Naming parents after adoption - are they still a ‘mum’ and ‘dad’? Recognition,rights and a sense of retained parental identity after a child is adopted from care

Abstract

This paper sets out the findings from a doctoral study in Northern Ireland about how birth parents of children who have been adopted from public care, and lawyers involved in adoption, experience the use of the terms mum and dad after adoption. While adoption legally removes them as parents, birth parents can retain a sense of parental connection to the child albeit that the role and status associated with their parental identity has changed. The ambiguity and contested nature of their sense of parenthood after adoption is reflected in how parental labels are used in the context of post-adoption contact. Using the theoretical lens of Honneth’s theory of recognition and drawing on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, this paper explores the implications of naming practices in open adoptions where there is ongoing interaction between birth and adoptive families, supported or facilitated by social workers. The qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 5 birth parents and 12 lawyers and used interpretative phenomenological analysis for birth parent interviews and thematic analysis for lawyer interviews to interpret this phenomenon. The paper argues for an individualised, nuanced and sensitive approach to interactions with birth parents around their use of the term ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ after adoption.

Introduction

There have been moves towards more open adoption in the United Kingdom (UK), with varying approaches across the different legal jurisdictions toward facilitating children’s ongoing connection with birth relatives after they are adopted (Jones and MacDonald, 2020). Open adoption brings complex family dynamics to navigate, primarily for those involved in the relationships but also for social workers and courts involved in making decisions about and facilitating those relationships. This paper draws on Honneth’s recognition theory (1995), to explore a particular aspect of the unique family relationships within open adoption from the perspective of parents whose children have been adopted from care, and lawyers who represent them in adoption proceedings.

When a link is maintained with birth parents after adoption, there are a plethora of issues to consider. Those include what the best means of interaction is for the child, what the purpose of the contact is and how to ensure everyone is properly prepared and supported. This article reports on a study that explored birth parents’ experiences of contact with the child and their adoptive family. It hones in on one issue raised by participants as particularly pertinent for them – how the titles mum and dad are used by and in reference to birth parents after adoption, and the advice social workers give on the use of those titles and how they are interpreted. The findings presented are based on empirical research; any opinion expressed on the issues raised are the authors’ own.

The post-adoption context

Children may be adopted from public care under the statutory frameworks for child protection across the UK. Children will have suffered or have been likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the conduct of their parents (The Children (Northern Ireland) Order, 1995, art 50). They may then be subject to a decision that it is in their best interests to be adopted. This involves a court considering an application from a local authority. Birth parents will be on notice and may contest this application. The legal process for a child to be adopted involves the legal parenthood of a birth parent being extinguished and legal parenthood of adoptive parents being created by a court order.

The significant harm that children may have experienced prior to adoption can have long term implications for their wellbeing, with many adopted children displaying developmental concerns, attachment issues, medical and behavioural issues (McSherry and McAnee, 2022; Meakings et al., 2016, 2018). Birth parents of children who are adopted are not a homogenous group but research has found there to be an over-representation of parents who are care experienced themselves and as such they too may have suffered or been at risk of significant harm in their childhoods with the linked trauma which that may carry (Roberts et al., 2017).

After adoption, children may still have some ongoing interaction with a birth parent, often referred to as post-adoption contact, which can take various forms ranging from an exchange of letters through an intermediary, known as letterbox contact, to direct communication in writing or via digital online technology, through to in-person meetings between the child and their parent or other birth relatives. The predominant approach in the UK has been letterbox contact but recent advocates for change suggest moving to a more direct approach in which more adopted children might interact or meet up with their birth relatives directly, a change that will require adjustment across the range of professionals and birth and adoptive family members (Public Law Working Group, 2024). Whatever the specific arrangement, planned contact that is appropriately supported and managed can be seen as a safer option to explore birth family relationships given the potentially unsettling impact of unplanned contact, for example via social media.

