adoption vs guardianship

sorry joanne for the confusion, i initialy started my post to you, but ended up making it for all readers, and i see that i didn't make that clear. In your original post you refered to "we" alot, so i thought you were implying "we" as adoptors. and i wanted to make it clear that i was asking the question to all effected by adoption. (':)') i'm greatful for your opinion, and thats what i wanted. i sense some tension from your post, and if you felt like i was being rude in my post, i just wanted to clear up, that that was not my intention. so sorry if you felt that way. to all: i don't understand why its so hard for people to not see the benefits of legal guardianship over adoption for the child. it has the same legalities in most cases. and allows the children to keep their heritage, and not take on a false one by getting a new name. i think it would preserve a false identity, and in the future if the child expressed a need, want or desire to change their name to the family they live with, then that should happen. but shouldn't it be their choice? i guess i just don't see the need to change a childs name. I mean, i understand that it is a part of the adoptive family, but the child still is a part of where they came from, so why is their original name wiped away and changed? i see why this happens, i just don't see the validation in it. Kali

When I used the word "we" I was refering to myself and my husband. I would never speak for anyone other than my family. There was no tension in any of my posts, life is to short for tension over someone having a different opinion. Having said that...I answered your original question with my thoughts....now, on to the next members opinion.

and the parties involved. In MY opinion, mind you, I have NOT adopted (yet), but I AM an adoptee....... I think that maybe for an older child (maybe over 5), that guardianship would be a consideration for myself and my husband, as that child has already been used to their name, has an identity associated with that name (good or bad), etc etc..... With an infant, I strongly believe in open adoption to begin with, so as long as the adoption is open, and the child has access to their birth parents and their heritage... changing their name to "belong" with their adoptive family is actually a great idea..... I know in my "step-family", MY son had a really hard time trying to figure out why his last name was different.... I had him before I got married (and NOT to his dad...) so he had MY last name (Fuller), but when my second son was born (with my fiance), I gave him Adam's last name because we KNEW we were getting married.... Once we got married, my name changed as well, so Brandon felt a bit left out... understandable for a 4 year old... soooo, we found out that legally his last name can be Fuller, but he can use Strickland (our name) for everyday things such as his community access card (we're on a military base) and his military dependent card... as that's Adam's last name (the actual military member), etc etc, BUT...... when registering him for school, we used his BC, which stated Fuller, but the teacher made a note in his records that he actually went by Strickland.... it helped him alot in that using Strickland made him "a part of the family", but keeping Fuller kept his "heritage" (trust me, my mom would have DIED if we'd actually legally changed it!!!) So, I know it's not the same situation, but step-parent adoptions are sort of the same..... even if you don't adopt the child, they KNOW that you are their parent, and that you love them very much.... Basically, if you've read this far (I know I ramble.... Adam tells me all the time, he can never keep track of what I'm actually talking about)...... I think guardianship is more appropriate for an older child who has spent years as a certain person, and taking away that "identity" isn't fair... unless, of course, the child WANTS to do that, which is entirely possible....... and with a baby, as long as the adoption is open.. I don't see anything wrong with that. It DOES make them feel more "included" when everyone has the same family name....... Well, sorry for being so long winded, I guess it comes from typing fast, it doesn't seem like a lot until I hit post...... :o PS---- Hi Joanne!!!!! Long time, no chat!! What's been happening with you???? :D

