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...

It's nearly impossible for anyone without direct knowledge of the adoption system to tell how many grains of truth there are in this, because it reads as if it's been edited in-house to hit all the DM's favourite cartoon targets - irresponsible, criminally-inclined chavs who breed like rabbits then call their kids after their favourite alcopop; do-gooding middle-class Guardian types who are secretly snobs underneath it all; infertile couples who can't have children of their own but still think they can pick and choose, and end up buying a baby from Russia. It's offensive on so many levels.

They should skip the 'posed by models' photos and just use a cartoon of some cat's-bum-faced biddie hoisting her bosom with the words EEH, NO BETTER THAN THEY SHOULD BE printed large above her.

I don't get why they can't name their child whatever they want. If the social workers won't let you can't you just do it later, after the adoption?
We changed our DD's name on adoption, she had the #1 least liked name, poor baby, we never used it we called her a nickname till the adoption was final and her new legal name was put on all the paperwork. The social worker liked her trashy name, but couldn't really argue our normal person name choice.

Once they're legally adopted you CAN call them what you damn well like - either informally or change the name by deed poll. And I don't think they are in much position to argue when the adoption paperwork goes into court if it has a new name on it, although you might piss them off.

I think all I was trying to say was that both of ours were toddlers rather than babies and their name was definitely a big part of who they were. Foster family called them 'davidbeckham', they knew and responded to that name. By the time we had got to know them they were 'davidbeckham' in our heads too, as I'm sure they were in their own.

There are perfectly good reasons to mess with that, but I think you consider long and hard before you do so. As I'm sure you did with your DD and I'm sure she now has a beautiful name! No hard and fast rules.

Thanks everlong. I do feel bad admitting it.

In answer to your question we couldn't have changed it. On our adoption course we had it drummed into us that the child's name was part of the child. To reject the name is to reject the child. We knew the rules and had to work within them. The nick name thing would be Ok apart from the fact that the SW's would have stopped us using it during the first 6 months when we shared parental responsibility with the local authority.

The only way to explain it is that as adoptive parents you have to make a lot of decisions along the way about the type of child you think you can parent. The tick list where you say yes to this disease or condition and no to that one is heartbreaking. The temptation is to say yes to every single possible issue that a child has. The hard thing is saying no.

Our DD had a condition that every other approved adopter in our area had said no to. We got her and we agreed to love and care for her even though she had the condition. We had said no to other things though - we had to be honest about what we could deal with. The same goes for names.

I honestly don't know what the answer is as I really believe that children's names shouldn't be changed. Can you imagine if SW's decided what were acceptable names and insisted that all babies who were going to removed from a birth parent were given those names?

As an adoptee whose name was changed, I do resent it. I was an adult when I found out what my original name was and I was shocked and hurt that my parents felt it was OK to take away the one thing that I came to them with as though it was utterly unimportant. I think BurningBridges is very right, there is no 'solution' being adopted is not the straightforward and unproblematic 'blank slate' process that some adoptive parents understandably would like it to be. I have spent years tiptoeing around my parents sensibilities, insecurities and fears with regard to my birth parents and it makes me angry and resentful. It is amazing how much that is allegedly done 'in the child's best interests' is nothing of the sort.

Lilka, you sound like an amazing person and a great mum - thank you for your posts, they cheered me immensely.

Wildfig - couldn't have put it better myself. That DM link made me angry in too many ways to mention!

Interestingly, I know online a family who adopted an older girl. I was very excited for them as their daughter was near the age my DC1 was when adopted, and it isn't common for older chilren that age to get adopted sadly

Anyway, their DD's name was the kind of 'classic' name you get often on the baby names forum here. Imagine a name such as Amelia, Charlotte, Harriet, that kind of thing

She decided she wanted to change her name so she could have a fresh start after a really hard time in FC. Her parents said, okay, what name would you like?

She picked 'Diamond' to be her new name, and so it was changed. She and her parents are delighted with it. It suits her.

But I can just imagine the responses were it a Mumsnet thread!! I think some of the people who knew them were surprised or shocked

So there you go. Older children can generally choose, and sometimes they go for unusual names. My own DD1 changed both middle names. Both middle names are taken from a book she loves very much. Her first name, unchanged, is both beautiful and unusual. I wouldn't have chosen her name for a birth child, as lovely as it is (even though I prefer unusual/uncommon names too), but it suits her and is perfect

If the social workers won't let you can't you just do it later

This isn't the decision of the SW's, it can be on the judges recommendation, or as a result of a multi-professional team meeting.

Lots of factors are taken into account.

I would add, if DD had chosen "Courtney-Mai Jayde" for her new middle names, that would have been fine with me. I understood her reasons for her middle name change, and I was happy for it to be her own choice. I would only have intervened if it was something rude or offensive, that kind of thing.

DS has a changed first name, as I said for security reasons rather than some snobbish one like the DM author seems to think. His former first name is still his middle name, and if he would like to be called that later in life, I will call him that. I made the right choice for him at the time I feel

I know two children who asked to change their deeply outrageous names (even by my standards) . They asked their new parents and it was arranged. If a child asks I think their views should be respected.

The social worker who wrote that article sounds very sneering when she speaks of the families whose children are being put up for adoption.

Not liking a name is a piss-poor reason to not adopt a child but if you really hate the name you could gradually change it. Say Chardonney to Charlie and then to Charlotte, as long as the child was old enough to know their name but not so old that they wouldn't forget it over time.

