“links of chain” for adoption

 
Terry
 
Avatar
 
 
Terry
Total Posts:  419
Joined  07-01-2008
 
 
 
10 May 2011 14:40
 

In my humble opinion, I do not see the use of the chains here is the US.  With assumption of Arms not being managed by a government type body the child would assume the Arms of whatever family he identifies with.  Weather that is the Arms of his adopted father, the Arms of his Biological father (given he has an established relationship with his biological father) or the assumption of new arms that is a new creation based off both of the above listed arms.

I mention above the child having an established relationship with his biological father due to the fact that if the child does not have a relationship and the biological father has not "authorized" the succession of arms, then the child is usurping this biological father’s Arms.  Along this line, I do not feel the use of chain links would be a sufficient difference as the biological father has no knowledge (in some cases) or has not authorized the child in question to use his arms, difference or not.

 

I am going to stop typing now as I am on a meeting and I think I am rambling in this post.

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
10 May 2011 14:41
 

Joseph McMillan;82728 wrote:

Wouldn’t that be more effectively expressed by using the arms without difference, or with the ordinary marks of cadency used by any other child?


I personally think it would.  I think the use of links is a terrible idea.  After all, my children are my children.  I make no distinction, nor do I recognize any distinction.  I was simply making a suggestion since the hypothetical being proposed in this thread is that an adoptee would actually want to use the links.

 
Terry
 
Avatar
 
 
Terry
Total Posts:  419
Joined  07-01-2008
 
 
 
10 May 2011 14:53
 

WBHenry;82735 wrote:

.... proposed in this thread is that an adoptee would actually want to use the links.


I would not want to use the links.  Being an adoptee myself, and note this is my personal opinion only, I see the use of links of chain more as an abatement.  By using my Father’s Arms undifferentiated or using similar marks of cadency my siblings are using says to me I have been wholly accepted by not only my Father, but my family as a whole.

 

Again…this is my opinion only

 
j.carrasco
 
Avatar
 
 
j.carrasco
Total Posts:  639
Joined  20-04-2011
 
 
 
10 May 2011 14:54
 

Terry;82737 wrote:

I would not want to use the links.  Being an adoptee myself, and note this is my personal opinion only, I see the use of links of chain more as an abatement.  By using my Father’s Arms undifferentiated or using similar marks of cadency my siblings are using says to me I have been wholly accepted by not only my Father, but my family as a whole.

Again…this is my opinion only


I completely agree.

 
j.carrasco
 
Avatar
 
 
j.carrasco
Total Posts:  639
Joined  20-04-2011
 
 
 
10 May 2011 15:24
 

Just for the sake of a discussion, can I add another layer to this?  How would this affect the child that is raised a gay or lesbian couple?  I’m going to make the assumption that in the gay couple scenario one of the fathers would be the biological father.  In this case, would the child assume his arms?  Maybe a marshalling of both fathers?

In the scenario of the lesbian couple, the tradition is to assume the arms of the father (or male line).  I’m going to make an assumption that there’s an anonymous donor so, since there’s no male line (that anyone knows of) what would happen here?

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
10 May 2011 15:53
 

jcar;82742 wrote:

How would this affect the child that is raised a gay or lesbian couple?  I’m going to make the assumption that in the gay couple scenario one of the fathers would be the biological father.  In this case, would the child assume his arms?  Maybe a marshalling of both fathers?


My first hip-shot response, w/o having first consulted any same gender couples for their preference on the issue, would be to recommend that regardless of male or female, the arms passed to adopted children match the arms of the surname given to the child, in this case biological or not.

 

If the couple hyphenate their partnershipage (or marriage) name, then the adopted child ought to inherit quartered arms of both parents IF both parents bear their own individual arms.  As brought up in another thread, which arms to dexter-chief & sinister-base (the "Pants Arms" I guess) would be a question for them to sort out, but would probably follow the order of surnname hyphenation to avoid confusion?

 

Most of my opinion on this is based on input from ya’all in similar discussions from other threads.

