This was a socalled open adoption site i used to participte in ,,if you dont beleive the way they do you get kicked out lol...READ on,,if your not sure, my name on the following is momx6!

– July 25, 2010Posted in: Community Wisdom

I have two adopted children and while I don’t have a problem with openness, I have been finding something that confuses me and that I struggle with. I was hoping someone could shed some light on it for me.
The adoption world seems to use some standard terminology. We can see by reading through the posts on this site that people are comfortable using the titles ‘first family’ or ‘birthfamily’ or ‘biological family’ and all the derivatives that come from it, even when referring to themselves. But then they continue to call the adopted children their ‘son’ and ‘daughter’. In some posts people talk about birthfamilies and say such things as ‘well that IS their grandparents’ when referring to the birthgrandparents. I find this very common with all of the adoptions in my life (my own & those of my family & friends).
I don’t understand the use of the terminology. Should it not be ‘birthson’ and ‘birthdaughter’ etc.. ? Why when challenged is it then said ‘well they ARE the grandparents’?
Many birthparents make the conscious decision to relinquish their children. In that process, they deliberately legally sign away their parental rights and the adoptive parents legally take that on. I don’t understand why then birthparents continue to use the terms ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ instead of using the term ‘birthson’ and ‘birthdaughter’. By doing so, it seems to me that the common attitude of birthfamilies is that biology is in fact more important than the adoptive family.
I honestly would really like to understand this!

Share:

About Anonymous

All questions in Community Wisdom are submitted and posted anonymously. If you would like to submit a question, please go here. NOTE: Individual replies to Community Wisdom questions do not necessarily reflect the point of view of the owner of this web site or any of its community members.

