Star's Death Occasions a Reminder of When and How to Mention Adoption

by Pam Connell | More from this Blogger

22 Oct 2009 07:14 PM

Other bloggers in this blog have written about Positive Adoption Language and the impact of adoption words. I'm hardly a "word usage Nazi" on the warpath for political correctness, but two things this week have left me wishing our culture would be just a little bit more sensitive to my children.

One usage of adoption language not mentioned much in the above blogs is the use of the term "adopted" when there is no purpose for it.

There may be a reason to mention adoption in a story involving a family with genetic illness, or when adoption explains a condition such as an attachment disorder. An in-depth story of a family may tell the story of how a child or sibling joined the family through adoption. As with other conditions, one should speak of "a person who was adopted" or who joined the family by adoption, rather than labeling the person.

(This is similar to the way one should write about a person with a disability, not a "disabled person". The disability is one part of the person's life, not the defining part.)

In a story completely unrelated to adoption, which does not tell the story of a family's life together but only mentions adoption as a label, the "adopted" label only serves to point out difference. This is how I've seen the label "adopted" used this past month in all the stories about Patrick Swayze's death. The TV Guide published a column from the "TV Pipeline" at Tribune Media. It listed the actor's survivors as his widow Lisa Niemi, his mother Patsy, and "two brothers, one of whom is fellow actor Don, and an adopted sister." Wikipedia lists his sister's name thus, "and a sister Bambi (who was adopted)." The trouble with this is that it's the same way obituaries list the family members and then a foster sister or a "dear friend" or "so-and-so, who was like family".

Adopted family members are not "like family". They ARE family. That is the difference between adoption and foster care, housemates or friends.

I am not at all disparaging the love that comes from friendships and foster care. (I also know that some foster parents would adopt their foster children if it were financially feasible to do so. Inadequate adoption subsidies often don't equate to the medical and other care paid for by the state for a child with special needs. One more way our system leaves kids in limbo without the reassurance of a permanent family.)

Still, adoption is a legally binding permanent commitment. Children who have been adopted are full family members should not be made to feel different than other children.

Please see these related blogs: Life and Death: Patrick Swayze and Willie Aames

Patrick Swayze Renews Wedding Vows

Learn more about Pam Connell

Pam Connell is a mother of three by both birth and adoption. She has worked in education, child care, social services, ministry and journalism.

View Full Profile | More from this Blogger

centraloregonmom (295) 24 Oct 2009 09:40 AM

Thank you! I work at a local TV station and thought it a "teachable moment" for my peers when we decided to run a story about the disappearance of someone. Everyone kept feeling it was necessary to include "who was adopted" when mentioning the person's adult son. Like you said, I see the relevance in certain situations, but it was completely unnecessary in the story we were running. I did eventually win out, but noticed the competition chose to include it.

Pam Connell (2658) 24 Oct 2009 11:07 PM

Thanks for sharing this experience.

When I hurt my wrist a relative was helping me fill out some forms for my daughter. When we came to the blank "relationship to patient" he asked me if I had to write "adoptive mother" or if it was really all right to just write "mother"!