Adoption and Name Changes (options, parents, foster care, biological)

[Avery_Harper]

I get the feeling that some believe adoptees come with, or should come with blank slates.
Again, very disturbing to me that anyone would change an older adoptee's first name. If a child KNOWS their name, it then becomes an intrinsic part of who they are. If their name sounds foreign, it's because the child's history IS foreign. That doesn't change just because the child is brought to America.

[tiffjoy]

Originally Posted by susankate

The name on my OBC is H - my non-ID sheet says that it is unknown who named me - I wish I knew.

(((susankate)))

Originally Posted by susankate

Now, if say at 8, my adoptive parents had put me up for readoption or if I had not been adopted at all until the, I know I would have wanted to keep my name, whether C or H, because by then, it would have been my name and how I identifed myself up to then and I would consider it a hide for someone to expect me to change it to suit their desires. If any hypothetical prospective parent had said to a hypothetical me aged 8 "well, I plan to change your name because it is my right as a parent", I would have said "well, it is my right as a child to keep it, so you can take a hike".

When I was little, everyone called me by a certain shortened version of my name. As I got older, I decided it sounded babyish and I didn't want to be called that anymore. My parents totally respected me in that choice. They didn't insist that they were my parents and it was their parental and legal right to name me and call me whatever they wanted.

My little brother, who is far younger than me and came along long after I stopped answering to that nickname, calls me by it. It makes me smile now. Only he and one of my close friends from childhood call me by that nickname.

A name is certainly a very special characteristic. Mine is very important to me, and all the feelings I have had about it along the way of growing up.

Originally Posted by susankate

As for my pre- and post-adoptive surnames, I now feel a connection to both. With my pre-adoptive birth surname, it is one of the founder surnames in a particular region of NSW and if you have that surname in that region, everyone knows that your ancestors have been there for 1.5 centuries. There are 8 or 9 founder surnames in my birth family's home town and I can now read articles about that town and surrounding towns and know from the surnames whether the person is a blow in or been there for centuries. I belong to an online closed group re those descended from said ancestor (invited by president (my uncle) and the secretary of family society to join)

As for my adoptive surname, it is quite uncommon and everyone in NZ with that surname is related to us. Those in Australia aren't but it is still uncommon enough that those of us with that surname would probably be interested if we did meet someone with our name.

So I have 2 sets of names and I now consider them both part of what makes me me

That is so fascinating. I love how you make the point that both names are important to you and make you who you are. Again, with the theme that for adopted persons, both the biological and the adopted families are important. Nature and nuture together combine to make us who we are.

My last name is very special to me, as well. I know the entire history of my father's paternal family dating back to the Mayflower. It also happens to be cute and go perfectly with my first name. I get comments on it all the time, and it is definitely a part of who I am. In my family, we call certain characteristics being a "[my last name] girl." The females in my father's family have a long history of being independent, outspoken, and quite fiery ladies in general. It's a part of who I am.

[Jaded]

I really don't believe any parent should be judged for changing their child's name. Whether that child be adopted or biological. Parents make decisions that they feel are best for their child(ren). Will everyone agree with them? Probably not. Will the child always agree, most definitely not.

If my parents allowed me to have a say in every decision they made for me during all of my childhood, I'd be wearing pink outfits everyday and eating macaroni and cheese every night for dinner.

I don't need to be a parent to know that children's feelings don't always trump a parent's decisions and that this does not necessarily constitute disrespecting a child in any way. If a child wants to smoke should a parent say, "well, they're not my lungs!" I think not. Once kids become adults, they can change their names if they want to - whether they are adopted or not.

I'm constantly amazed by the voice of those who frown upon being marginalized in society, yet engage in and advocate for practices that do just that. Really interesting irony.

[charolastra00]

Would you change your raised from birth (either biological or adopted) child's name at 2 or 3 because it's your right as a parent? No. So why would you change your older adopted child's name?

It's the right of a parent to PARENT a child. Parenting does not include changing a name that the child recognizes.

As I've mentioned before, my boyfriend grew up in the foster care system and was never adopted, so as I've grown to know him, I've gotten to meet many adult adoptees and former foster care kids. One of his closest friends was adopted as part of a sibling group at 3. All 3 of the children, aged infant to 5, had their names changed. The two oldest already KNEW their names. The two oldest broke ties with the adoptive parents at 18 and have both since legally changed their names back to their birth names - not because they particularly like their birth names (they don't) but because it's so unbelievable to them that someone would have the gall to change their names - especially during the tumultuous adjustment period from living in foster/group homes to having a family.