In most cases, I would not consider becoming a guardian of a child instead of adopting that child. In most states: *A guardianship is not permanent. It can be changed at any time by a court, or by the biological parents (or anyone else) successfully petitioning the court. *Guardians are not required to provide financial support for the children. Adoptive parents must provide for their adopted children. (Bio parents can be sued for child support in a guardianship, but not an adoption.) *Children in guardianships usually cannot inherit from their guardians unless they are specifically mentioned in the will. Adopted children (along with any bio children) are the automatic inheritors of adoptive parents estates if there is no will, or if provisions of a will are overturned. *Guardians are usually required to submit a report (often annually) to the court that granted the guardianship. *Guardianships are dissolved at death--the children go back to the court or the bio parents if their guardian parents die, regardless of who the guardians wish to raise those children. Children deserve the security of knowing that noone will take them away from the people who are raising them. They deserve to be provided for. They deserve to be treated the same as any bio children. They deserve to be parented without a court looking over the family's shoulders. They deserve not to be separated from siblings when parents die. ______________________________ The name change to me is entirely separate. Just like in marriage, when people decide to become a family through other means (in the US, at least), it usually means one or more of those people change their names so the "family" name of those people becomes the same. Not in all cases, but in most. Having the same name allows people to proclaim "this is my family" without having to say a word. A great many people in this country have a stigma against adopted people--having children keep their last names invites those people to ask questions. The children can explain they are adopted when and if they want other people to know, the difference in family relationship shouldn't be forced into the open because of their names. Keeping a child's name doesn't keep anything of their heritage--not really. I mean, a child born to a Smith and a Hernandez is going to have the same heritage no matter which last name the child is given. Heritage is the things you're born with and the culture your parents teach you to love and bring you up in. Adoptees who aren't raised in the heritage of their biological parents will have to find that heritage before they can live it, and that applies whether they have their original name or not. Don't forget, adoptive parents can keep the child's original name even after the adoption, if they so choose (and if they ever even knew that name). Also, the child can go to court after they're 18 and have a legal name change to anything they want--including that original name (again, if they know it). Lack of information about one's origins (name and heritage, etc) isn't the fault of adoption itself, and wouldn't be cured by having a guardian appointed instead of parents chosen. With the court's permission, guardians can change a child's name. With enough stupidity, even guardians could intentionally keep a child from information about thier biological parents and thier origins. Much of the secrecy surrounding adoption is disappearing. Adoptive parents are getting copies of their children's original birth certificates. Both adoptive and biological parents are choosing more openness with information. Children are being raised to love both their adoptive and biological heritage. All this while they're still adopted children. Adoptive parents in previous generations (and some in this generation) didn't realize how important this sort of information was to their children. The guardian relationship can be just as abused as the adoptive relationship, if the adults involved try hard enough. Rather than getting rid of adoption and replacing it with guardianship, adoptive parents need more education in the importance of keeping things like heritage and original names alive for thier children. Just my opinion!

I adopted a boy at 10 whose name I changed to ours. His birth brother moved in at 17 and I took guardianship of him(I offered to adopt him if he ever wants that). Their circumstances were very different. My adopted boys are eager to have their names the same as ours because they feel like noone can take them away. They also know I have all their original information we can talk about at anytime and I will give to them when they're ready for it. The 17 year old stayed alomst 2 years and said he felt his whole life like he didn't belong to anyone. He still feels that way. I don't know if his uncle had adopted him during the 7 years he lived with him before he came to me, if that would have made a difference for him or not. It might have made it more difficult for the uncle to back out on him. I don't know if that helps any, but I thought I'd share our experience.

its nice to see all these different views on guardianship, this is just the thing i was looking for thank you everyone... Kali

I think many of the points that i have about Guardianship are summed up by Diane. Right now we have a guardianship of my 5 mo. son. His adoption is not yet finalized. I can say...I have little information about his past. I have gathered much, taking note of the last name on his bassinet in the hospital. gathering up every loose bit of information that I could use as a clue to his biological history. I think when his adoption is finalized this situation will be much better...because I won't just be the guardian any more, I will be the legal mom and can gather information on his behalf. Right now, because i am not the legal mom yet, I still have to worry that at some point things will change and he will be moved from our home. I have no rights to continue to be his mommy without someone else saying it is ok. THat isn't good for my child. The possibility that he may move from the only home he has ever known. And as far as name goes...his birth mother choose a name for him and placed it on his origional birth certificate. But he has never been refered to as that name. Because we became his parents right away we gave him his name. We gave him a frist name that was significant to our family, a middle name that was the middle name of a family member and our last name. He is a part of our familiy and our lives and should have the same benifits of a significant name as his brother (who is biological). I would never want to set him as an outcast in our family by not giving him a name or not making him my legal son. While his birthmother gave him life, but we have given him a family. That doesn't make either role any less significant than the other.