Summarising a range of research, Thoburn (2021) identified various potential benefits to the child of well-managed contact including facilitating identity development and self-esteem, providing reassurance on birth relatives’ welfare, and mitigating a sense of loss. Contact can also improve communication within adoptive families and give access to information on which to base important conversations about adoption and origins (Neil, 2009). Contact, however, whether direct or indirect, can be an emotional experience requiring careful management to account for the differing expectations from all involved (Baynes and Neil, 2015; Boyle, 2017; Neil, 2018).

One aspect of adoption and post-adoption contact which can be particularly emotive is the use of the names ‘mum’ and ‘dad’, titles which may not capture the complexity and nuances of the changed identities and status of birth and adoptive parents after adoption, whereby adopters have become the legal parents and birth parents have lost their legal parental status. For adopters, birth parents retaining the title of ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ can be experienced as a challenge to the legitimacy of their own parenthood (MacDonald, 2017). It is important that children have an accurate understanding of their circumstances and how they are related to the various people in their lives. Part of the purpose of contact is to facilitate this understanding but, in some cases, hearing birth parents referred to as ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ when they no longer have a direct care-giving role could be confusing.

While the severance or creation of the parental legal status can happen at the stroke of a pen, the psychological change of identity can be less instant. Guidance for adopters in Northern Ireland recognises that “birth parents will always be the child’s biological parents, and their history will be important for a child to understand as they grow up” (Adoption UK, 2020: 17). The use of the titles ‘mum’ and ‘dad’, and the feelings this evokes, reflects an inherent ambiguity for birth parents whose permanent biological connection to the child is recognised after their legal parenthood has been extinguished.

In the current study, birth parent participants described feeling taken aback when the child called them by name rather than ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ during contact visits, and they were perplexed when social workers advised them to likewise avoid referring to themselves by these terms in their correspondence to the adoptive family, signing off instead with their given names. This was an example of a theme identified as ‘retained parental identity’ which described the experience of birth parents, who had lost their parental legal status and no longer had care-giving responsibilities but retained for themselves a parental identity in respect of an adopted child. It will be argued that the issue of names is an example of where professional approaches could, using Honneth’s (1995) theory of recognition and a human-rights framed approach, move from the formulaic to the nuanced.

Recognition of birth parents after adoption

This study used Honneth’s theory of recognition (1995) as an interpretative lens for analysing the accounts of birth parents and it had particular resonance for their experience of their identity after adoption. Honneth’s recognition theory identifies three areas of life within which the self is developed; these are intimate relationships, rights as citizens, and strengths as an individual recognised by the community (Honneth, 1995). Through intimate relationships, our needs are met and we are loved, which builds appreciation for ourselves as objects worthy of love and care. As active users of rights, our status and citizenship are recognised and in turn, we recognise that in ourselves. Finally, when a community recognises our achievements and strengths, we gain pride and can build resilience. Negative interactions or ‘misrecognition’ in these areas have an adverse effect on the self (Houston, 2016).

Honneth’s theory and the three domains of recognition, map particularly well onto the issues which emerge from the literature on post-adoption contact. First, post-adoption contact or the relationship between birth parents and children after adoption, deals explicitly with intimate relationships which are complex, having been the subject of court scrutiny and having potentially involved harm. The identity of birth parents is an issue which has come to the fore in research with mothers in recurrent care proceedings, Broadhurst et al. (2017) noted that the loss of their children went to their very identity. Identity as a birth parent can be a contested and complicated terrain after adoption, where legal identity has changed but the view of one’s self may not coincide with that changed legal status. For birth parents this entails a complex amalgam of visible and invisible identities. Their identity as a parent is known to all those involved in the child’s adoption. However, in the absence of day-to-day caregiving, the status of having been a parent may be invisible to, and therefore not recognised by, the wider community. The process of having the legal status of parent extinguished holds the potential for stigma. For birth parents this potentially renders their parental status both discredited and discreditable (Goffman, 1963).

Misrecognition in the intimate sphere can impact on self-confidence, while in the sphere of rights can affect self-respect, and misrecognition of characteristics by the community can affect self-esteem (Honneth, 1992). It is described by Douzinas (2002: 396) as ‘a split between someone’s self-image and the image that social institutions or others project upon that person’.