[susankate]

Originally Posted by Jaded

I really don't believe any parent should be judged for changing their child's name. Whether that child be adopted or biological. Parents make decisions that they feel are best for their child(ren). Will everyone agree with them? Probably not. Will the child always agree, most definitely not.

If the child has an acceptable name and wants to keep it, how is it in the child's best interest to change it?

If my parents allowed me to have a say in every decision they made for me during all of my childhood, I'd be wearing pink outfits everyday and eating macaroni and cheese every night for dinner.

What if they had decided to change your first name when you were about 8 or so just because they felt like it? Would you have been happy about it?

I don't need to be a parent to know that children's feelings don't always trump a parent's decisions and that this does not necessarily constitute disrespecting a child in any way. If a child wants to smoke should a parent say, "well, they're not my lungs!" I think not. Once kids become adults, they can change their names if they want to - whether they are adopted or not.

Letting a kid decide on whether to keep the name they are familiar with and letting a child smoke are hardly equivalent

I'm constantly amazed by the voice of those who frown upon being marginalized in society, yet engage in and advocate for practices that do just that. Really interesting irony.

[/quote]

Who is being marginalised by advocating for the right of a child to keep their own name?

[tiffjoy]

I find it interesting that those who agree with changing a child's name also state that a name isn't important. Ok, so if a name isn't important, why would you need to change it?

I believe a name is important, so that's why I don't think you should change an older child's name. The other viewpoint has some inconsistencies in it.

Also, I don't get the "parent's right" attitude. My children are people with their own sets of rights. My rights as a parent have to do with protecting them, teaching them, and raising them to be independent people. It's not a "right" to name a child; as an infant, a person needs a name, so the parents choose. An older child with a name is no longer in need of a name, so there is no "parental right" involved.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by Jaded

I'm constantly amazed by the voice of those who frown upon being marginalized in society, yet engage in and advocate for practices that do just that. Really interesting irony.

The obliteration of original identities is rooted in the marginalization of people all throughout history. Those who advocate for retaining & honoring original identities are very much against the marginalization of adoptees.

[susankate]

Originally Posted by tiffjoy

(((susankate)))

It's OK but it would have been nice to know for sure. At least then I would have known that she knew I was a girl (they didn't always let the mothers see their babies). The info sheet said that I could have been named by my bmother or by nurses in the hospital (apparently, I had to spend a short period in hospital right after birth). One thing that might point to it being my bmother is that on my OBC, it has the town listed where she was born - even though she grew up in town X, she (like most other residents of town X) was born in town Z (slightly bigger town - the 2 towns and their residents were very close). Only town X was mentioned on paperwork thus I think a nurse registering the name would have used the town of residence (X) rather than the actual town of birth (Z). I don't know if that makes sense.

When I was little, everyone called me by a certain shortened version of my name. As I got older, I decided it sounded babyish and I didn't want to be called that anymore. My parents totally respected me in that choice. They didn't insist that they were my parents and it was their parental and legal right to name me and call me whatever they wanted.

My little brother, who is far younger than me and came along long after I stopped answering to that nickname, calls me by it. It makes me smile now. Only he and one of my close friends from childhood call me by that nickname.

As you point out, children do get to have some input into their name in regards to derivatives or nickname. When my abro was 14 or so, he decided he wanted to be called by a nickname which had been given to him by friends (nothing to do with his actual name) and we have called him that ever since.

A name is certainly a very special characteristic. Mine is very important to me, and all the feelings I have had about it along the way of growing up.

If names didn't mean anything, we would all be called by numbers.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

As I've mentioned before, my boyfriend grew up in the foster care system and was never adopted, so as I've grown to know him, I've gotten to meet many adult adoptees and former foster care kids. One of his closest friends was adopted as part of a sibling group at 3. All 3 of the children, aged infant to 5, had their names changed. The two oldest already KNEW their names. The two oldest broke ties with the adoptive parents at 18 and have both since legally changed their names back to their birth names - not because they particularly like their birth names (they don't) but because it's so unbelievable to them that someone would have the gall to change their names - especially during the tumultuous adjustment period from living in foster/group homes to having a family.

Thanks for sharing this. I think the negative impact this can have on a child (especially one who already knows their name) is much more common than some people know.

[susankate]

Originally Posted by tiffjoy

I find it interesting that those who agree with changing a child's name also state that a name isn't important. Ok, so if a name isn't important, why would you need to change it?

Exactly.