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...

That article is utter utter drivel.

Someone I know has her 'birth name' as a second name. I am sure a name would not put serious prospective parents off- ways round using birth name I am sure.

it?s not unheard of for men like this to be entitled to regular reports on their child?s development, even after adoption. The Human Rights Act has a lot to answer for

The tories would like the Human Rights Act scrapped, so the here starts the DM helping to show all of it's 'evils'.

You can change a childs name if you adopt them, my friends did exactly this.

The childs name was not that bad but was the same as a not particulary pleasant celebrity couples child and my friends didn't like it. They only changed it slighty and he was only 1 so didn't even notice really as it was such a slight change.

As far as I'm aware the SW had no issues around them changing it and they have completed the legal bit now and the childs passport is in his new first name and surname.

At our adoption preparation training a huge emphasis was put on not changing children's names. However we did change the name of our DD as she had a name that I would never choose and believe me I tried to like it/get used to it. Our compromise was that she now has that as her middle name and has a first name that 'fits' with our family. Unusual names often draw comment from strangers who we don't particularly want to have to explain to all the time about our adopting. DD was 2.5 years at the time and accepted the change and now knows that she has a name that we chose for her and also a name that BM chose for her. As an adopted child myself (who doesn't happen to like my christian name) I think this is a happy compromise - we are her parents along with BPs so should have some choice in our childrens names.

As for adopters not accepting red haired children.... we were not allowed to see any photos of our children until the day before matching panel for exactly those reasons - parents are turning children away on looks. It was not an issue for us as we fell in love with our children for their story alone

Whatever would these potential adopters do if they gave birth to a red haired child themselves? Give them up or adoption?

No wonder people go abroad to adopt. Russia, for instance, has a system which insists that adoptive parents know as little as possible about the background of the child with whom they have been matched. The documents will say: ?Anastasia was abandoned at six hours old. Her health is good. Her mother signed the adoption forms of her own free will and wanted Anastasia to have a better life than she could offer.? The end.

I'd WANT to know the background of the child. I'd think it vital to making sure the child was understood and would hopefully prevent me from making assumptions and maybe triggering off a traumatic memory.

Does the DM think we'd rather take the adoptive child out of a box, like a doll? No past, no name... it's hopelessly unrealistic.

But Russia is currently clamping down on international adoptions due to a number of high profile scandals involving international (I think mainly US) adoptive parents changing their minds once they realised what they were dealing with. Adoptive placements are more likely to succeed when adoptive parents are well prepared not less.

As for the names thing of course there isn't a rule against it, but it is something to be handled with great sensitivity. I have no idea about incidence but working in adult mental health I've met 5 clients that I can remember with big issues about called their birth name rather than the name their adoptive parents gave them and they were all placed for adoption before 5. So even fairly young children can feel lingering unhappiness about having their name changed, and that can have knock-on effects on how they bond with the new family and indeed how they view their birth families. I don't think we can assume that children under 2 feel no attachment to their name, and if it is to be changed keeping the birth name as a middle name or choosing a new name which reflect the birth name seem like good ways forward.

I posted about this on adoptions

It's nearly all utter twaddle

The blank slate theory is a load of damaging BS. The more information you get, the better. Parents have the right to know the childs history. And we need to know 100% as much as possible. It's vital so you can work out where your childs behaviour is coming from. For instance, on the nits example given in the article. What if the child came home and was frightened and cried and tantrumed everytime they saw a shampoo bottle? Either the parents are stumbling in the dark, or they know that said child suffered frequent headlice treatments and that is probably the reason for said fear. Knowledge=preparation

My DS has a changed first name, because of a security issue. There are valid reasons for a name change. Most parents do not turn children down based on name or looks. The article did not deal with the name issue well at all. I find it ironic that the author basically accused us of being snobs, when actually she was the only snob in sight

ps. Actually, sometimes Russia given out a large amount of information about the child and the background, so the author talking more twaddle there as well

Had a quick scan & thought it said that SS "recommend" not changing the name-not that it can´t be done.