I like Crystal but not Chrystal, so I'd be tempted to change the spelling.

I am trying to adopt and am more fearful of the fact that unsavoury family members will come knocking at some point...but it is something me and dh are prepared to face should we need to.

The name situation doesn't put us off, but a previous poster mentions that unusual names might be given to make the adoptive children easier to track down; that is something I hadn't thought about tbh.

I wouldn't change a child's name, i would worry that it might make them feel like I was ashamed of how they came to be my dc. I might however introduce a nickname, something similar to their name? I don't know, i suppose every child id different and every parent, adoptive or birth has to do what they feel is best and most appropriate for them.

I don't think the author of the article is a social worker. She sits on an adoption panel but has only done so for a year, if she was an adoption social worker sitting on an adoption panel she'd have to have at least 3 years experience (generally it is much more) and the article would say so. She is a lay person with some interest in children and families, perhaps a retired teacher or someone like that. That is why she is so scandalised by what she has witnessed in one year's worth of meetings.

No one actually working at the coal-face would have such a simplistic view of the issues or be shocked that accurately assessing families to see if they cannot and never will adequately care for a child, determining that there is no reasonable placement in the wider family, removing the child from the family, finding a suitable alternative family, preparing the adoptive parents for the realities of caring for a traumatised child with far more unpredictable emotional needs than many children and then finally placing them in that family and supporting that placement often turns out to be really bloody difficult.

Just to pick out another horribly offensive assumption out of the many that have already been pointed out:

"A good friend adopted a beautiful little girl but was unhappy with her first name, even worse than those listed above, and she knew it was also the name of the birth mother?s psychiatric nurse.

She said: ?We adopted her so now she?s our child, but another woman chose that name and it?s awful. It?s also a constant reminder that the birth mother had mental health problems. Surely the least they could do for adoptive parents is allow them to choose a fresh name??"

I know it might not be as awful as some of the stuff implied in the article, but this is the only bit I have any personal experience with... it makes me really sad to see how much of a stigma there still is around mental illness. The birth mother ("another woman" ) obviously chose a name that meant a lot to her, and I bet the nurse was really touched to be given the honour of having a child named after her - it seems unfair to change such a meaningfully chosen name, especially when the reason behind wanting to change it is because of the shame and stigma surrounding mental health problems. :(

My adoptive parents changed my name as I was named after my biological mother. They picked a name with meaning that they were so glad to have a baby after so many years.

I'm glad they changed my name

My real name is Victoria btw. Latin for victory. It was a celebration

that's interesting Kayano. Obviously not as black and white as I assume. Just seems to me like it's an attempt to deny there was any time pre-adoption iyswim

I've always known why they changed it and what my original name was.

I don't believe that for a minute. If you were desperate for a child you wouldn't care and you could call Chrystal Chrissie anyway and Chardonnay you could call Chardie or Charlie or something.

It's only negative if you look at it in a negative light

'oh they changed her name they are denying her birth family oh no oh dear...'

As opposed to

'I've always wanted this baby so much. I will cherish her as my own and give her a name I always loved.'

I don't see anything wrong with changing a name as long as its not treated as some shady secret. It can be a fresh start

it seems unfair to change such a meaningfully chosen name, I see what you are saying DeathByChoc, but to be fair, however meaningfully chosen the name is, if it is something that is very difficult for a child to live with. Say if it had been Maureen or Joyce or something, then i could see why they would prefer the child wasn't lumbered with it.

What if they had a meaningful well chosen name?

After all they are the ones raising the baby

I think people should think long and hard before a name change, but they can be very positive things. We are all happy about DS name change

The worry I have about prospective adopters who get fixated on the name issue, is that as a parent, you don't change your child to fit you. YOU change yourselves to fit the child

There is having a legitimate concern about a childs name, there is needing to change a childs name...then there is trying to blank out the childs history and treat them as a blank slate. They are very different things indeed (the shady secret, like Kayano mentionned, is one form of that), but I have seen that in prospective adopters, and I think this DM article just panders to that belief. It doesn't talk about the real issues.

Also, very few babies get adopted now. The avergae age is nearly 4. Name changing looks rather different in that light. It's no longer about the infant, it's about a child several year old who identifies with their name already. The article should have picked up on that

I knew a couple who adopted a four year old boy and changed his name. They actually picked out several names and let him choose the one he liked, so he can really be, and feel like, part of his new family. It worked for them. It was their second adoption, so presumably they knew what they were doing. Didn't know them that well, but they looked like loving, caring parents and the kids seemed happy and settled. It was an international adoption (neither the kids nor the parents were British) and they had the freedom to decide what's best for their family. Which, in most cases, has to be a good thing.

I think the open system will create more problems than it will solve, and will definitely put people off adopting.

I don't think opennes is a major major put off. There is a large movement towards openness in international adoption nowadays, largely driven by adoptive parents themselves as well as the adoptees. You can have fully open adoptions (with visits) from countries such as Ethiopia or Guatemala (although G is closed now), and people are making contact with parents in Russia, Ukraine and other EE countries. The only truly closed countries are places like China. And that's not about the children, that's about the government. I'm sure the Chinese government would not want adoptive families knowing about the hardships which cause the children to abandonned. Not to mention the fact that abandonnement is illegal there.

Contrary to what the article said, you can sometimes get enough information about the biological family to initiate a search, with countries like Russia