Aibu to think my parents are still biological

[Dontknowwhoiamrightnow]

Last week I urgently needed my birth certificate. I couldn't find it, so ordered a copy.
A few days later the post arrives and there is a letter to say that the information I provided for the birth certificate didn't match, but they checked some other files and the certificate is enclosed.
It's an ADOPTION certificate!!! I have an adoption certificate.
I had no idea I had even been adopted!!
Backstory-: I lived with my "mum and dad". I had my mum's maiden name at birth.
My parents told me that my name was changed to my dad's surname when they got married two years after birth.
I was told this was so that we could all have the same name.
This was In the 1980's.
My mum does look like me and my kids, so I think she is my biological mum.
AIBU to think that my parents are my biological parents and they became my adopters, just to change my name OR is it reasonable to think that my dad is not my real dad.
I know, I'm clutching at straws, it seems more than likely he's not my real dad.... How do I make sense of it all? Is there really any chance they are both my bio parents and the adoption was just to make me legitimate?
I'm in bits right now and don't know what to do xxx

That makes sense. Thanks!

For people considering doing a DNA test, make sure you’re aware of some down sides, in addition tothe positives.
As well as everything mentioned in this article, I’ve also heard of health ins. co using this info to deny treatment. Possibly not a big concern in the UK probably, but for those of us elsewhere, it’s something I’m concerned about.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/dna-test-kits/privacy-and-direct-to-consumer-genetic-testing-dna-test-kits-a1187212155/

I know you're being thoughtful towards your parents while your father is bereaved but unless his mum died VERY recently, i.e. within days, I think you have a right to put your own need for answers ahead of their feelings about that. (And I assume it wasn't super recent if you're asking your uncle questions?)

After all, they have chosen to keep this secret from you your whole life, with the fairly foreseeable consequence that you would find out one day once you either requested your BC or did a DNA test. I'm sure they're somewhat prepared for the conversation.

In Scotland, it was certainly the case in the early 20th Century that births were legitimised and a note placed on the birth registration when the parents married. (I've seen this on the Scotland's People website when looking up family info.)

Yes. OP needs to ask while she can.

My husband was in his 20s when he finally saw his birth certificate. He never did get all the answers because his Dad had died and his Mum just burst into tears. Turned out he'd been brought up by his grandfather and step-gran.

It is/was the same in England when a birth is re-registered.

If the father wasn’t on the original certificate, or even if people were given wrong information (this happened to DHs great aunt - she was told her sons father couldn’t be on the birth cert as they weren’t married and they had to adopt him) then adoption happened instead.

Maybe your dad isn’t your biological dad and your first birth certificate didn’t have his name on.
He may have formally adopted you after your parents got together.
In order for you to have your dads surname he would have to be named on your first birth certificate. They would not have to be married in order to do this. If they weren’t married then both would have to go to the registry office and give the chosen surname.

Interesting.
I didn’t take my husbands name when we married although our kids do have his name.
Married 1998. No one ever mentioned it was an issue.

I'm sorry, I haven't read all the responses so this might already have been said: it used to be the case that single people couldn't adopt. So, say if your dad is not your biological dad and wanted to adopt you, your mum and dad would have to adopt you as a couple even though your mum is actually your biological mum! So your mum would adopt you, even though she was already your mum

Sorry you're having such a disconcerting time, and hope you get to a good resolution!

It’s definitely worth asking though OP.
My dad never had a birth certificate, born Ireland sometime around the 1930s.
When he died the probate came back with two names.
The one we knew him by and another name with formally before it
for example John Smith…formally James Green.
We have no idea what that other name was all about.
We have no way of finding out except for going to Ireland around all the churches to find someone baptised sometime in the early 1930s with the same name.

Its upsetting as the surname isn’t even the same as my surname apart from anything else.

It used to be that if father wasn't originally on birth certificate, and couple not married at time of registration, the parents had to adopt tgheir own child. If you look like the rest of your family this may well be the case. I

It is possible for siblings to be born within a year. So would depend on the month of birth for each sibling. Has the OPs sister got a birth certificate? Maybe they're both in the same situation and have adoption certificates.

I quite agree. I only mentioned the name change specifically since the OP wondered about it.

As adoptive parents we are fairly familiar with this sort of stuff. Firstly you should of course talk to your parents, but if this is not possible birth records are accessible here https://www.gov.uk/adoption-records

Similar still happens now. My partner and I are not married. He is on our 1 and 2 year old daughters birth certificates already but we were told if we ever decide to get married we have to re-register them. I’m assuming that just generates an updated Birth certificate though, not an adoption certificate.

The various comments on here are making me think there are different 'rules' depending on dates, ie laws changed at different times.
I can't help wonder if the rules were and possibly still are different if the father is named on the birth certificate. Could it be if the father wasn't named and they later married it was treated the same as a step-father? But done differently if he was named

Going back to the 1930s Scotland, I know someone with a birth cert only naming the single mother and a court amendment naming the father a few months later. The father never played any part in the child's up bringing.

A family member had this, though much longer ago. It was only that his parents were not married, so his dad had to adopt him when they married. Try not to worry too much until you finish looking into it.

I suspect you were taken into care at birth as your Mother was unmarried. She then had to adopt you to get you back as you may have been adopted at birth by someone else or similar. This would strike me as the most obvious solution.

Why would you be taken into care just because your 20 year old mother was unmarried? Especially in the 80s. You have 6 weeks to register a birth so a bio dad has plenty of time to go with the mum to register the birth. The only reasons he might not be able to is if he doesn't want to be on the bc or he's out of the country or he's in hospital etc.

Once married you'd only have to re register the bc. You wouldn't have to adopt unless you were the step dad.

Very odd OP doesn't have any baby photos though. Maybe the mum is telling the truth about losing them, but none of her other family members have copies?

Unlikely to have been taken into care, adopted by another family then returned. Thats beyond far fetched.
Adoption cuts all legal ties to the birth family. The odds of a family adopting a tiny baby then relinquishing within 2years is wild.

It is possible that someone within the family cared for her but I still think that is unlikely.

I think the story of the photos getting lost is possibly true. Film and developing was pricy. People would use film sparingly and potentially let the film lie in the camera too long destroying the film.

I know a '90s baby who only has grandparents photos because mum couldn't afford them.

It seems likely that this is just how it worked for unmarried mothers at the time.

There were differences.

it also depended what people knew, or believed, the law was. DH’s great aunt was told by a priest she’d have to register the baby herself and then they’d have to adopt him later. They actually both could have and then reregistered once married, but they didn’t know that and believed the priest was correct.

A court amendment like that sounds like a father who refused to put his name on and was taken to court by the mother. Once maintenance was granted the father’s name was often put on the certificate to remove the shame of no father for the child

This is the least likely thing to happen. It was the 1980s not the 1950s. They didn't routinely take babies off unmarried mothers in the 1980s.

I think the story of the photos getting lost is possibly true. Film and developing was pricy. People would use film sparingly and potentially let the film lie in the camera too long destroying the film. This is true. My husband (older than the OP) only has one picture of himself as a child. Many people of the OP's age only have school photos.

I was born in the early 70s and yes I was adopted by my own parents after they got married. But I didn't have an adoption certificate, my birth certificate was re-issued with my parents surname. (Baby had to take the Mothers surname if parents weren't married)