19 Comments

Reply
Admin Dawn
Posted July 25, 2010 at 6:12 PM
I don’t think it SHOULD be anything really. I think every individual in adoption has a right to work out these terms for themselves and then that every family has a right to work out how they will discuss it together. By which I mean, I have no right to say what my daughter’s first mom ought to call herself or call her daughter within the context of her own life but together we — first mom and myself — have created an adoption family culture, too. Likewise my daughter has a right to her own terms.
I do not think that signing away legal rights means signing away the right to claim that child as your biological own. I also do not think that Pennie (our daughter’s first mom) is in any way claiming that her biological ties are superior to our adoptive ties by referring to Madison as her daughter. Madison can be both of ours and we can both refer to her as “my daughter” without in any way impugning each other.
When we (our family) use descriptive terms (birth, adoptive) to talk about one parent or another it’s usually because we’re needing to differentiate. I guess I could understand a first parent saying, “the child I placed for adoption” or even “birth child” to differentiate from a child they are parenting but I don’t see any reason to use it otherwise, especially if he or she wants to talk about said child without someone outside the experience without getting into the whole thing.
Finally I would be sad if Pennie referred to Madison as her “birth daughter” when speaking TO Madison because I know Madison really values being Pennie’s child and I think it would be painful to her to hear her differentiated in that way just as if I said “adopted daughter.” She is our daughter — mine and Pennie’s — period.
I guess I wonder why you feel that the term “birth child” ought to be used? I really am curious because I just don’t get it — how would this be a benefit?
Reply
cindypsbm
Posted July 25, 2010 at 6:42 PM
Dawn when you stated this
“When we (our family) use descriptive terms (birth, adoptive) to talk about one parent or another it’s usually because we’re needing to differentiate.”
I think you really hit the nail on the head with that sentence!
Soo…. as a ‘first’ mom I used to call my son ‘birthson’ all the time here and other places(blogs, etc) and many of the adoptive parents and even first parents enlightened me to the fact that I could actually call my son just that MY SON. It doesn’t mean that I am disrespecting his adoptive parents role as, well, parents. I just know now that I can call my son *my son* …as well as they do.
I mean, do you feel challenged somehow if you spouse calls your child ‘my son’ or ‘my daughter’ ??
I hope not, really, there is nothing in adoption agreements that say anything about what a first parents can or cannot not call her off-spring!! If there was I am sure that many people would have issues with that!!
Adoption means that the rights *to the child* were given to the people the first mom choose to adopt them. The first mom signing that form just means that she no longer has any legal responsiblity to the child she birthed. It does NOT mean her right to freedom of speech reguarding *her story* is null and void!!
I feel much better about myself when I call my son MY SON because it validates the fact that I did do something very significant, I gave birth to a very healthy baby!!
As well, for me, calling my son “MY SON” instead of ‘birthson’ shows the world that I do still love him and always will.
I read some blogs of adopted persons who stated that they felt ‘demeaned’ at the very thought of being someones ‘birthson/daughter’. To adopted persons(as far as I have read) they see themselves as the sons/daugthers of BOTH adoptive and first parents.
If the adopted persons themselves don’t want these ‘labels’ then I personally have decided not to assign them to my son anymore. Unless of course people need to understand the difference between my role and that of his adoptive parents.
Reply
Suz
Posted July 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM
Srlsly? I cannot grasp this question. Someone really wants to suggest that children that have already been renamed, lost their OBC, their civil rights, be called “birth”child (which sounds to me like “dirty love child” or “bastard”)?
This rings to me as an adoptive parent that is insecure in his or her role, feeling threatened by those gosh darned birth people (why oh why wont they just go away!).
I have one daughter (surrendered to a baby broker in 1986) and two sons (currently parenting). I would never fathom calling my daughter my “birth”daughter,. Sure, she has two mothers and she is welcome to call them what she wants but I am not going to ever consider calling her my birthdaughter. To me, she is no different than my sons (regardless of what the law says).
You speak of conscious decisions? Sure, i was conscious when I made the decision to surrender my daughter but I was not informed. I made the decision under duress (lies, threats of lawsuit against me and my parents, and coercion). Does my consciousness somehow erase all the lies that were told to me about adoption, the agency, the family that purchased and legally adopted her? I don’t see the relevancy of consciousness (particularly when you consider moms that are heavily drugged to get their consent).
Adoption is a legal, man made construct. Motherhood is mother nature. It would seem more appropriate that the “birth”parents retain the natural title of mother, father, and such and the adoptive parents get the adoptive title added to everything. Furthermore, that adoptive parents should say (and sadly, I realize some do) their adoptive daughter and their daughter (implying the later is their “real, bio” one).
As noted, suggesting such a title, to me, is grossly offensive to our children that have already been erased, labeled and rebranded. Must we give them another name? Why can’t we speak the truth? They have two mothers, two fathers, two families. Why dont we give our permission to love all their families and integrate their lives? Why must we fracture our children so?
My daughter is my daughter. Always have been, always will be.
Reply
momx6
Posted July 26, 2010 at 6:51 AM
Biological mother… connected by direct genetic relationship rather than by adoption . Thats the definition or Title of a biological parent. A title is earned. By placing a child for adoption, you earn the title of biological parent. i am adopted and adopted my son. i never say my adopted son and my biological daughters. If my biological mother considered me her DAUGHTER it would bother me. Im not hers, she didnt earn that title, she didnt stay up with me, nurture me, raise me, she BIRTHED ME bottom line. THATS the defenition of mother, a nurturer. I love her,respect her but to me she will be my Biological mother! you can be the birth, biological, first etc but mother, mom, mommy is a title earned by the sleepless nights, the worry, the support financially and emotionally .
