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

Your Mum and Dad are the people who love you and brought you up, but it is normal to want to know your genetic origins for certain, if this is in any doubt. You shouldn’t feel guilty for wanting to find out. It doesn’t change anything at all in terms of your relationships with your parents, but it is information about yourself that you should have. Sometimes it can be important for health reasons too, to know your biological roots.
Seems the most likely scenario is that your Dad isn’t your biological Dad, but of course he could be.

Just to clarify... It wasn't the unmarried part but more that perhaps her Mum couldn't cope so baby was taken into care. Social Services still do this now. If her Mum had had severe postnatal depression and there was no one to look after the baby.

I would suspect photos if it had been by a family member.

I would take a DNA test. I have done so and it confirmed my biological parents were who I thought they were.

Adopted woman here, just sending your warm thoughts and a few extra thoughts. If you can ask your parents or someone else in that generation (aunties, uncles, etc), that would help. For dealing with this with other adult adoptees, I suggest getting in touch with the Adult Adoptee Movement, which is a peer support organisation. As useful as adoption agencies are, sometimes it's nice to talk to others in the same situation. Also, your health is really important, as you may now not know about inheritable conditions, so I do suggest (if you can afford it) getting a test on one of the DNA websites that also tests for health conditions. I, like many other adult adoptees, don't have much sense of biological family medical history and it can really cause issues as you can't then plan ahead for health risks, risk passing things on to your children etc. I wish you all the very best. It's a huge discovery but hopefully your parents or other adults can help by being transparent with you about what the history is.

Mate, I was born in the 60s to unmarried parents who subsequently married and my dad did not have to 'adopt' me. Im not sure where this bizarre idea is coming from

Hope you are feeling OK, OP.

If, as I suspect, the man you know as your dad met your mum after you were born and adopted you and you had no idea until now that he wasn't your biological father, that means you and your mum were already a package deal and he made a choice to form a family with you both and raise you as his own child. That's pretty special in itself.

Could the letter in response to your application be a mistake? ( I know how rubbish government departments can be!). It seems really harsh to send out a standard letter like you have received, with no prior information for you.

It’s not ‘bizarre’ but certainly the case where I live

That's again a very small possibility. But it doesn't make much sense. Mum was only 20, so Granny was probably only about 50. You'd expect Granny to care for the baby rather than her going into the care system.

The more I think about it I think the photos getting lost is probably correct. I'm sure growing up my Dad used a max of one or two rolls of film. It wouldn't have been hard for them to have been lost or damaged.

Far too many posters are saying the same thing that adoption is how it was done to write it of as a bazaar notion.

The differences may be if the father was named on the birth certificate he already had parental responsibility so didn't need to adopt, or make the child a legitimate child of the marriage.

It may also be possible there was an urban myth that an unmarried couple couldn't register the child together. And adoption was the way for it to be done.

Lots of people 'think' they know the details of the law and really they don't. I had someone who held a high power job tell me it was illegal to keep using my maiden name. Same with common law wife, it just doesn't really exist - well not in Scotland.

Unmarried fathers didn’t have parental rights, even if they were on the birth certificate. That only came with a re-registering post marriage or a court declaration

The false information that unmarried couples couldn’t register together was also one that has cropped up many times when I’ve been doing the family tree. DH’s great aunt was outright told by the priest they weren’t allowed and they’d have to adopt the baby after marriage. They simply didn’t think to question his information.
In some places it also wasn’t the done thing to register together.

If the dad wasn’t on the birth certificate originally then re-registration wasn’t as simple and therefore adoption (which was relatively simple in that case) happened.

a lot depended on how much people knew. On one side of my tree the illegitimate babies were all registered by both parents and were given the father’s name. On another side the five that I’ve found were all registered just by the mother. Same area so same laws yet two families doing things very differently.

In 1901 my 2x great aunt registered her fifth child’s birth with the father present. My 2x great aunt never married and her son was given her last name but his father’s last name as a middle name. His father provided financially for him despite never marrying his mother. This was Scotland but unmarried couples could definitely register their child’s birth together.

I would ask them. They bought you up so the are your parents. It sounds like ur dad may not have been biologically but he took you on and adopted you. It seems the most realistic answer.

I hope you can speak to your DM if you haven't already OP.

I have similar musings about an anomoly regarding my birth - which appears twice on the register of births three years apart.

Sorry to hijack your thread @Dontknowwhoiamrightnow but I'd really love to find out why that is - and hoping someone who has taken an interest in your thread may be able to help!

I know my parents weren't married when I was born, but they married within six months of my birth.

So my birth appears in the records for the correct quarter I was born with a reference written in pen next to it. The reference refers to a further entry for my birth three years later (which happens to be a few months after my sibling was born).

I'm baffled. I wonder if it's something similar to your possible story around your parents being unmarried? I've never actually seen my birth certificate.

If you want any help looking up records give me a shout x

What a shock to receive that. Do hope you get it resolved

My friend and her now husband had a child in the 80s she had her mothers maiden name and when they married, because their daughter had her mother's surname he had to adopt his own daughter, so she could now have his surname.
I hope that sets your mind at rest. X

I know it seems like you're clutching at straws but it is possible you're correct. If I had adopted my sdd (in 80s) we were told we'd both have to adopt her (can't remember why) but it isn't a big step to suppose if your dad wasn't on the birth certificate then biological or not they'd still be in the same position. Just tell them what happened, of the cuff type thing, and see how they react.

I'm a strong believer in nurture trumping nature so hopefully however it turns out it won't alter your relationship too much.

If you’re the poster who posted last night, it’s very likely yours is a re-registration post marriage with the timing and the details.

It’s because there was no step parent adoption then.

Everyone on her birth certificate would be giving up their rights and only those on the adoption certificate would gain them. Even if one of those people was the same they still had to be on the adoption as the adoption process basically cut all legal links between the child and those on the birth certificate.

unlike now where a parent can retain parental responsibilities and links when a step parent adopts them.

Although my mum is my eldest sister’s bio mum when it came to my dad adopting my sister our mum had to adopt her too weird I think but our mum is also on the certificate as her adopter

Hi I am in the same boat. My "birth" certificate is from 4 years after birth after my parents married. I was born in 83 so similar age to you op. I was given the same explanation by parents. I also remember going to register my daughter and being told we would need to re register her if we ever got married. Hope this helps x

I had my mams maiden name on my birth cert til my parents got married but then i was just reregistered at age 2. You can add a fathers name on at any time and it would be a birth cert and not adoption cert. Sounds like dad adopted you but mam is birth mam.

Re-register wouldnt make it an adoption cert. I did it with 2 of my children in 1987 and 1994. Also I had the same thing in 1971. All regular birth certs

You do have both parents on adoption cert even when mam is biological, my cousin has this as does my grand daughter