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...

Nearlymrscustard once an adoption is finalIsed then the adopters are the parents. They can both change the child's name and stop contact with birth family if they wish. However adopters are given a lot of support and information to help them understand why both of those things are not necessarily in their child's interests.
Contact is often a yearly letter and a couple of photos. It is a real kindness to the birth family in some cases (thinking of one young woman I worked with, was a very young teen when her dd was born, father a very dangerous man) her yearly letters and photos from the parents are a huge thing for her. Birth parents are very often simply too young/damaged to parent properly when their DCs are removed, not necessarily vile paedophiles. Seriously dangerous people would not be likely to get letterbox contact due to risk of identifying the child.

Fair point Erik

Either way though I am uncomfortable with the notion of 'sharing' 'my' child with a stranger and feel it should be the child who makes that choice.

Put it another way. Would you be ok with sending photos and updates of your biological children to complete strangers? Why should it be different for adopted children?

Because they aren't complete strangers. They are the biological patents of your children. It is far more for the child's benefit than the birth parents anyway. Can I suggest, without meaning to sound rude, that you do a bit more research into adoption and how it affects children before you proceed? Because the fact that you consider birth parents to be 'complete strangers' to an adopted child is quite concerning.

Contact has to be in the best interests of the child. If you decide for genuine reasons that it should not go ahead there is not a great deal anyone can do about it.
But contact shouldnt be discontinued just because we are uncomfortable with it.
It's stuff like this that makes me fume when some bright spark comes up with 'you should adopt then!' on infertility threads.
Adoption is very different from having a birth child

Typical Daily Wail crap.

I used to go out with a guy who had been adopted by an-ultra middle class family when he was 2. He had lived with his BM until then.

He kept his birth name when he moved to his adoptive parents, and that name is, er, probably not what they would have ideally chosen. Think Wayne or Gary. But AFAIK there was no attempt by them to change his name, either before or after the adoption. And this was 40 years ago.

One think my ex always regretted, though, was just how little info was available about his birth family - not because he had any wish to get in touch with them, but because of family medical history, about which he was told nothing.

Surely a family that is truly desperate to adopt will not be put off by the child having a name they would not have themselves chosen. I don't believe that an otherwise healthy 2yo can't get adopted because of name alone.

m.mumsnet.com/Talk/adoptions/1467229-What-complete-utter-drivel

Mrscustard here is the thread on this from the adoption board. Might be interesting for you?

Mrs Custard,

I write letter, send photos and have met up with my two younger children's mother several times. Our open adoption works very well indeed

Letters are not always the right thing, but many times they are

She is no stranger, but their mother. She can offer them the beginning of their life story (I can't), all the information they want to nkow about her, which includes anecdotes about her, how she is doing now, things she likes. Through her they know they are both wanted and loved (they have struggled with feelings of abandonnement. I can't fix that)

She loves them. Just because she was not able to look after them does not make her an undesirable person, or undeserving. Everyones circumstances are of course different. And they need her contact

It isn't about how you feel. It's about your children need. If your kids need it, you do it. You put your feelings aside

As an adoptive mother, you can't be the ONLY mother. You also cannot always offer everything your child needs. Sometimes their first mother, father or other relatives can offer what you cannot. That isn't always easy to hear, or accept, but it's the truth

Going through the adoption process is tough and I find it hard to believe that anyone would go that far through it and turn a child down due to their name. It can take years to be matched with a child and its a massive commitment just going through with the application process.

Unfortunately I believe that a big reason why there are a lack of people willing to adopt is due to the rights of the birth parents etc and the 'open' system.

I have seen first hand how upsetting some of the 'new rules' can be to adoptive parents and they have almost been put off because of this and have gone through a lot of heartache during the process too. I always thought that the point of fostering was to sort out whether the child could be placed back with the birth parents and then adoption is for when they definitely can't so is permanent and the rights are fully with the adoptive parents?

My friends adopted a 14 month old, the child had been in foster care from 3 weeks old and had a care order before birth (my friends had already been fully accepted as suitable when the child was born) but it took that long to go through the process of making the decision that the child was allowed to be adopted.

wow Lilka, you sound amazing, that puts it into an entirely different persepctive.

Thank you erik I'll have a read in a bit

lilka thank you for your views too that has opened my eyes somewhat.