In the context of post-adoption contact, legal identity also links to rights. As Douzinas (2002) notes, human rights can impact upon identity, they are not only reflections of characteristics but can construct identity. Certain rights are held by virtue of the legal identity of parenthood and are lost or changed when it is removed. In adoption, the law transforms two sets of legal identities – birth parent to former parent and prospective adopter to parent. This transformation impacts the rights which exist between them and the child.

Rights form part of Honneth’s theory of recognition as he argues that being a rights holder – as a citizen – is a form of recognition of equality with others. In respecting your rights, the community recognise you as a person similar to other people. They have been described as ‘institutional tokens of our identity’ or ‘bargaining chips in our negotiations of identity’ (Douzinas, 2002: 386). Human rights can also construct identities (Douzinas, 2002). This is particularly apposite in the context of a process which involves removing the status of legal parents and transforming adopters into legal parents. Given the interaction with the state that birth parents have on the journey to and for post-adoption contact, human rights have a particular purchase within recognition theory. It is institutional recognition or misrecognition which is of particular consideration in the interactions with professionals who are acting for the state.

In family law, a legal identity as a ‘parent’ brings with it both rights and responsibilities (The Children (Northern Ireland) Order, 1995, art. 6). It brings rights in relation to the child – for example to make decisions about their upbringing. It brings social rights arising out of being a parent – for example entitlement to certain welfare benefits. It also brings a right which protects against interference with the parent-child relationship unless necessary and proportionate and reaching thresholds set out in law under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Adoption brings an end to those rights for one set of parents and creates them for another. The English courts have also considered that adoption brings to an end birth parents’ right to respect for their family life with the adopted child under the ECHR (Re A (A Child) (Adoption: Human Rights), 2015). In essence, adoption snuffs out what it means, legally, to be the parent to a child. Yet, the end of legal recognition as a parent may not bring an end to parental feelings towards their children or their self-image as a parent (Collings et al., 2022; Geddes, 2022).

Methods

This study sought to understand the experiences of birth parents of making and living out post-adoption contact arrangements. This qualitative study was explorative in nature and used in-depth semi-structured interviews. These allowed the reflections of participants to be captured and the phenomenological orientation of the research to be maintained.

This study was set in Northern Ireland where at the time participating birth parents had children adopted from their care, the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order (1987) operated. The subsequent amendments of the Adoption and Children Act (Northern Ireland) (2022), which will align NI adoption law more closely with that of England and Wales, are not yet fully implemented. Consideration of post-adoption contact formed part of the application of the legal test for adoption to the facts of the case. The courts have recognised a ‘steady move towards open adoption’ in Northern Ireland (ZH v Mr and Mrs H and A Health and Social Care Trust, 2016). The rate of direct post-adoption contact in Northern Ireland seems to be higher than in other UK nations, although prevalence is not recorded in official statistics. Jones and MacDonald (2020) analysed survey information from 2447 adopters across the UK with 558 (23%) reporting having direct birth family contact, and among whom they found a substantial difference in the levels of direct contact with birth parents, specifically, between jurisdictions – 68% in NI, 18% in England, 34% in Scotland and 21% in Wales.

There were two groups of participants. The first was birth parents who had experienced a child being adopted and no longer in their care. Five birth parents took part, 3 birth fathers and 2 birth mothers with a couple being interviewed together. As Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith et al., 2012) was planned and this method anticipates a small purposive sample for detailed interpretation of meaning the sample size was appropriate. However, it does mean that the sample is not representative and generalisations from the sample are limited. Birth parents were recruited through lawyers and a counselling service who provided information about the research. None of the birth parents were having contact as it had been planned in court. Three had begun direct contact which had moved to indirect. Two were working on indirect contact with counselling services.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim, listened to multiple times and analysed with the use of MaxQDA software. An interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) was undertaken with the birth parent transcripts. In this analysis, the aim is to understand participants’ meaning making through their description of their experiences and it is acknowledged that the researcher is interpreting those descriptions (Smith et al., 2012). An inductive approach was taken to try to reflect accurately the experiences of birth parents. The steps set out by Smith et al. (2012) were followed in the IPA of the birth parents’ transcripts.