- Reply
  cindypsbm
  Posted July 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM
  You think that first moms don’t have sleepless nights thinking about their children? that they don’t worry about the child/ren they don’t see everyday?
  Parenting is a gift that first moms like me have given to parents like you.
  I know it is hard and everything, but you …ahem…literally signed up for that!!
  I will always be my sons first mom, I didn’t *earn* that title, and I never could, but it is mine whether I wanted it or not.
  I am that title of *mom* even though not in actual practice.
  I have the highest respect toward parents who adopt.
  Parents like you work hard too love children reguardless of who they came from and I am very glad you do.
Reply
Admin Dawn
Posted July 26, 2010 at 6:59 AM
Melissa, you absolutely have the right to decide how you claim your biological mother and you have a right to share with her how you expect her to claim you (although she can, of course, make her own choice). But our kids might feel differently.
Your insistence that only adoptive parents can be the MOM is an insult to the first parents who participate on this site — whose very participation here speaks to their dedication to their children.
Reply
Admin Dawn
Posted July 26, 2010 at 7:11 AM
(Also for the record? I’ve let Melissa know that trashing entire groups of people based on her experience is not tolerated here and that if she cannot share a more reasoned point of view then she is not welcome. While I’m happy to entertain all sorts of openness experiences here, this site does NOT condone a closed adoption point of view in the interest of diversity. This is an open adoption SUPPORT site — not an open adoption DEBATE site.)
Reply
momx6
Posted July 26, 2010 at 9:49 AM
its not a debate..it was an HONEST answer to a question. thats what the asker asked for. not meant to be trashing. that was MY opnion,,you dont have to agree or disagree..it was in fact MY honest beleif. i do beleive in open adoption other wise i woulnt have one..but I , ME personally beleive
ONE mom, mother ETC. I have my sons Bmother spend weekends at my home,, include her in family cookouts etc..BUT if introduced..its K ,,my sons Bmom! Thats it plain and simple,,she agrees and has No issue with it. Shes stated before..shes never been his MOM , she feels that Im it and thats my place. So TRASHING no, but my OPNION a title is a title and if ALLL involved agree so be it. i would never introduce her as his mom…SHE would be HORRIFIED! So open adoption comes in all shapes and sizes..there is no wrong or right just what works for you..and again..i gave MY OPNION!
- Reply
  Admin Dawn
  Posted July 26, 2010 at 10:08 AM
  FYI, other OAS users. Melissa has trashed us on other sites and I decided to heck with this. It’s always been my intention to make OAS a safe and welcoming place and I feel like her participation here, which has consistently been inflammatory, does not help me with this goal. I run this site in my (meager) spare time and I don’t really want to have to keep popping over here to message her or reply to her comments. I think she’s posting just to upset the site (if her posts on the other forum are any indication) so I’ve gone ahead and marked her as a spammer so she can’t login here. Melissa, if you want to be reinstated, you can contact me via the “contact us” page and open up a dialogue with me via email. I don’t want to have it here.
Reply
susiebook
Posted July 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM
To me, being asked to call Cricket my “birthson” would feel really pointlessly insulting. I don’t give his moms parenting advice or tell them that they need to be doing this or that, I refer to them as his moms, I call him by the name they gave him, I respect their boundaries and primacy–so why take this extra step to ensure that I understand that I lost him? I really do understand that, you don’t need to monitor my vocabulary to make sure that no one misunderstands. He doesn’t live here: I see him a few times a year, and I send a birthday gift. It couldn’t be clearer that I am not the “mommy,” and I would have some serious questions about the motivation of anyone who feels a need to rub that in.
- Reply
  Suz
  Posted July 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM
  I would have some serious questions about the motivation of anyone who feels a need to rub that in.
  Agreed completely.
Reply
mama2roo
Posted July 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM
And yannow? There are so many things about adoption to analyze, look through, poke, prod, change, challenge, etc. This thing about titles just keeps on coming back over and over. In the big picture, for our children, and for adoption in general, is this where we want to focus our energy? To the original poster, it seems rather than to post it in a question when you really only wanted to state it as a statement, you may have saved yourself a little time by doing that right off the bat. Bottom line is, I can title myself and Woob’s mom anyway I want to. What’s most important is how Woob wants to label us, by name and the place in his heart. Who am I to get in the way of that?
Reply
Amanda
Posted July 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM
This is, as Suz points out, similar to parents who refer to their “daughter” and their “adopted daughter”, or their “foster daughter”. I see no place for that discussion unless someone specifically asks a question about the child’s birth origin. Even then, unless I know them well, honestly? None of their freaking business.
I am my mother’s daughter AND my father’s daughter. I also have (had) two grandmas and two grandpas. It’s really not that confusing, c’mon.
Reply
Britney
Posted July 26, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Even based on what momx6 said… that titles are earned… well, my son earned the title of “my son” by living in my uterus for nine months… calling him my “birthson” feels like it diminishes HIM more than it has anything to do with me. My love for him didn’t change one iota when I signed that document… and it’s only grown since. He means no less to me than he would have if I had parented, so why would it have a different name?
I also don’t use “adoptive parents” unless there’s a reason for the distinction… and I’d be really bothered by them calling him their “adopted son.” They’re my son’s parents, and I’m their son’s birthmom.