To think that no one should be allowed to adopt 34 children

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30386348

It is impossible mother 34 children. I feel that it immoral to adopt so many children. 34 children stops being a family type enviroment and more like an orphanage. I feel it impossible to give sufficient attention to so many children. It's not like a normal family as many of the children are close in age and have complex needs. No one naturally has 34 children.

I don't think it right to change a name- probably the only thing that is theirs.

Your name is the name your parents give you.

Personally I think "parents" in this instance are the people who adopt the child

I know a couple who adopted a baby last year and they had to keep the name.
When the child grows up they will want to know their background and family history - it must be very upsetting to find that you have a different name.
I can't imagine thinking I was Emma and then finding out I was really Amy.

That might be true about wanting yo change names if you were horribly abused (but quite likely not, children aren't black and white like that, generally speaking)

It's definitely not true when you are an orphan or give up by a family who are just too poor to care for you. The family you left behind loves you too. Which is the sort of children the family in the OP has been adopting.

Our system has its flaws but 18 years of adoptive parenting have completely convinced me of the need for thorough checks and relatively strict rules.

I don't know enough about this family to bash them, and that's not my intent despite the fact that I don't believe a sytem should allow any family to adopt that number of children. Key word - ANY family. It's not anything personal against well meaning parents. But the system has to take some responsiblity for the children it's allowing to be placed, and overall such lax rules are not working out in childrens favour (children as a whole, rather than some individual children).

Name changing is a complicated issue to say the least, and it can't be turned into a few simplistic sentences. A whole book could be written on it. It has been discussed in depth multiple times by us adoptive parents and one thing we mostly all have in common at least, despite our differing opinions, is the amount of thought we put in to such big decisions and our desires to do right by our children. For my 3 children, I have one older child who chose to change their middle names, one older child for whom everything bar surname remained identical (I would have double barrelled the surname if that had seemed a better course of action) and one whose first name was changed (and subsequently at an older age has decided to change their middle name as well). It's very individual - what works for one child won't work for another - I think that's probably something else you would get most adoptive parents to agree with.

Would I ever just decide to change an older childs name without asking (my older children were 10 and 8 when they moved in)? Well going into my own opinion, no absolutely not, for me that would be the same as if i got married and my wife then informed me that she was now going to call me Jayne instead of Lilka. There comes a point in your childhood where your name stops being 'what everyone else calls you' and truly becomes your name, at which point you are entitled to do what you like with it. You can desire to change it, you can feel it's a core part of your identity. Every child is different.

Your certainty over name-changing seems very ... individual, tartan. You cite the number of baby names threads, but we also have very frequent threads about how dreadful it is when people insist on getting your name wrong!

I was much abused by my parents (I'm not adopted) AND have the sort of name people insist on getting wrong. It's always vetoed on the baby-name threads as, apparently, it's also naff. Despite all this - and being bullied at school for my name - I've never wanted to change it. Your theories don't apply.

Lilka I absolutely agree with you and can't argue with a word of that but I am uncomfortable with this view that you are "really" the name your birth parents give you and that a name your adoptive parents may give you is "wrong", null somehow.

The system in the UK seems to place so much emphasis on the birth parents and it almost seems to say to me, as an outsider (though with some insider knowledge as it were) - "You are not REALLY this child's parent. His/her birth parents are more important than you. But you can look after him or her for a while."

That's a criticism of the system not the parents in it.

I just can't imagine not being able to name my own child.

Garlic I HATE my name. Loathe it. I've never changed it because, as Lilka says, it's mine now. I am "my name."

But - I'm 32. I doubt I'd have cried if someone had changed it when I was 2.

It isn't a theory either, I just feel one of the most fundamental rights a parent has is to name their child - and denying a parent that right says to me "you are not really their parent." I don't like it!

I see what you mean (and sympathise with having an awkward name ) but I think the fundamental right of a child to 'be' who they are trumps any rights a parent may claim.

I know these American christian adopters see things the other way around, though.

"I doubt I'd have cried if someone had changed it when I was 2."

I dunno, my two year old knows exactly what his name is and will tell you what it is frequently. I imagine he'd be pretty confused and upset if people started telling him he was wrong, that he's not E, he's Y.

You don't think 2 year olds know their name?

It's different if a child chooses to change their name, but we're taking about children who spoke little or no English. How likely is it that they understood the question AND managed to come up with names like Lily and Leah?

It isn't about the right of the parent. It's about what's in the best interest of the child.

He probably doesn't have a stupid name leedy

Garlic I suppose the way I see it is that a child belongs with their parents, and them keeping their birth name is a barrier in the way of that - especially if the name looks out of place. One reason I don't like mine is because it's from an entirely different culture to mine/my family's (mum had a friend I was named after.) But people always ask about it and/or can't pronounce it.

Obviously it's difficult/different if the child is older and I suppose thinking about it it's always going to depend on individual circumstances. I don't agree with "a child's name must ALWAYS be changed" but equally I disagree with "a child's name must NEVER be changed because it's all he has left of his birth family."

I personally would hate to adopt in the UK and think people who do so are absolute saints. Mind you Lilka is so patient when I ask daft questions I think she probably is!

