's adopted"? surely?
that would make the adopted child less of the parents' child, wouldn't it?
way to make the kid feel part of the family!

Not sure.

The idea that they cannot change the baby's name seem pretty idiotic.

Would it not be better to enforce name changes during adoption so that the child really start with a clean slate rather than lumbered with the same name as a perhaps horrid mother called it by?

However, I would adopt a "Chardonnay" in a heartbeat.

I didn't think the names were that bad tbh, certainly nicknamable.

But the idea that they are deliberately identifiable so the family can find them would worry me a lot more if I was a potential adopter.

Adoptive parents can change the child's name DH's current name bears no resemblance to his birth name and his current name is the one on his adoption certificate.

Two children in my DC's school who were adopted had their names changed by their adoptive parents. They weren't called Chardonnay...

I think the norm in the last 16 years is that adoptive parents HAVE to keep the birth name but presumably can add an extra given name too.

I read it like and I have a social work background.

It seemed more of a blatant dig at poorer parents and those from disadvantaged backgrounds and didn't put prospective adopters in a good light either.

Some of the 'worst rated' comments were shocking too, blaming Labour Gov and the use of IVF among others.

Sigh< Just another quality DM news article.

This whole report is rubbish.

For some reason known only to social workers, the reports disclose often unsavoury and unnecessary information that is off-putting to those new to the system and from immaculate homes.

A typical example might read: ?Chrystal-Mai suffered from nits for 18 months and was excluded from nursery. She misses her daddy who is in jail serving 15 years for distributing paedophile images.

The information has to be thorough so the reason as to why nursery was missed has tobe in there. The second bit wouldn't have been.

SW's don't decide on whether the name can be changed, that is up to the court and later on decided on individual cases.

under 2s will have no memory of their birth name

Yes they do and more importantly if sibling contact is kept up, the siblings obviously do, so damage will be done by changing the name.

The old system was oppressive and had to be changed, this is all done on good evidence that given the circumstances the best is being done.

As for painting the birth parents as prosititutes and criminals, typical DM.

Yanbu. If you are keen to adopt a child, surely their name wouldn't matter. It talks about babies, but I didn't think there were many young babies up for adoption these days, so we're probably talking more about toddlers, who may well know their names. Also,the DM needs to make their mind up. They had that article recently where an adoptive mother complained about not having enough information about the children's backgrounds, but this one goes on about potential adopters being put off by "unsavoury" details.