Hi evansmum!! (((Hugs))) We've been busy here with Thanksgiving. It's at our house this year!! :) I agree with what Diane & Stormy said. :)

i've never heard of a situation such as yours..... are you asking about adopting an adult to be your brother/sister? i don't see how the bond could be expected to just hit off like the brother or sister relationship you express a desire for just by wanting to adopt another adult. The legalities of adoption don't create a natural bond. i wouldn't know where to tell you to go for something like that... adoption is about the benefit and well being of a child, or adolescence, not to bring someone a brother or sister in their adulthood....isn't it? please enlighten me if i'm showing ignorance, because honestly i have never heard of what you are seeking.

Perhaps legal guardianship would be a great way to go if the adoption was one giving the birthmother longer than the "normal" time period to finally decide upon the legal, lifelong decision of adoption. Otherwise, an open adoption is the next best thing. Truly, the child needs to feel they belong. Adoption gives them a sense of family while growing up that legal guardianship may or may not avail them. Open adoption gives them all available information on the birth family and even allows the birth family contact as agreed to by the adoptive and biological families. Legal guardianship will only be helpful when the child has defined parents who are unable for some reason to parent temporarily. Legal guardianship would give as much information on the biological parents as an open adoption agreement but also offer the child a fixed, "permanent" family in which to grow and develop. Great question!!!

Adult adoption is a very simple legal matter in some states. You simply have the papers drawn up by an attorney who deals in family law. You and the adoptee sign the papers and that is it. The adoptee is no longer legally considered a part of the biological family from which they came and they do not need to post a notice or notify anyone because of their age. We adopted our 28 year old daughter a year ago and it took 5 minutes in the judges chamber once the paperwork (about 2 pages) had been drawn up. Hope that helps.

In our situations, we have changed the names of all of our children. We have incorporated the birth names into all but one child; and now wish we would have sought 'legal guardianship' for one instead of adoption. I'm a firm believer in changing the names of children when they become part of your family. "Heritage" is only as deep or involved as a person wishes it to be. There are some people who would just as well wish NOT to know 'their heritage'. I think the idea of 'heritage' in and of itself....meaning that each adopted person has this 'overriding urge to find their roots'....is highly over-rated. While we support searching once adulthood is reached.....finding one's heritage requires a lot of thought----for insodoing, a person must also be prepared for the good AND what might be perceived as the 'bad side'. As my adult daughter has said, 'Some things, momma, are better left NOT knowing." (And all of my children are adopted.) Of course, each person is different, and I in no way mean to imply that everyone should feel this way. It has been my experience though, that those I read about who hold that 'huge urge to seek roots', are those who have not had adoption disclosed from day one. I have read of this in cases where the child was also never allowed to feel like adoption was a first choice, or felt like the 'odd one out'. Here again....this has just been my experience..... Let me tell you of a very, very good reason for children to change not only their last names, but their first names as well. Two of my children were sorely abused by their birthmother. One, in particular, continues to live in fear of this person in that she will find him and hurt him. (This she told him she would do before rights were terminated.) To establish anonymity.......we kept their first names....but THEY elected to use their new middle names. Years have passed, and they continue to use the middle names we gave them. Part of this too, is that they (middle names) are also family names. These children have been told all about the 'people they have been named after'. They appear to take great pride in this.... And finally, guardianship is beneficial sometimes when the 'older child adopted through the system' is quite fragile. By the term 'fragile', I refer to children who may not be able to maintain in a traditional family setting. Some children, through the system, have been too greatly emotionally damaged and therefore, this sad scenario may occur. (It did in our home, when our son continued to cause harm and distruction to our other children.) Our son now lives in a residential home with no hope of ever returning home. His future is very bleak. Had we thought to have legal guardianship over him, his treatment, placement in residential and overall future might be quite different. (Of course, it has not helped to know that 'the system' unlawfully withheld information about him from us prior to adoption.) I hope I have not offended anyone...especially those who have strong opinions for open adoption. I agree that there are some open situations that are beautiful; but there are some that are not. Certainly all parties should be honest and in agreement to what each other's expectations are. All promises should be upheld. However, it must be said, that there are some elements in a child's background (roots? if you will) that could haunt and harm the person for life. These scenarios should not be overlooked, but considered seriously before searching or complete open-ness are decided. Sincerely, Linny

I see no reason why, in adoption, the child's name needs to be changed. I think it is mainly so the family can pretend the child is their natural child, but that "lie" does not benefit the child, only confuses things and makes them feel ashamed of their adoptive status because it is not readily apparent to everyone.