Birds I do in part agree with you but I have to say as many years of working with children in care I have to agree a little with the thing of SOME parents giving their children very odd names either as a symptom of their mental health issues or very low IQ or to trace them when their are older

Pesonally my la encourge the adoptive parents to keep the orginal name as a middle name if they feel they must change
The first name

Very sad many resins why children are not adopted

But it is very true that many adopters do not want letter box or once a year contact and why should they

It must be very painful to have the thought you may be made by court order as part if the adoption to take you happy child to meet once a year the people who abused them

I do personally think that is more about the birth parents needs than the child's

I think it is a shallow reason not to adopt, but i also think the DM is sh** stirring as usual i work in this field and and I have never heard about a this issue existing or as common as they claim , believe it or not S/W's are not thick and try to do the best for each child, most who have been through traumatic experiences.

I do however know that even as a foster carer knowing as much as you can is vital can't believe she thinks it's ok to hand over a child to somone with no background history

So down the line their can be gnashing of teeth they they were not informed about they child

If S/W's did not tell adoptive parents the childs background they would be disgraceful, how can a child be supported if adoptive parents are in the dark. Children being adopted are not just blank slates that can be assimilated into a family. They come with an identity and should be supported in that, and S/W's recognise this. So what if the child is called Chardonney , at my daughters school we have a lot of obscure posh names but its doesn't matter its a name. If you love the child, you'll get over the name.

Under two's even recollect events and people years after the fact.

I stumbled on this odious article via another link.
I hope the social worker who wrote it has fun spending their 20 pieces of sliver. It is a lurid piece of trash full of misinformation and downright lies.
Once you have adopted a child you can do what the hell you like and no HRA can stop you.
If someone is put off adopting one of these hundreds (my arse) babies because they have a name that causes the middle classes to curl their lips, they don't deserve the child.
The comments on the site show what bollocks is still believed about adoption. Talk of ridding children of their pasts etc.
If a name could be a security risk, if it is offensive etc I can totally see why it would need to be changed.
If it doesn't fit in with your cath kids ton,Biden wearing ideal of family life then get a Scottie dog and call it Arthur.
People spend years and go through so much trying to adopt. This article is an insult to them and to our children.
The Daily Mail has excelled itself in this piece of toss.

How on earth do you start adoption with a clean slate? How is that even a possibility? Most children are not adopted because of high profile cases and parents who showed them no love at all.
My ds's BMW loved him. She was utterly unable to translate that into putting his needs first.
Why should I pretend his history never happened. How on earth would that pan out?

Speaking as a person who is a prospective adopter the names mean nothing to me, family nicknames can, and will, be swiftly adopted. However. I am put off by the prospect of keeping contact with a person/persons who have been deemed unfit parents and who have social/drug/alcohol issues that prevent them parenting. If a person - be it birth parent or whatever - is not a person I would want around my child they will not be welcomed around my child and it is as simple as that.

I am curious as to what the state would do should we decide not to keep up with contact arrangements because we are looking out for the best interests of our children. Would we lose our children and they in turn be rehomed with their birth parents? How would it work? Either the state wants these children in stable loving homes or it doesnt.

I am cynically wondering if a book will come out next week about "blank slate" theory.

I would also add I have a very strong feeling I know which LA the SW who wrote the article works for simply because I work in a similar field and the specific combination of names they mention are currently 'on the books' as it were.

If it is true than those people should not be adopting and are not the right people

This entire article is complete shit. It is conveniently written by an 'anonymous social worker' with no research, no evidence, no facts to back up this absurd theory.
The entire article exists to further the dm agendas. Social workers= incompetent middle class meddlers with no clue, adoption = only for nice mc people, child abuse = only by the illiterate and poor. Not to mention a healthy dollop of mocking the chavs just for sport. It is bullshit and it stinks.