 

Again, I see no reason here for "links" or some other brisure to be born unless it was desired by the parents.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
10 May 2011 17:32
 

jcar;82742 wrote:

Just for the sake of a discussion, can I add another layer to this? How would this affect the child that is raised a gay or lesbian couple? I’m going to make the assumption that in the gay couple scenario one of the fathers would be the biological father. In this case, would the child assume his arms? Maybe a marshalling of both fathers?

In the scenario of the lesbian couple, the tradition is to assume the arms of the father (or male line). I’m going to make an assumption that there’s an anonymous donor so, since there’s no male line (that anyone knows of) what would happen here?


It wouldn’t affect it at all.  Read the AHS guidelines on inheritance of arms.  The whole business of tying succession to surname (with which I’ve always been a little uncomfortable) was designed with this kind of situation in view.

 

We need to get over the obsession with bloodlines (or DNA).  I would say that it’s family identity that matters, but that’s too ill-defined a concept for practical purposes.  (I could announce that I personally identify with the Churchills and start using the arms of the Duke of Marlborough.)

 

The legal definition of who is and isn’t family—e.g., who inherits the property in the absence of a will—has been the basis for defining heraldic succession for centuries.  That’s the basis we should work on and not trying to figure out special rules for people who feel entitled to them.

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
16 June 2011 11:23
 

The emphasis in this discussion has been on an adopted child using or not using the links to distinguish his arms from that of his adoptive parent. However, just for the sake of argument, why not assume the child is armigerous before adoption? Child XY becomes called XZ with a new Z father but, I presume, does not lose his rights to inheritance from his biological father Y. Child X may well begin using the undifferentiated arms of Z proudly but does not cease to have a right to the arms of Y - or may only discover these later when trying to find the biological family. (S)he may feel that his/her arms of Y need to be differentiated from the undifferenced Y arms to show that he is no longer a Y but has been adopted out of the family. Would not a couple of chain links be suitable there? Perhaps to include the Y arms as a quartering - in which case in which quarter? I guess it is a little like someone adopting/being granted arms and finding out later they already are entitled - eg Cole ancient quartered with Cole modern by a former king of arms.

Incidentally French and Belgian laws recognise two types of adoption - simple and full. Full adoption completely removes any connection to the former family whereas simple adoption does not.

 

Derek Howard

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
22 August 2011 23:06
 

Derek’s approach seems fair & all, but IMO misses an important point, at least in (what I understand to be) the American legal context.  My knowledge is based on being an adoptive parent in California—don’t know if all states have the same rules.

Adoption here severs the legal link between the child and the birth parents.  In some but certainly not all cases—the specifics are as varied as the people involved—there is still an emotional connection between the birth parent & a child adopted by others, but no legal connection.  The birth parent retains no legal parental rights or obligations, and the child retains no legal claim on, or obligation to, the birth parent.  (Whether that is or is not "good" or "ideal" will depend on your personal life experience and beliefs—so I’m NOT inviting an argument on that point; for reasons noted below, it’s not particularly relevant anyway.)

 

Stepping back from the immediate issue, our Guidelines are generally based on the assumption (no pun intended…well, maybe a little one…) that American history and our social & legal norms are paramount—how we view and treat arms should fit within that larger sphere.  If some, or even all,  global heraldic tradition clashes on any given point, the greater social & legal context "here" trumps the merely heraldic "from there."

 

Thus whatever may be the practice elsewhere, or whatever we may passionately believe the laws re: (in this case) adoption ought or ought not to be, the "best practice" here is to conform our heraldic practice to the broader national legal & social American norms.  If that happens to be the same as or similar to heraldic practice in some other nations, swell but no big deal.  If (or to the degree) it’s different, also no big deal—so sorry, we live here, not there.

 

Thus—whether we think it is "fair" or not, if Fred Flintstone’s birth child Fred Jr. is legally adopted by Barney Rubble, the kid will bear whatever name Barney gives him—maybe Fred, maybe not—and will be, legally, a Rubble—not a Flintstone.  Since the purpose of arms is to identify persons and families, the arms of the adopted child should therefore reflect his legal identity, e.g. Barney Rubble Jr.  To bear the arms of his birth parent rather than his adoptive parent essentially denies the legal fact of his adoption and his legal identity, rights & obligations as the son of Barney Rubble; and asserts an identity which was legally terminated in the adoption process.