I suppose my views are somewhat clouded because MIL was adopted and still has no desire to know her birth history (she is approaching 60). As well as my views that if a child enters your life at, say 2, then their birth parents will be virtual strangers, biologically they're not, but physically they are. The child/ren will have little memory of that part of their lives.

My life is geared up to putting my children first (which is why my own have contact with their father still) and it would still be that approach with any adopted children. But i will add the caveat that their emotional well being comes above that of any adult and that is why I struggle with the idea of putting the well being of a teenage mum above that of their child.

Lou - We have the final legal rights after finalisation. But contact should be fully sorted by then, including any problems. Problems may arise later, but a full agreement should have been drawn up and signed by both adopters and who they are writing to/seeing. This will set out all the contact, the rules for it, when it goes, what's written etc etc.

The process to get a child available for adoption is seperate to determining contact after

Without contact, one of my children is apt to make up and fantasise about her mother. Pretending she is a princess like figure etc. Contact helps her see the real picture. It makes her feel loved and wanted. She fears for her mum, hearing all is well eases her fears. Knowing all this now, will I hope prevent a situation whreby she runs off at 18 knowing nothing about how it is now.

Children often want and need to know about their original family. That has nothing to do with the adoptive family. Adoptive parents can maintain that link. ven if the parents has drug problems etc, that doesn't mean they can't meet some of the childs emotional needs through contact

When linked with a child, the prospective parents need to decide whether they can handle the proposed contact. If they can't they may have to back out and seek another child. Lying at this stage is not right. It's unfair to absolutely everybody involved.

One day most adoptive parents will have to answer to their child about what decisions were made. I will be able to show my children that I have always acted with honesty and integrity, and never lied to get what I want. Whether my decisions are right or wrong in their eyes, I have always acted in good faith

Any prospective adoptive parent who would refuse to adopt a child solely because of his/her name is a nutter and not well suited to raising anything more challenging than a guinea pig. Not that I really believe that anyone with half a brain cel would actually reject a child on this basis.

I do think that adoptive parents should think long and hard about changing a child's name, especially if the child is two-ish or older. Personal identity is a tricky thing for any child, but the adoption triad complicates matters (not in a negative way, but refusing to recognize the child's past isn't the answer).

Mrs Custard - or course as the child gets older they input their views. So far my two younger ones are happy with their contact, they pick which photos go out etc. But not all children are happy to have contact obviously. My first child is not

Determining contact is really all about deciding if the biological parents can still meet some of the chids emotional needs or not. Many times they can, despite their own issues, even if they cannot be a parent, they can provide something for their child. In that way, they are not a stranger

I am adopted, and purely by chance last year I found myself doing some consultancy for a long-established charitable adoption agency. It was a good opportunity to compare my experiences to those of other adopted adults, young adults and children, along with adoptive parents and prospective parents. What came out of this experience, and I happen to think that under my circumstances I am more qualified to comment than most, is that adoption has always been fraught for many reasons - when I was a child it was the stigma and the not knowing why, now its because most birth families either retain the right to contact or find a way to get contact. If any of you can come up with a solution, I'd like to hear it, because you're a better person than I. It just seems like an impossible tangle of whose rights come first and (and this I find particularly difficult to cope with ) people "acting in the best interests of the child". My arse.

Who can suggest a good solution to it all?

Plenty of birth parents are vulnerable people (possibly with learning difficulties) and have complex and difficult personal lives. They're not all criminals and prostitutes

Ah, there is no solution Burning. It's far too individual to each adopted child/adult and their situation, for some kind of one-size-fits-all approach to work. Clearly it doesn't

Of course, contact many times is not right or ends up not working. Being completely honest, many parents do have issues. The contact for DC1 had to be stopped, it wasn't want by DC

But when confonted with an opinion that it must always be wrong, I present my successful open adoption, and explain why it works for us right now

Actually, my advice to prospectives, is if you meet anyone who says 'It shoud be always be open' or 'it should always be closed', ignore them. Find someone who will say "They both provide advantages and disadvantages. This is what we do, which is right for my child/ren because...'. Or 'The way we tried (whether open, closed) was not right for my child because...'