The second group of participants were lawyers who have acted for birth parents in court proceedings for adoption, to help understand the process of making arrangements for post-adoption contact which in Northern Ireland occurs at court where birth parents are represented by lawyers. There were 12 lawyers who took part, 9 barristers and 3 solicitors. Lawyers were recruited through professional bodies, a presentation to a professional body and targeted emails. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. A reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken of the interviews carried out with lawyers. The steps followed to carry out the thematic analysis of the lawyers’ interview transcripts were consistent with the approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Two consultation groups were used for advice and guidance on the research materials, recruitment and ethical issues. One group was comprised of lawyers, the other group was comprised of those who work with birth parents.

Birth parents were recruited based on their experience of the process of adoption. Due to the integrated nature of health and social care in Northern Ireland this study was granted ethical approval from the Office of Research Ethics Committees NI (ORECNI). It was advised during ethical approval that in the writing up of findings, participants should be referred to by a code number rather than a chosen pseudonym.

It was recognised that the birth parents who took part in the research would be discussing matters which could be upsetting for them and that this group had the potential to be vulnerable. Mindful that the voices of vulnerable groups can become marginalised, a number of measures were taken to ensure informed consent and to support participants taking part. For example, information leaflets were posted out to birth parents in advance of meeting, to allow them time to consider the information. To prepare for any difficulties for participants in taking part, a distress protocol was drawn up – though it was not required. A list of support contacts (including an out of hours service) was compiled, with input from consultation groups, and was provided to participants after the interview. A de-brief after participation provided a chance for participants to reflect and a follow up text or email the day after was used to thank them and remind them of available support services.

Findings

One over-arching theme emerging from interpretative phenomenological analysis of birth parent interviews and thematic analysis of lawyer’s interviews was that of ‘retained parental identity’ which sought to capture the parental feelings birth parents had toward their child after adoption. This incorporated a number of sub-themes – the use of titles, the importance of blood ties, ‘parent talk’ (types of comments parent’s make about their children), family display (having pictures up of children in the home) and the imagined future child.

The theme of ‘retained parental identity’ was analysed alongside Honneth’s recognition theory to consider how that identity was treated in the context of post-adoption indirect contact. In particular, human rights frameworks were considered, namely Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This article will consider in depth one of the sub-themes which led to the concept of ‘retained parental identity’ namely the use of the titles ‘mum’ and ‘dad’.

Participants discussed the change from being called ‘mummy’ or ‘daddy’ to their given name. Of the 4 birth parents who mentioned this, two did so in the context of being told by social services or counsellors that they should not sign indirect contact using ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ while the other two experienced the children using their given names in direct contact. BP3 described in an upset tone finding out after he had signed the card that he should not use the title ‘dad’:

BP3: that really annoyed me at Christmas time there… I picked a card and I started writing Daddy on the card and {counsellor} says sorry you can’t write that on that there we’ll have to score that out with Tipp-ex and you’ll have to put {name}…

Similarly, BP1 spoke of the advice they got on signing a card to the child:

BP1: …I can just wish them a happy birthday in the letter from me I can’t basically tell them that I’m their mum, I’m not allowed to.

SH: And who said that?

BP1: The social workers eh they said it would upset the adoptive parents, so they just know me by my name…it has to be, I have to put my name at the end of the letter I can’t write that I miss them, that I love them, anything like that in the letter just in case it upsets the adoptive parents…

For BP1 this was accompanied by a sense of powerlessness in respect of the communication: “I don’t want to upset her cus if I do then she can literally say no, basically she can stop the contact, that’s what the social worker told me…” BP1.

BP1 and BP4 and BP5, showed an acceptance of the reality of the children’s living situation. For example, BP5 stated ‘…that’s their mum and dad’ acknowledging the everyday reality of adoptive parenting for the children. Yet the change in name used to refer to them was still emotive for parents even with a level of acceptance of the adopters’ status.