 

Having said which, if Barney Rubble Jr. wishes to "difference" his arms by incorporating some charge from his birth parent’s arms, or otherwise alluding to that birth parent, he’s certainly IMO free to do so, so long as the addition doesn’t obscure the legal fact of his legal identity—just as he, or for that matter any siblings who happened to be birth children of Barney Rubble Sr.—could "difference" by adding any other charge he took a fancy to.

 

If for whatever reason he wished to bear the double links of chain to advertise his adoption, that IMO is his right—but certainly not an obligation!

 

Similarly, if in a given family the custom was to use cadency, then the double links of chain would be one (but IMO quite optional) choice of cadency mark.

 

IMO it would be inappropriate to use the double links of chain where there was no adoptive link—because it would suggest a specific set of facts that would not be accurate.

 

Emotionally (i.e. if I were king of the world), I would be inclined to look favorably on an adopted child who wanted to quarter his birth parent’s arms (but not in 1st quarter, which should reflect his legal name)—but logically, I must admit it doesn’t seem to be a "best practice" because it suggests a set of facts (i.e. a particular legal & genealogical relationship) that would not be accurate.  (Also, the adopted child should NOT just add the double link of chain to his birth parent’s arms—that would be highly misleading, & would essentially get the relationship backwards.  Not sure what he should use…even if quartering were OK)

 

Still puzzling through that wee bit…

 

Anyway, and FWIW, that’s how I see it.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 August 2011 09:22
 

To me, this is all very straightforward. What Mike describes as the law in California is, as far as I can tell, essentially the law in every state in the Union. A guide to the specifics of the adoption statutes of the various states says categorically that:


Quote:

The adopted child is treated by law as if he or she had been born to the adopting parents upon the entry of the final adoption decree. The adopted child, therefore, gains the right to inherit from the adoptive parents and adoptive parents’ relatives. Adoptive parents and other adoptive relatives also gain the right to inherit from the adopted child.


As to any residual relationship with the birth parents, we can check the specific statutes of the first three states in alphabetical order:

 

Alabama: "... an adopted person is the child of an adopting parent and not of the birth parents…"

 

Alaska: "A final decree of adoption relieves the birth parents of the adopted person of all parental rights and responsibilities and terminates all legal relationships between the adopted person and the birth parents and other relatives of the adopted person, so that the adopted person thereafter is a stranger to the former relatives for all purposes including inheritance, unless the decree of adoption specifically provides for continuation of inheritance rights."

 

Arizona: "The relationship of birth parent and adopted person is completely severed upon entry of the adoption decree, and all legal consequences of the relationship cease to exist, including the right of inheritance."

 

If you keep going through the alphabet to Wyoming, they all say more or less the same thing.

 

Various states provide for various exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions, not the rule. The norm in the U.S. should therefore be that the adopted child inherits the arms of his adoptive family without any difference being imposed for adoption; he has no right to the arms of the birth parent, and if he assumes them it is a usurpation.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
23 August 2011 14:28
 

Joseph McMillan;87207 wrote:

...Various states provide for various exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions, not the rule. The norm in the U.S. should therefore be that the adopted child inherits the arms of his adoptive family without any difference being imposed for adoption; he has no right to the arms of the birth parent, and if he assumes them it is a usurpation.


agreed 100%. if i was adopted i wouldn’t want anyone else’s arms other than my prents, as in the ones who adopted me. for all real reasons, and in all real ways that matter imo, they are my parents not the BFOC or BMOC.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
23 August 2011 16:27
 

Joseph,

Hypothetically, one would suppose therefore that if such an adopted child is heir to or becomes the heir to a British peerage/baronetcy, the chiefship of a Scottish clan or name (there are one or two peers, baronets and chiefs in the USA) or to British arms from the American legal perspective that child would be not be allowed to inherit or admit to such an inheritance.  In essence, therefore, such an inheritance of title, chiefship or arms would remain dormant for there is no method of resignation and regrant in relation to peerages or baronetcies, although such resignations and regrants are not entirely unknown with regard to Scottish chiefships.  But would this hold for that child’s issue?  Could such issue be free to revert to their ancestal/paternal name and if the inheritance of a title or chiefship or arms were pertinent to such a name could they not upon provision of proofs to the relevant authorities here in the UK succeed to the particular peerage, baronetage, chiefship or arms concerned?  If this were to be the case, could not an adopted child on reaching majority be able to resume his/her ancestal heritage?  There is certainly a principle that an action of one individual should not impinge on the rights of another individual in the future.  I thought I would just fly this particular kite!

