"Adopted is something you were, not something you are."
That is how parents whose children became theirs describe things. Adoption is an action, they say. And once it is over you are a "child," not an "adopted child." At least most of the time.
The word "adopted" as a modifier is being given a workout in the days since Katie Holmes announced her split from Tom Cruise. As you probably know, Cruise was married before, to Nicole Kidman, and during their marriage they adopted two children. News organizations have spent the week telling us of Katie's fears that, as Suri grows and becomes more entrenched in her father's Scientology religion, she might lose contact with her mother the way Kidman did with Connor and Isabella.
Reading an in-depth investigative analysis on this in the Hollywood Reporter this morning I was struck by how often the older Cruise kids were described in terms of whose womb they exited.
"Kidman effectively lost the two children she adopted with Cruise when the kids chose to live with their father after the divorce," writer Dana Kennedy began. Okay. That makes sense. It's not like they need to hide the fact, either.
But then the story continues:
"Cruise's... adopted daughter Isabella worked for Holmes at her clothing line..."
and
"...Scientology deliberately turned the two adopted children of Cruise and Kidman against Kidman during and after the divorce..." Â
and
"...they split everything 50-50, including custody of their adopted daughter Isabella and son Connor."
and
"Holmes... might be more successful holding on to Suri after her divorce than Kidman was with her two adopted children..."
You get the picture.
Why the use of the word every time the children are mentioned? Is the point to imply that Holmes' loss of Suri would somehow be greater because she was her "real" daughter, as opposed to Kidman's loss of two children who weren't really hers?
The journalism rule I was taught is that you only mention that a child is adopted if you are discussing the act of, or fallout from, the adoption itself. It's a good rule for general conversation in life, too. If you wouldn't use the word "biological" when describing a child, than why use the word "adopted"?
Note to the Hollywood reporter: take a page from US Weekly. (Not a sentence I ever thought I would write) Here's what US reporter Justin Ravitz wrote about how Nicole is reacting to the Holmes/Cruise split:
"The Paperboy star was dining at the restaurant Sea Salt with Keith Urban, her husband of six years, with whom she has two daughters: Sunday, nearly 4, and Faith Margaret, 19 months."
As it happens, Faith Margaret was delivered by a surrogate. We all understand there is no need to attach that fact every time her name is mentioned, right? So why so much use of the word "adopted"?
Follow Lisa Belkin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lisabelkin
And adoption is FOREVER, not a one time event! only a person who has not lived with adoption in their lives would make such an ignorant an incorrect statement.
An adoptive parent does not have sole, exclusive parenthood of that child. Legal parenthood and parental rights, yes, but an adoptee may also have a social/emotional connection to his or her natural parents, and the biological connection is naturally there, being related to them.
The reality of an adoptee's bond/connection with his/her natural parents is evident from the fact that many search and reunite even after decades of separation, and the number of loving family relationships which have been restored (or were there all along) between natural parents and their adults sons and daughters.
As for saying that "Adopted is something you were, not something you are," this is also erroneous, as a person IS adopted until he or she has legally terminated his or her adoption. Many adoptees have already done this through various legal methods. My oldest son was adopted for 27 years, but as of 2007 he is no longer adopted. In situations such as this, with an adoptee successfully ending his adoption, yes one can indeed say he was adopted.
I can understand the authors concerns but my question is, do we need or want to vilify the word adoption? Why encourage reports to hush it up (hide/deny = shame/lie)? That would suggest being adopted is somehow inferior or a politically incorrect word. IMO that is precisely what will happen if we discourage the use of "adopted" children. The association becomes negative (stigma).
Adopted children can take pride in knowing they were so desired that their parents chose them. Openly mentioning and discussing this is honest and healthy. Being adopted, knowing you are/were adopted...not a problem.
Pet do not refer to dogs as adopted. Why children?
If Jesus did refer to Mary as his Surrogare Mother nor Joseph as his adopted Father
Why do we insist on putting hypens on children
Ms. Belkin, you must understand and acknowledge that the media have been emphasizing ALL ALONG that Cruise's children are adopted. Going all the way back to the first adoption with Kidman and continuing through to today.
If you don't know that, you cannot know enough to make sense of it or to understand why they do it.
The media emphasize the "adoption" angle with Cruise, and not with other celebrities, because Cruise is the only one with Big Gay Problem. With the never-ending rumors that Cruise is an enthusiastic bottom boy, rumors that all 3 of his wives have simply been Hollywood Beards, rumors that he either cannot or will not have sex with his wives. NOT rumors that he is somehow infertile - rumors that he just can't or won't have sex with a woman.
Other Hollywood performers and "celebs" also have adopted children, and the media do not focus on the "adoption" angle because those performers and celebs do not also have the never-ending Big Gay Problem.
With Cruise, the media isn't disparaging adopted children or adoption. The media is harping on the unspoken subtext that never needs to be mentioned in print - "Tom's faaaaabulous and gay" - never needs to be mentioned so long as the media instead always remind everyone that well... you know.. ahem, the kids are adopted, if you know what I mean. Wink wink.
My child is mine and we are proud of him (and crazy in love). We are also proud of the word "adoption" and "foster". It has never been a second or the last option.
I find offensive pointing "adoptive children" once and again and even more when making a distinction with the biological ones. To tell the truth, I have found myself kind of offended when people just assume - which happens quite often - that we've had our child through surrogacy.