To contact his mum?

[saltyshoes]

When DH was 17 he got a girl pregnant at Uni having a one night stand. She left Uni to have the baby and wanted nothing to do with DH. There was some doubt as to whether DH was the father at all. Three years later a social worker contacted DH and told him the mum wanted to marry and wanted her partner to adopt the boy. DH gave up his parental rights so the boy could be adopted by the mums partner.

That boy is now in his 20s and we have children together. Oldest DD has always known about her half-brother existed. She has turned 14 and is now on Facebook and has found him. She is very keen to contact him. DH is very hesitant as he's not even sure the boy knows he's adopted as the mum didn't want him to know. DH wrote to the mum but has never had a reply. I've explained to DD that this all very sensitive and could be upsetting but she's 14 and just doesn't get it and feels she didn't sign off on not contacting him. I'm afraid she's going to send him a message and feel like it might be best if I try to contact the mum to see if she will respond to me? Or should DH contact the boy?

DH doesn't want to upset him but is unsure what on earth is the best way forward. A random message from DD is surely not the best first contact?

Can you speak somewhere like the Salvation Army? They could explain to your Dd why the family finder services exist. Then they could help her write a letter that could be added to a file which means if he ever wants to make contact then he will know that it's welcome.

Someone has to make her realise that it's his choice, not hers. I think at 14 that's probably not the dad who 'abandoned' (in the eyes of a 14yo) her brother, or you, who have supported it.

Pyongyang he may not have done any of those things, he may have ID his parents have done the paperwork for him, he may know he's adopted but doesn't want any contact with his birth father or his family which is his right.

he may know he's adopted but doesn't want any contact with his birth father or his family which is his right.

I completely agree, as I posted above, But my issue is with people saying that he may not know.

I am sure that if he is in his twenties then he will have done at least one and probably more, of the things above, in which case he will have seen his own paperwork so will know that he is adopted. A FB message from the DD is wrong in all sorts of ways and should not be allowed, but I dont think that a revelation of him being adopted is something to be concerned about.

Thinking about it, he is going to have done at least one because unless they are independently very wealthy, he is going to have gone onto further education, got a job or signed on.

Most of those things a passport would suffice and mum or dad could easily have sorted that for him.

If he's early 20's may still be using child passport, many places will even accept an expired passport.

You don't need birth certificate for renewal passports or even lost or stolen ones. And for other forms of ID a passport would be acceptable.

It's unlikely I agree but it is possible. And the point is the op her dh and dd don't know what the situation is.

PyongyangKipperbang My children's adoption certificate is indistinguishable from an ordinary short birth certificate - and deliberately so, meaning no one seeing it would know it was an adoption certificate. My children have been able to obtain passports, open bank accounts, get a driving license etc using their adoption certificate which others would think was a birth certificate.

I don't understand the view that this girl should never have been told she has a brother and, weirder still that he isn't her brother. He is her brother and you shouldn't keep major secrets like that away from children.

I agree that his feelings are very important, but are people in the 21st century still pretending that the adoptive parent is a biological parent to the point that his biological sister should be lied to about his existence?

*I don't understand the view that this girl should never have been told she has a brother and, weirder still that he isn't her brother. He is her brother and you shouldn't keep major secrets like that away from children.

I agree that his feelings are very important, but are people in the 21st century still pretending that the adoptive parent is a biological parent to the point that his biological sister should be lied to about his existence?*

I feel for the daughter.
She is an innocent party in all this. Sure, she's responding to a complex situation like an early teen girl, but that's because she IS a young teenage girl. She's aware of a half sibling (biologically) and probably has all kinds of ideas going through her head.
Some people are quite scathing with their "biology means nothing" comments. True, it doesn't MAKE someone a father or a parent in the actual 'walking the walk' sense, but equally the daughter is a child aware thay she has a sibling out there. I can totally see why she wants to initiate contact. I'm no expert in adoptionat all, but it seems a shame to me that an innocent party (14 year old girl) seems to have no way of exploring her biological family without being labelled a troublemaker. If in 25 years the boy turned up and announced to the daughter that 'surprise we're siblings' that's seemingly considered to be ok because it's his right.
It's complicated and a massive shit storm but I do feel like all children in these situation are innocent parties in their parents actions and should have comparable righta to explore their family in a calm, supported way.

Personally I think it's very sad that the authorities are allowed to separate families and create lives based on lies

Sorry to say it, but if you think this, you're a fucking idiot. Maybe have a look into what adoption is and get some information on the sorts of kids who get placed for adoption. Then come back and say that it's awful that the family has been split up (yes the lovely family who sexually abused the child) and that the child now lives a life based on lies (ie a stable permanent home with loving parents rather than a string of foster placements and being turfed out at age 16).