BP1: …I’d to come to terms with it all. I had to come to terms with I would never get them back. I had to come to, I still haven’t come to terms that they’re adopted that will take me a while that will probably take me a few years, but it did take me a few years to know that I would not get them back…

BP3, who had a level of confusion about what adoption meant, could also identify that the children’s living situation was settled for the moment and the children would see the adoptive parents as mummy and daddy too.

This issue of titles was not only prevalent in the experiences of birth parents but was referred to by over half of the lawyers. The lawyers were able to contextualise how this issue can be perceived in proceedings, explaining how it may be considered as evidence that a birth parent will undermine a placement. L1 described this:

L1: …how accepting are they of this being the plan for their child or children because a lot of emphasis can be placed on oh they’re willing to work along with the, the adoptive parents, they’re willing to respect them, they’re willing to allow the children to settle, they’re willing to allow them to call them mum and dad and those can be indicators of their willingness to promote the placement…

While it may be that for some birth parents the way they approach the change of titles reflects a deeper-rooted lack of acceptance of the adoption, BP1, BP4 and BP5’s situation seemed to be more nuanced. They could accept that the adoption had happened and that it would not change but the name still held emotional significance:

BP5: we didn’t want them being upset to see us that we’re upset when it’s our faults where they are, wanted everything to be normal so it was cutting and I think after the adopt like the contact I think we both cried when they weren’t calling us mummy daddy any more…

BP4 encapsulated the tension between an acceptance of no longer legally being a parent but still feeling a connection with the child, saying ‘they might not legally be our children anymore but they are still our blood, our kids… they might be adopted but they still have biological parents’ BP4. There was also a lack of understanding for BP1 and BP3 as to why they could no longer be referred to as ‘mum’ or ‘dad’. Describing feelings of hurt they also still self-identified as a ‘mum’ or ‘dad’, even if it was an identity no longer linked to day-to-day care but instead linked to the children’s birth. As BP1 expressed this, ‘they’re a part of me, they’re still a part of me, they always will be a part of me’. This meant they found it hard not to express via the indirect contact something they saw to be true – that they were the children’s mum or dad. For BP1 this seemed to be to the exception of the adoptive parents while for BP3 it was in addition to them:

SH: Can I ask you two things about what you’ve said, so you talked about what you’ve been told you should and shouldn’t put in the letters – how do you feel about that?

BP1: Upset, disappointed it hurt my feelings when they told me because I am their birth mother, is that I will always be their birth mother, I gave birth to them. Emm to me it’s not right that they should call the adoptive mother their mum, I’ve never agreed on that it’s always been something that I’ve disagreed on with social services, I’ve always disagreed with it, I just have to put up with it there’s really nothing I can do about it.

BP3: It made me feel punished because I couldn’t put daddy on it, I am {their} daddy {strong emotion} ok they’re {their} new mummy and daddys but I’m still their original daddy if you know what I mean…

All four of the participants who discussed this issue did so with emotion and for BP3 it caused a particularly emotional response, bringing him almost to tears. BP1 had found an outlet through keeping a memory box and allowing herself to buy and sign cards from ‘mummy’ but rather than send them to the children, she keeps them for an imagined future time when they may wish to see them. It seemed they also played a role for her therapeutically and as a way of maintaining, privately, an identity she held for herself as a mother:

BP1: I can’t basically tell them that I’m their mum, I’m not allowed to…I could get birthday cards saying from mummy on it or mum I can keep in the memory box, Christmas cards in their memory box, every birthday card or Christmas card I put in the memory box…

For these participants, names went deeper than a signifier of who was parenting the child on a day-to-day basis. The title of ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ was, for them, linked to their biological connection and their history with the child. This seemed to be symptomatic of uncertainty about their position or role in relation to the child and was confronting as it was set down on paper when signing off indirect contact.