 

John

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 August 2011 16:43
 

liongam;87211 wrote:

Hypothetically, one would suppose therefore that if such an adopted child is heir to or becomes the heir to a British peerage/baronetcy, the chiefship of a Scottish clan or name (there are one or two peers, baronets and chiefs in the USA) or to British arms from the American legal perspective that child would be not be allowed to inherit or admit to such an inheritance. In essence, therefore, such an inheritance of title, chiefship or arms would remain dormant for there is no method of resignation and regrant in relation to peerages or baronetcies, although such resignations and regrants are not entirely unknown with regard to Scottish chiefships. But would this hold for that child’s issue? Could such issue be free to revert to their ancestal/paternal name and if the inheritance of a title or chiefship or arms were pertinent to such a name could they not upon provision of proofs to the relevant authorities here in the UK succeed to the particular peerage, baronetage, chiefship or arms concerned? If this were to be the case, could not an adopted child on reaching majority be able to resume his/her ancestal heritage? There is certainly a principle that an action of one individual should not impinge on the rights of another individual in the future. I thought I would just fly this particular kite!


John,  I would say that my answer has to do with the use of American arms in the United States.  I suppose whether the issue of a child who was adopted in the United States could revert to his birth name to claim a peerage, chiefship, whatever, would be a matter for English or Scottish law, since such things have no existence in the United States.  Even if they did, the intent of U.S. adoption statutes is clear, that adoptive children have no right to inherit anything from their birth parents.

 

I would add that the vast majority of children adopted in the United States (as, I assume, is also the case in the UK) were born to unwed mothers, so it is very likely in most cases that the actions of two individuals have already impinged on the rights of another individual in the future, certainly with regard to succession to British dignities (illegitimacy being a bar to such succession, as far as I know).

 

And of course heraldry is full of cases in which the actions of one individual impinge on the rights of other individuals as yet unborn.  What is the effect of a royal license permitting the devisee of a will to take the name and arms of the testator, if not to affect the rights of the devisee’s descendants?

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
23 August 2011 18:56
 

Joseph,

Many thanks for your thoughts.  As my original post was purely hypothetical I completely understand and respect what you say, although I cannot see how any law can refute or deny a true genealogical decent through an artificial, although legal, construct as pertains to adoption in the USA.  I would imagine that such a law protects the child, but there must many adopted children in the USA like their fellows in the UK who seek or wish to seek to find their birth parents at some point in their lives.  Although such efforts always have the risk of opening ‘a can of worms’.

 

John

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 August 2011 21:30
 

Joe—thanks for the research confirming my understanding of the adoption laws—though I would be open to correction if my ad hoc exposure had led me astray.

John—if we think of arms as a form of property (for analogy’s sake if not strictly legally the case)—property and inheritance in e.g. the UK will be governed by UK law.  If a descendant in e.g. the US wishes to claim that property, the UK courts would I assume defer to US laws and the relevant decrees of US courts in individual cases to the extent they were consistent with UK law, but not where the two legal systems might clash.  Each nation’s laws apply within their own sovereignty.

 

I believe IIRC that this is touched on in our AHS Guidelines re: arms granted or inherited from foreign lands.  When & to the extent the arms are used here as American arms by an American, our Guidelines would apply.  If & to the extent that said American were to use those arms in a foreign context (move to the UK, or in certain ethnic contexts or festivities) then the laws of origin should prevail.

 

So long as nations respect each others’ right to be different—or, if you prefer, to practice our own quaint heraldic eccentricities—it all works out.  Heraldic rules are a bit like wine; just as some improve with age & some don’t, some travel well and others don’t.