HOWEVER, online I've seen name change beliefs within fundamentalist circles which concern me personally

Name changing for quite a few of these families (not saying it's every family, because obviously it's not) is not purely a 'parental desire' - it's also a religious issue. It harks right back to God renaming Abram and Sarai. He also renamed Jacob as Israel. Jesus naming Simon as Peter. Saul became Paul. THAT is one of the major reasons some fundamentalist families will give for renaming their new children (even the teenagers. Without asking their consent). Because some people in the Bible whose lives changed course in very significant ways were renamed to signify this. Some parents see this as a similar situation for their children - they are gaining a real family, and the true religion, and hence a new name is a very important symbol of this transition (if i remember correctly from reading fundamentalist parents blogs)

Additionally a smaller number of families will feel that God Himself has chosen the name in advance. I have genuinely read an adoptive mums story of how God spoke to her and told her the name of her future child. Years before said child was adopted.

Obviously this makes the name changing issue even more complicated than before. It also puts the child in a very difficult position.

When I gave my son a new first name at the age of just turned 2, I accepted that he may wish at a later age to be called by his original first name instead. And that was okay by me. I had very good reasons for the name change, but I also accepted completely the importance his original first name might have to him later on. Right now in reality he has desire whatsever to go by his original first name, completely the opposite in fact, but in an alternate universe would I have felt personally rejected if he chose to go by his birth name? No. Sad, yes. Completely rejected, no.

But these children? If they are accepting (a fundamentalist branch of) Christianity as their new religion, if their parents are telling them that their new name came directly from God Himself, or has deep religious significance, how can they feel able to turn down a new name, or go back to being their birth name? It might be felt not only as a rejection of parental authority, a rejection of a parents love, but ALSO as partly a rejection of the Bible, of God, of Christianity. And in fundamentalist circles, that's as bad as it gets. And if the child fully believes in it themselves, would they feel able to revert to their original name even if deep down they wanted to?

So that's the one more concerning facet of name changing for me

Sorry I haven‘t read the whole thread, but my first thought when reading the headline was that the family were fundamental/quiverfull movement. From what the story reports these children are in a much better place, but there are plenty of mega family by adoption blogs that tell horrific stories. Children are often chosen from "heathen" countries in order to get as many people "saved" as possible, and many adopters think that by giving a "righteous" home to a child that has been abused in an institution for 5+ years that they will suddenly lose traits associated with long term abuse/trauma.

There is one blog where the adopter has sent many children back (but keeps on adopting) because "their behaviour shows that they are so ungrateful that they have been saved from a life of misery" etc. Truly horrible reading :-(

This is the article Mutter linked upthread. It taught me a lot. m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/christian-evangelical-adoption-liberia

This is a link to a forum which talks about quiverfull movement adoption. Not an easy read :-(

www.freejinger.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=170

Thanks to this couple a lot of children have been saved.

I couldn't take on the responsibility but all the children seem to be happy and settled.

I don't believe that the children have been saved or even necessarily given a better life in all cases. Many African societies really do try to take care of orphans. It's just that life is unbelievably hard for everyone. Poverty is a big reason that children put in orphanages. Baby trafficking is big business.

Is it really wonderful that children are sold into a half baked cult? I imagine the quality of orphanages varies across the third world. Not all orphanages are dying rooms with children in cages. There are some fantastic charities and some amazing Local people. In fact many African peoples could teach us a thing or two about looking after vulnerable people and extended families. Many third world countries need help with infrastructure so that they can solve their own problems. It's smacks of colonialism to think these children are being rescued. They maybe going from the frying pan into the fire.

Is it ok that parents can send a child back to their country when everything gets too tough?

I think you are deluded. These countries do not get government funding. Charity donations are a hit and miss.

Like it or not charities rely on popularity. This year it seems to be the homeless and the people spending Christmas alone.

This couple have given these children a loving stable home.

Here's the beginning of the Reuters investigation into the Child Exchange, an informal network used by adoptive parents to rehome children they're fed up with. This process is legal in the USA, unregulated, and requires nothing but a 400-word guardianship contract - Reuters describes it as a receipt. No background checks are made. No money changes hands, the new parent gets the child free. The guardianship contract entitles the new parent to claim state benefits, and some receive large grants to rehome.

When you click on one of the child silhouettes in the graphic, you see the advertisement that was placed for the child.

"A 10-year-old boy from the Philippines and a 13-year-old boy from Brazil each were advertised three times. So was a girl from Haiti. She was offered for re-homing when she was 14, 15 and 16 years old.

"Nicole Eason knew how the child exchange worked. She would tap it again after losing Quita, much as she had used it before.

"One of the first times, Eason had gone by the screen name Big Momma. The custody transfer took place in a hotel parking lot just off the highway, and the man who went with her to get the 10-year-old boy would later be sentenced to federal prison. His crime: trading child pornography."

The Reuters investigation has had some positive effects:

www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/us-wisconsin-adoption-idUSBREA3F1VS20140416

I can't believe anyone who has read any of the links on this thread still thinks this family are doing a wonderful thing.

And I'm angry now. Read down to the end of the article titled orphan fever about all the children who were severely abused, murdered and sent back to Liberia by their adoptive parents who were unvetted and entirely unprepared for the realities of adoption. One family had triplets placed with them after they had killed an adopted 8 year old by neglect.