Given the deep significance, it is surprising that one lawyer noted ambiguity around whose role it is to assist birth parents with this complex issue; there is the potential that this issue falls into a gap in professionals’ responsibilities. L4 described concern that a birth parent had not received advice or guidance on why the changing use of titles by a child might occur or how to respond to it:

L4: …I just asked her has anybody ever sat down before and explained this to you – no – so I think there’s a huge gap there in trying to explain to people who are willing I mean you may have birth parents who aren’t willing to hear anything but if they’re at a place where they are accepting the plan… for adoption.

Identity has been focused on as an important psychological and developmental justification for allowing adopted children greater access to information about their birth family and history. To be a child of someone means something to people, similarly, to be a parent of someone means something to these birth parents and forms part of their identity. In circumstances where expression of that aspect of identity is curtailed – through being told not to refer to themselves as ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ – there was a questioning and also lack of acceptance. Where someone thinks a mother will always be a mother if they were the person who gave birth to a child it raises the question of whether they ever will be able to let go of that identity and further whether they should be expected to in a broader context which has seen acceptance of diverse family forms. Some of the lawyers grappled with the multiple claims to the titles of ‘mum’ and ‘dad’. The complexities of this issue were summarised by L11, in particular the feeling of powerlessness to shape or advise on the issue:

L11: …if a child of their own volition wishes to call their forever home parents mum and dad or whatever and then the parents say well ‘no I’m your mum and I’ll always be your mum’ and that is correct but it’s maybe parents’ understanding. Well is there a way to deal with that that they’re your forever mummy and you know I’m your biological mummy? I don’t know, I think it’s hard and I think we all, you know we can expect so much of people…

This lawyer identified the difficulty with recognition of multiple people with a claim to the title ‘mum’ or ‘dad’. It is factually correct that they are biologically a parent and also may have parented for a portion of the child’s life. How that is recognised in the context of a parental relationship that went wrong, as well as where a child has new legal parents who undertake their day-to-day care and who are creating a forever relationship in law and in life makes for an area for potential conflict and contesting of titles.

Implications of the findings for birth parents’ recognition and rights

Honneth’s (1995) recognition theory provided a framework for analysis of the study data. In the literature, the loss of the titles ‘mum’ and ‘dad’, as well as causing sadness, has been linked to the loss of the role and status as a parent (Neil et al., 2011). However, this can be analysed from the fresh perspective of recognition theory as being experienced by birth parents as a misrecognition of their self-identity.

Naming practices allow for both individuality and connectedness to a wider kinship group (Finch, 2008). It may be that the upset felt by BP4 and 5, who experienced the child no longer calling them ‘mum’ and ‘dad’, was their experience of a further loss of kinship connection. Finch (2008) discusses the capacity for names to provide personal continuity but also how a change of name can reflect a change of circumstances in the personal narrative – such as marriage. Applying this to titles after adoption, one can see a tension whereby parents themselves may hold on to the personal continuity of feeling they remain the child’s parent in some sense, while for the children, the change in circumstances may reflect a change in their own personal narrative for who they see as a parent.

Weller (2019: 268) discusses motherhood in the American adoption context and considers how both adoptive and birth mothers play different roles but share a ‘societal perception of motherhood’. For adoptive families, language is not ‘value neutral’ (Weller, 2019: 269) and may reinforce the potential stigma of being seen as second to birth families. In examining blogs, Weller (2019) found birth mothers were more likely to use the term ‘mother’ in describing their experience as perhaps it held more significance for them, though there was some concern that the term ‘birth mother’ implies an ending of motherhood after birth (Weller, 2019). This highlights the complexity and potential for contest in the use of language of parenthood which was reflected by the participants accounts.

From a recognition theory perspective, the shared societal perception of motherhood can be seen as the community standards against which parenthood is recognised, and which builds the self-confidence of the individual. The perception of parents whose children are removed from their care is such that there is no positive community recognition conferred. In addition, the intimate sphere of the parent/child relationship which may have been a source of recognition is also removed. When these two forms of recognition are removed, one can see why the title of ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ can contain such significance for birth parents as a last remaining form of parental recognition.