There is no lie in changing names. Perhaps not everyone has 'a happy past' in every adoption. I've given reasons in my other post; but I'll add one more. One of my sons was given the exact name of his extremely abusive father. He absolutely hated it...because of this reason. He had NO problem deciding when given the choice (as even his caseworker discussed with him) of whether to change his birthname or not. In our family, there is NO lie! Our children are told they are adopted and how wonderful we think it is---before they can even understand the concept. AND.....in our family.....there was no need for 'pretending our children were our NATURAL children'......as if adoption were UN-natural?????? Nope, we chose to adopt....no infertility issues here. I have only the experience of six adoptions, of which two are grown and one is almost grown. All three have embraced their adoptive names and have no problem with them. And......I'll also add that they are not the 'talk show adoptees' who are 'grieving and longing and feeling so unattached because their birthparents chose to do the 'right thing' for everyone so many years ago!!! Nope. Adoption is NOT a temporary home for childhood until the child can have some sort of reunion with birthparents. I'm afraid this is how some people perceive it. We have always encouraged our kids to search when they are adults-----understanding that it takes great maturity to sometimes find out the 'good and bad' that surrounds a person's birth. (Adopted or birthed) There is no ownership of kids. Not birthparent or adoptive parent has that right. Biological names do not make a 'heritage' unless this is the CHOICE of the child/adult. We 'borrow' our children for their childhood.....their birthparents 'borrowed' them during their pregnancy and care.....or part of their childhood (albeit abusive). But, each child-----adopted or not-----is their own person once adulthood is reached. Linny

I really debated about even answering the post about the "lie" of changing names. The premise of the argument is based on one person's feelings about adoption in general, I believe. With all due respect, Lafrisch, I think your own unhappy experience as a b-mother has colored your perspective. Not every adoption involves "stealing" someone's newborn baby. My three children came home to us at ages 10, 6 and 11, beginning 10 years ago. All came through the foster care system, after enduring years of neglect and abuse of every kind. Two birth fathers are presently in jail for sexual molestation of children. One of my daughter's bio sibs (adopted by another family) had his SS# changed so that the b-father couldn't find him, as he had threatened to when he was released from prison. When my son came home, he had nightmares that his b-mother was coming after him; he used to be sedated at the psych hospital because he would see her face at the window. There are many valid reasons for changing a child's name. I now advocate changing a child's SS# if there is any chance a dangerous b-family member might try to find them. Most of the time, family members do share a last name. (I realize that in these days of blended families, that is not always the case.) My son actually wanted to change his first name, and we discouraged it, but now I wish we hadn't. He was named after his b-father, who is never going to be in his life. He did request to keep his middle name, after a b-grandfather, a request we were happy to honor. Because our daughters were older, we kept their first names, but changed their middle names after some of our family member's names. They are thrilled to have the new middle names. I think it gives them a greater sense of belonging that they have names like their a-aunt and a-grandmother. We all share the same last name. That does not confuse anything; it identifies us as one family. Being ashamed of their adoptive status would not enter their minds. On the contrary, they are very happy to finally have families where they are well fed, clothed, safe and loved. I don't know why it would be important for their adoptive status to be readily apparent anyway. Most of the time, it is a non-issue. We are too busy dealing with day-to-day stuff, that how our children entered our lives is irrelevant. I don't "pretend" they are my birth children, although I wish they were, because then they would not have had to endure things no child should. When appropriate, we do discuss adoption. Our children have as clear an understanding of why they were adopted as is possible for them. (Our girls are both MR, so they don't always have the depth of perspective that others might.) Lafrisch, I am truly sorry you are still in pain. Having never been a birthmother, I can not put myself in your place. Maybe it is hard for you to remember that there are many different scenarios of adoption. I hope that Linny and I have given you some new food for thought. And I wish you the healing and peace that I believe has eluded you so far....