Again, there is no one size fits all

I meant 'many open adoptions do have issues' not 'many parents do have issues', Sorry

Oh, and again

Two of my kids have unusual names. Which are beautiful. I object, as MrsDV said on the other thread, to our kids names being treated "as a disease" (thank you for saying it so much better than I could MrsDV)

My youngest DC has a name change, for security reasons. Not, as this article suggests, because I am a horrid snob who hates kids called Gemma-Mai and Chrystal

I will also say that how I approach the issue of contact will depend entirely on the child their age and their circumstances but out of principle i disagree with the concept of continued contact.

My principle is the oppsite- if there is nothing to suggest it will be unsafe or hurt the child, go for it.

But anyway, however you approach it, up front honesty is a must. If you are linked with a child, be honest about whether you are able to commit to the proposed contact. NEVER lie or pretend you will do something when you won't. If you are told it is not negotiable at this time, you may have to find another child. As I said, one day you will answer to your child.

Quite a few children are contacted by their biological parents in their teens now. Not much you can do about it. But the biolpgical parents will tell their side of the story to the child, and if they can truthfully say..'your adopters made promises to do x, but they were liars and didn't do it' that isn't going to go down well

reminds me why i dont read the daily wail.

i can never decide who they hate more middle class or lower

in answer to the OP - I don't think that adoptive parents who refuse to adopt a child because of a name would be bad parents. I actually think it is a brave thing to admit that you are rejecting a child because of his or her name. The worse thing to do when you adopt is compromise. It's not fair on the child.

When I adopted my first DC it all started with a phone call. My SW called and said that we had been informally matched with an 8 month old baby boy. My heart skipped a beat. She then said his name is ( insert name that I've seen many times on mumsnet being described as "chavy"). I admit that the best thing I could think to say to my SW was "erm interesting name!".

I phoned my husband who gave a knowing chuckle when I told him the name ( we had been through the adoption course where unusual names were discussed and we had always joked that we would be the ones to get a dodgy name!)

We googled the name , it turned out to be of scottish origin and as my family have scottish roots we decided that we could learn to love it.

I phoned my sister to give her the news - her words were "what a ghastly name!)

I phoned my Mum and she said "oh well it could have been worse".

We love our little boy more than anything in the world and I can't imagine my world without him in it but I know that if his name had been Something ridiculous hyphen Something even more ridiculous we would have had to say no. It's awful admitting that but I know that trying to live with a name that we hated would have caused problems with the bonding process. My son's name does cause people to comment as it is still fairly unusual although gaining popularity. We just say - oh yes it's a Scottish name.

At the name time that we were working with our SW she was working with another couple who had had an 18 month old placed with them. The placement had broken down because the adoptive mother was not coping. The SW had also caught the parents calling the child by a completely new name. The child was confused enough by the move to his new family without having to get used to being called a new name! The adoptive parents should have been brave enough to turn down the match with that child at the very beginning of the adoption process ( ie - during that first phone call)

I believe that the name a child is given by his birth parent is precious. My second child was not even given a name by her birth mother so her name was given to her by the nurses in the special babycare unit. It's a lovely name that could belong to a child of any class or background but I'm sure that when she is older she would have preferred to have been named by her birth mother - whatever name it was.

I know that none of what I have said provides an answer to the problem of little Chardonnay-Mai being left in care forever. I don't know what the answer is.

Another adoptive mum here. I expect all prospective adopters have the 'what if they have an awful name' conversation. And yes, I am frequently grateful that my two have lovely, if slightly unusual names.

For the record, the vast majority of times I find myself saying 'oh yes, what a lovely name' while inwardly thinking 'You WHAT?', it's to one of my very middle class friends and colleagues.

But if you do draw Chardonnay-Champagne you are likely to find it the most perfect name in the world shortly after they arrive home. Because it's attached to your perfect child :)

I think there are valid reasons for changing a birth name - security in the age of Facebook being the most important. But an older baby or toddler arrives as a complete small person and their name is a part of that. They have just lost every piece of security they had in leaving their foster family and you shouldn't take the decision to remove the name they recognise, that is part of how they see themselves, lightly.

And if there's one thing I've learnt in five years of parenting it's that no child, birth or adopted, comes as a blank slate. Revise views of parenthood if that's what you are expecting :)

SWs actually have very varied and slightly odd approaches to the name thing. DC2 has a lovely, totally unobjectionable name which they were quite old enough to recognise and answer to. Almost the first question from SW was 'what would you like to do about the name?' ?!? Fortunately the answer 'nothing, thank you' was acceptable!