Boddy and Wheeler (2020) describe the impact of institutional misrecognition on maternal identity, outlining how mothers who have had recurrent child removals struggle to gain recognition as a mother without care of a child:

“…their possible subjectivities as mothers have been shaped by the regulatory power of the state, in ways that constrain their possibilities for grief and their recognition as mothers … it raises a question about the extent to which a woman who is not able to retain custody of her child is allowed to be recognised as a mother.” (p. 11)

They highlight how this form of misrecognition may be expressed by institutions (such as adoption teams referring to them as ‘tummy mummies’) and suggest the recognition of parental identity could be considered an issue of social justice and engage the right to respect for family life (Boddy and Wheeler, 2020).

As Honneth argues, identity is formed though relationships as well as through rights and community recognition (Honneth, 1995). The participant birth parents had formed a parental identity through the relationship with their child, even if that relationship was adjudicated as causing harm or the potential for harm. The relationship has been ended through state intervention, but it seems the identity formed through the relationship is enduring and how others interact with it (professionals, courts, the child, adopters and institutions) is sensitive and was at times experienced as misrecognition. In this context, BP3 described above feeling ‘punished’ through not being able to refer to themselves with a parental title, suggesting it was experienced as punitive. This reflects other research which has reported how the exercise of power can be experienced and that its use and misuse is a key issue within adoption (Featherstone et al., 2018).

While participants BP1, BP3, BP4 and BP5 were privately upset by, did not understand, or opposed the prohibition on using the names ‘mum’ and ‘dad’, they were compliant with this requirement in their communication with the child and their adoptive parents. Compliance for BP1 and BP3 seemed to come from acceptance of the power imbalance in the position they found themselves in after adoption, with contact controlled by social workers. Birth parents’ acceptance of the child’s adoptive placement and changed status has been linked to positive contact, with lack of acceptance taken as a barrier to direct contact (Re Mason, 2019, para 105). Lawyers reflected the case law that continuing to assert oneself as mum and dad can be seen by professionals as evidence of a lack of acceptance or a likelihood of undermining the adoptive placement. This perception could potentially constrain their opportunities for more direct forms of contact with their child. This is an area in which there is the potential for misrecognition of parents’ retained sense of parental identity and one which has been less explored in research to date.

The extent to which a resistance to changing from the title mum or dad is used as evidence for acceptance of the adoption merits more nuance in practice. Considering who the change is coming from, why, whether it is justified but also whether it has been explained sensitively could all form part of any analysis of it as a factor showing acceptance or otherwise by a birth parent.

Perhaps rather than asking birth parents to relinquish the titles, the assessment should be whether they can accommodate an appreciation of additional parents in a child’s life who fulfil differing roles. While BP4 and BP5 acknowledged the distinction between their own and the adoptive parents responsibilities, removal of parenting duties did not remove their parental feeling and they still cared about the child even though they accepted they no longer had an active caregiving role. Sales’ (2015) work has distinguished between birth parent contact as a source of information for the child about their origins or as a means of accessing a current relationship. Accepting post-adoption contact as relational, not just informational, may allow space for the use of titles to be more fluid.

These issues of recognition fit into the broader literature about how parties to adoption renegotiate their roles and relationships with each other after the legal reconfiguration of their status. Neil (2003: 33) noted the ‘lack of definition of the birth relative role after adoption’; while research such as Broadhurst et al. (2017) has identified that when a child is permanently removed, birth parents can face a loss which goes to their identity as a parent. These participants suggest that the parental identity is retained, in some respects, even where it does not find recognition.

The question of whether the right to respect for family life between an adopted child and their birth parent can, in some circumstances, transcend adoption is one which has been argued by this author elsewhere (Hansen, 2019). Currently, the leading cases suggest it does not and as such the right to respect for family life does not provide a rights-based source for recognition of a parent’s self-identity or retained parental identity.

