[Nicole28]

From an MSNBC.com article within the Crime & Courts Section...

and Eddie Lee Harper, who died by lethal injection in 1999. Harper spent 16 years on death row for killing his adoptive parents before he dropped his appeals and asked for his sentence to be carried out.

WHY doesn't the journalist just say "Harper spent 16 years on death row for killing his PARENTS before he dropped his appeals..."???? I feel like the word "adoptive" is irrelevant. They were his parents. He killed them. It is equally tragic. Slipping in the word "adoptive" is what leads to this negative perception of adopted persons as more likely to become murderers [a perception that is "out there" whether we like it or not; much research has been done on this and other related topics].

I don't necessarily find the use of "adoptive" offensive, but I do wonder why it seemed appropriate to include that "label" within the description of the crime. Perhaps it was to gain more sympathy for the prosecution during the trial - - "Mr. Harper killed his ADOPTIVE parents, two people who wanted a child desperately and were selfless, wonderful individuals for bringing a child into their home..." type of a deal?!

[thanksgivingmom]

I'm not sure, but I see this qualifier used all the time and every time it just gets me....the most recent place I saw it was in this weeks UsWeekly...there was a picture of Nicole Richie and her Mom. The big headline just said "Mom" but the description under the headline definitely said "her adoptive Mom." I don't understand the need to constantly point it out in the media...my placed daughter's Mom is her MOM not her "adoptive Mom."

I especially don't understand because it seems like most people "get it" but that the media certainly hasn't caught up...although that could just be a biased perspective based on my knowledge of so many people touched by adoption that would never dream of making that mistake...

[RavenSong]

I've noticed the same thing in every media story having to do with patricide over the years. It really irks me. But then I also get irritated when the media reports someone's skin color in an arrest report. I get really mad when I read an obituary that says "So and So, adopted son or daughter". The thing that bothers me most about that is the family members of the deceased usually are the ones to place an obit.

[JustPeachy]

You hear this a lot, too, with regard to celeb's adopted children. How many times has the media referred to "Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's child, Shiloh, and their adopted children, Maddox, Pax and Zahara"? I don't think I've ever read of them all collectively as simply "their children."

[belleinblue1978]

It makes for headlines... why do they list anyone as a birthmother? It's all about drama and people think that adoption is dramatic.....

[billysmommy]

JustPeachy,
I actually ONCE saw an article that called Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's children just that - their children. I was so shocked I almost spit my soda! It's sad to be shocked over something that should just be a "given".

[Howdy]

I think the media reports what they think people find interesting. And sometimes it is interesting. Like with the man who killed his parents, it is interesting that they were his adoptive parents, but I wish it had more info, like whether he was older when adopted.

In obituaries I think it is good information because a few generations from now that person's decendants might be doing geneology (I'm not sure how to spell that) research and if they trace back to that obituary they will know that the parents on the birth certificate of that ancestor are not biological ancestors (I'm assuming people who are interested in geneology only care about biological "gene" family, at least that is what I've observed with my mother because my grandmother is adopted and my mother did not seem interested in tracing beyond the adoptive parents, but instead followed the lines of the birth parents).

[Nicole28]

Howdy, you were wondering about the circumstances surrounding this adopted man's crime. I did a Google search ...

Edward Lee Harper was convicted in Jefferson County of killing Edward Lee and Alice Harper in 1982 so he could inherit their estate, valued at about $85,000. Even though Harper gave an extensive interview regarding giving up his appeals, he views as "water over the bridge" -- and will not discuss -- the events that led him to kill his adoptive parents, Alice and Edward Lee Harper Sr., on Feb. 19, 1982. The prosecutor said that Harper was a spoiled child who "killed both his parents in bed for the insurance money" -- an $86,541 policy on his father's life. At trial, Harper testified that his father, who had recently retired from a job at Ford Motor Co.'s Fern Valley assembly plant, asked him to shoot him and Harper's mother because his mother was mentally ill and his father could not bear to put her in an institution. Harper, who tried to make it look like a burglary gone awry, also testified that his parents' home was a misery-filled place. But prosecutors undercut that claim. They used testimony from witnesses who said that in the 9 weeks Harper remained free after the killings, he bragged about having money and discussed plans for spending that might seem lavish for a 33-year-old, twice-divorced, laid-off machinist who was so financially insecure he had been living with his parents.