Jesus.

Churchill social services actively encourage the parents of non birth children to explain their life story and how they came to be together. How about reading about adoption, the process, why kids are adopted before making such crass comments

allchattedout as an adopted person I find your post incredibly ignorant. You should try reading into the research on the subject yourself before you go around calling other people "fucking idiots". Shame on you.

There is a website called Adoption Search Reunion, which has comprehensive information on every aspect of contact between adoptees and birth families, including a section on Using Social Network Sites to Make Contact with Birth Relatives. It might be worth you/DH sitting down with your daughter and having a look at it together? If she's struggling to accept your explanations of how harmful it could be, she might find it easier to process advice from an 'official' source. This passage in particular:

It can be enormously exciting to find someone via Facebook or another social networking site and easy to make contact with them. But it is such an immediate medium that adopted people and birth relatives, and the adoptive family too, can be completely unprepared for the potential fallout that this way of contacting can have. Whilst there can be many positive outcomes where people are happy that they have been contacted, there can equally be situations where people are shocked and unhappy about being approached in this way. And the subsequent 10 tips for thinking about making contact via social media, which covers things such as understanding the range of emotions and considering other family members.

If she wants to 'do' something (and I understand that impetus, having found out only last year that my mum was forced to give up a baby in the 1960s before she met my dad), then as a pp mentioned have a look at the Adoption Contact Register, which exists so that the adopted person can make contact if they decide they wish to do so. It costs £30 to add yourself as a birth relative but you need to be 18, so your daughter wouldn't be able to do it herself. (They are also able to confirm whether the adopted person has registered a wish for no contact.)

Good luck. I'm glad in a way that I didn't know about my half-sibling when I was younger, as the impetuous (and yes, selfish) 14-year-old me would probably have reacted in much the same way as your daughter, without fully understanding the consequences of my actions.

allchattedout as an adopted person I find your post incredibly ignorant. You should try reading into the research on the subject yourself before you go around calling other people "fucking idiots". Shame on you

Ignorant? What? Could you specify what precisely you find offensive about my post (which is supportive of the adoption process and condemns a poster who throws out typical DM clickbait lines about social engineering).

I am fully aware of research on the subject, thank you. I teach family law and used to practise it, dealing with (among other things) adoption and childcare law. I am far from ignorant on the matter.

My post was in response to a pp who had said that adoption is the authorities 'splitting up' families and creating new lives based on lies. That is patently untrue. The authorities recommend adoption where there is no realistic hope of children being returned to their birth family (usually because of serious abuse or neglect). It is a last resort, not something that they do to destroy families.
Additionally, the pp said that adoption meant that new families were built on lies. Again, untrue. Most adoptions are open. The courts have to consider whether post-adoption contact is appropriate. Built on lies is also offensive because adoptive parents are doing an amazing thing for children. They would otherwise be left in the care system which leaves them with extremely poor prospects.

Hope that clarifies. I am genuinely interested in why you find pro-adoption posts offensive though.

DH told the kids he exists from the time they were little and used his rather unique first name because who refers to someone as "the boy"? ... DH commented on a photo of a friend on Facebook and so did the boy. DH and the mum still have mutual friends from uni. DD picked up that must be him.

OP, this jumped out at me - it's disingenuous to say your DP 'couldn't have known about the impact of Facebook' when he's on Facebook, commenting on mutual friends' photos and effectively opening up a trail of connection. Are you sure he's not ambivalent himself about getting in touch with his son, especially if his mother didn't respond to his letter as he'd hoped?

allchattedout you are mixing up child protection with adoption, in a nutshell. You are assuming that to protect a child you need to totally separate a child from the biological family even though this is NOT supported by best practive research. Things are now changing, slowly but there is not nearly enough emphasis placed on the importance of contact with biological families, nor training, nor assistance with managing contact. Most adoptions in the UK are NOT open. Pro adoption is fine, calling someone a "fucking idiot" not so much. Hope that clarifies it for you.

She didn't say he couldn't have known the impact she said he couldn't have known the advent ten years ago when he was telling his children about their brother. Did you?

I'm actually really sorry for your dd here. She didn't sign away any link to her brother and her brother didn't to her. I don't know how you resolve it but I think she needs someone to talk to about her feelings about her brother at the very least.