The ECHR Article 8 right to respect for ones’ private life and correspondence includes ‘the right to be oneself, to live as oneself and to keep to oneself’ (Lester et al., 2009). Respect for correspondence would encompass indirect contact where it is facilitated by social services or an adoption agency (Re A (A Child) (Adoption: Human Rights), 2015: 78–80). As with all qualified rights, state interference must be in accordance with law, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to that aim. The case law has noted that although indirect contact may be ‘constructive and valued’ if that is not the case ‘adoptive parents and children should be protected from it’ ((Re A (A Child) (Adoption: Human Rights), 2015). As with much of family law, a careful assessment will be required, knowing the parties involved and particularly the child, to determine what indirect contact falls within or outside these parameters.

In the individual case, taking into account the child and the circumstances, where setting parameters for correspondence facilitated by social services it should be asked whether preventing a parent referring to themselves as those titles pursues a legitimate aim and is it the least intervention necessary to achieve that aim. It may be, as it was in Re A (2015), that it is necessary and proportionate to edit inappropriate material contained within indirect contact, but the decision about the use of the signatory ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ ought to be carried out using the rights framework outlined. Early meetings can allow human connection between adopters and birth parents, helping allay their fears about one another (Collings and Conley Wright, 2020) and promoting the empathic understanding that is likely to facilitate ongoing connection (Neil, 2003b). These relationships will likely change over time, requiring a dynamic approach and open mind to changing attitudes and risks.

Recognition for birth parents does not equate to a call for entitlement at all costs to use the title ‘mum’ and ‘dad’. It may be that an insistence in doing so is harmful to the child involved. There are examples from the case law of parents seeking recognition as a parent to the exception of the welfare of the child (Re Mason, 2019). However, unnecessarily preventing the use of the title where it is not causing harm or confusion to the child could be categorised not only as misrecognition which could be experienced as harmful to the birth parent but as a disproportionate breach of their right to respect for their private life and correspondence. The question as to whether the requirement to use only their given names was proportionate based on the potential of harm to the child was perplexing to the participants. While they could acknowledge the broad rationale for the requirement, they appeared to have no specific information about the actual or potential impact upon the particular child. Indeed, BP1 understood the requirement to be based on the wellbeing of the adoptive parents. A clear rationale and proportionate decision making on this sensitive topic combined with dedicating time and resources to explaining any decisions about the use of titles to those involved may be beneficial both to this issue but also to navigating these complicated relationships from a place of shared understanding.

Conclusion

This research is based on a study which examined the perspective of birth parents. At times, within adoption research, where a study is based on a particular group, it may seem like a challenge to other parties. This perhaps reflects the depth of emotion in these complex relationships. In presenting the accounts of birth parents, it is not the authors’ intention to overlook or negate the experiences of children or adoptive families, but to present birth parent perspectives as a piece of a bigger puzzle.

The birth parents and lawyers in this study have highlighted how the titles ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ can be a site for contest, misunderstanding and emotion in open adoption. For birth parents, the use of these titles reflects their sense of having to compete for recognition of their parenthood, which they retain as part of their personal identity, even while accepting the implications of adoption for their changed role and legal status.

Honneth’s recognition theory and in particular a rights framework help explain why this issue is so deeply felt for birth parents – it goes to their sense of self. Rights can be used a framework for analysis and decision making when professionals are navigating these difficult issues. Birth parents may benefit from more sensitive practices that recognise their retained sense of parental identity whilst also keeping a focus on the child’s needs. Whether birth parents are accepting, or otherwise, of adoption is complex and nuanced. If they wish to call themselves ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ or retain a sense of ongoing parental connection, this may not be sufficient basis to assume their acceptance or non-acceptance of the adoption. More broadly, this raises questions about how adoption moves towards a shared, open idea of parenthood. With increasingly different family forms it may be that a cultural shift enables the sting to be removed from this issue where multiple people playing different roles can inhabit the same title without competition. However, until then, whether the use of the titles ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ impacts the welfare of the child merits careful analysis in each case. If deemed harmful, this requires sensitive explanations and strategies to support birth parents with the transition. Where the use of titles ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ by both birth and adoptive parents is not causing harm or confusion to the child, then blanket policies are not only a misrecognition which could be experienced as harmful by birth parents but could also engage their right to respect for their private life and correspondence.