Interesting, huh? They initially refer to Harper's parents as his "adopted parents," but later on in the blurb they just refer to them as "father" and "mother." I also found it interesting that they called Harper "spoiled," as I have found that this is another common assumption regarding adopted children - at least in MY own experience.

[RavenSong]

Nicole, I think a lot of people, including the media, also assume that "only" children are "spoiled".

Howdy, I can see how obituaries listing survivors as "adopted" can be extremely helpful to future generations researching genealogy. My lifelong hobby is genealogy, and I've gleaned so much from obits going back to the 1800's. But I'm still uncomfortable that a family member who is writing the obit for the newspaper includes the fact that a survivor was adopted. I somehow just don't think that they're listing adoptive status for genealogical reasons. I could easily be wrong about that, though.

I totally understand your mother focusing on her mom's birth family in her genealogy research. The "pure" form of genealogy focuses on actual bloodlines. Lately, though, some of the major genealogy software programs have made changes so that "social" families can be included in the family trees. For example, I was able to attach my son to two sets of parents in Roots Magic. So he can now see his family tree in either his birth family view or adoptive family view. It's pretty cool...

[BrockBaby]

I have to agree that pointing out a person's adoption status in obituaries is not only tacky, but to me it feels like it somehow lessens the person's relationship. I don't know why I feel that way...I just do. I have NEVER been identified as the "adopted grandkid" of ANY of my grandpa's or three great grandmothers and one great grandfathers obituary. I was their grandchild...period. There was not a need to identify me as anything else but that. I will NOT EVER be identifyed as my parents adopted daughter in any sort of publication.....when I get married it will say daughter of...not ADOPTED daughter of...UGH..how distasteful!!! But to me, the adoption was a one time event. They adopted me legally and that bound as their DAUGHTER forever more.....

[L@@king2]

just wanted to chime in here about "adopted" being on an obituary...
someone (from here) found my bdaughter's agrandfather's obit on line - and she was mentioned as his granddaughter. No "adopted" in front of it. I'm so glad for that!

[Janie1972]

This is a topic that infuriates beyond words, I can't stand it when the media refer to such and such's "ADOPTED" child/son/daughter, or "Nicoles children she adopted with Tom"...etc, etc. I have never, not once in my life been referred to as someones "adopted" child, sister, niece, grandaughter and I would be so very hurt and offended if I was. In this day of PCness with everything else, it's about time the media took this one on board as well.

As far as the comment about obituaries and mentioning adoption, again, I would be offended beyond belief if I was referred to as being adopted in a family members obituary. Not important.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by Janie1972

This is a topic that infuriates beyond words, I can't stand it when the media refer to such and such's "ADOPTED" child/son/daughter, or "Nicoles children she adopted with Tom"...etc, etc. I have never, not once in my life been referred to as someones "adopted" child, sister, niece, grandaughter and I would be so very hurt and offended if I was. In this day of PCness with everything else, it's about time the media took this one on board as well.

As far as the comment about obituaries and mentioning adoption, again, I would be offended beyond belief if I was referred to as being adopted in a family members obituary. Not important.

with Janie and all the other posters. I have stopped referring to my son as ason in my posts now. My father's obit did not differentiate among the grandkids/step-grandkids and we will not set my son apart by saying "adopted".

[EZ2Luv]

Media=Sensationalism. People like reading things like this in detail. In their minds they try to find reasons why something like this would happen and as crazy as it may seem to those of us in the triad, they somehow feel adoption could have been why it happened.
Of course we know better, but their job is to sell the news no matter what.
EZ