Also from a legal standpoint, she is not his sister, he is not her brother and your DH is not his father. Nobody has any right to march into his life and turn it upside down.

^That.

It would be unusual for him not to know by this age that he is adopted as his birth certificate will have been needed for things but there's still a slim chance he isn't aware yet. Very irresponsible of his parents if that's the case.

You're issued with a new birth certificate when the adoption (an in-family step parent adoption, in any case) is completed. He wouldn't have found out this way.

allchattedout you are mixing up child protection with adoption, in a nutshell

I am not. Nearly all children who are adopted have been through the childcare system. Therefore, their biological parents have proven that they are unable to look after them safely or properly. This isn't Ireland in the 50s, where unmarried mums had their babies snatched from them. Children are placed for adoption as a last resort, where there is no hope of anyone from the birth family caring for them.

You are assuming that to protect a child you need to totally separate a child from the biological family even though this is NOT supported by best practive research

No, which is why adoption is not considered in every case. Anyway, best practise research suggests that children need stable homes. That may well mean separating the child from someone who has been proven to have abused them. Adoptions these days are not closed and there need to be justifications why there should be no further contact with the birth family. However, usually when the authorities suggest no contact, it is because it would not be good for the child.

You clearly have strong views on the matter but I will call anyone who says that adoption is a way of the authorities conducting social engineering a fucking idiot. I will say the same to people who say that children are taken into care to satisfy some social services quota. Nothing could be further from the truth and if you read what some of the children who are adopted have suffered at the hands of their biological family, you would never suggest continued contact between them.

Obviously this has very little to do with the OP's situation- that is a step-parent adoption, so has nothing to do with the authorities other than that they need to write reports etc.

He is with his biological mother the mother wanted her new beau to adopt her child. That meant the biological father gave permission for his rights to be removed and given to new beau. Personaly I think the mother should never have done that she shagged him and created a child with him. She didn't want him around I wonder why???? He should never have given up his rights. Does he think he is his son and do you see anything in him that resembles your husband.

This whole thing stinks of selfishness from both parents. I would support your daughter and look for outside support. The mother can stay quiet you can tell her no don't do it. A can of worms will explode out of the tin if it's not handled with care.

I had a friend who's mum kept her away from her dad. As she got older she wanted to know him, well the mother told her nothing about him. Then one day her mother put her in care and that's how she found her dad.

There may be appropriate channels for her to contact him, when she is older, mabey through a letter or e mail. Whatever anyone says, she is still biologically his half sister. The man might know that he has a biological father, isen't it customary that when a child is adopted, the adoptive parents tell the child they are adopted, and are open with them from a young age. So the man might know that he has a biological father out there.

London you're kidding right?!
The op has one side of the story! A man that would agree to surrender his parental rights after never making an attempt to contact his child doesn't sound like a father that would go to any lengths to keep a relationship with his Son to me. And I don't buy the 'the Mother wouldn't let me see him'...would that keep you away from fighting for access to your child? Really?
As for your 'new beau' comment. I dong think I've seen anything as disrespectful on mumsnet! Firstly, how dare you question the Mother's parenting-she did the right thing and raised her child! Secondly, a man not biologically related to a child but prepared to raise them as their own when the biological parent wont is a rare and special thing. One of the least selfish things a human can do, in fact. Your post left me cold.

Step parent adoption is nowhere near the same as adoption where a child is removed due to abuse or neglect. However the reality is that the protocols are changing, and in the uk contact is now still enabled even if a child has been removed to abuse. Not face-to-face, but certainly e.g. Letterbox contact etc.

In this case not telling either party i.e. The OP's dh's first child, and his existing children would be incredibly irresponsible, as there would be no way of knowing who had been told from the other side and therefore no way of knowing if one or other party may choose to make contact at some stage.

Now that there is so much ability to find people parents are going to have to be far more open about children's origins and heritage than they ever were before. It's naive to think you can't tell someone they were adopted or that they don't have adopted siblings because there is every chance that someone from the past can come calling at any point now.

My DP grew up in care and all of his siblings, including the one who was removed and adopted at birth, have traced each other via friends reunited, facebook etc. Among those have been half siblings who were the children of DP's biological mother who were born after DP and his siblings were removed into care.

Closed adoptions where there can be any kind of control over contact are going to be a thing of the past due to social media.

But if he is in his twenties then he will have seen his birth certificate by now

Not necessarily the case. I didn't find out I was adopted until I was 26 when I applied online for a copy of my birth certificate.
Anything that required my birth certificate e.g. passport, driving licence, my parents applied for these on my behalf so I wouldn't find out.