I am working on our profile book. Should our cover picture be a picture of just me and DH, or should our son be in the photo too? This might be a question for the agency, but I wanted your insight first.
I would say all of you. I looked at a couple of books from other families that my attorney and the agency provided as examples and I distinctly remember one family that just had a picture of themselves (the couple) on the front. I got through most of the book and assumed they were a childless couple. Then, in the last 5 pages, they introduced their biological daughter!
I thought it was so odd; I felt like they tacked her on as an afterthought - I'm sure they adore her (she was a preemie from a very difficult pregnancy) and the story of her birth was quite moving. But to find out so "late" in their story just seemed weird to me.
I could only imagine how that must have appeared to birthparents. However, they had successfully adopted, so maybe it was only odd to me. . .
2 years TTC with 5 losses, 1 year recovering, 6 months applying for adoption approval, and almost a year waiting for a placement. Then, a miracle BFP at age 36!
Thanks everyone. I was hoping that it was appropriate to use a family photo, because it just seems unnatural not to. Heck, if I thought it was possible, I would include the dogs in the picture too. I only asked because I've seen several online profiles that picture the couple only. The agency guidelines say that we should include a page on the other children in the family, but that the BMs are primarily interested in learning about the parents.
ColoRXgirl--your comments were interesting. DS was a preemie. I wasn't planning to share much detail about his birth story though, because I'm not sure I want to talk much about the reason for his prematurity (I was diagnosed with cancer while pregnant). Now I will have to think about this.
Re: Profile book question
I would also say a picture of you, your husband and your son.
Unless your agency says otherwise.
I would say all of you. I looked at a couple of books from other families that my attorney and the agency provided as examples and I distinctly remember one family that just had a picture of themselves (the couple) on the front. I got through most of the book and assumed they were a childless couple. Then, in the last 5 pages, they introduced their biological daughter!
I thought it was so odd; I felt like they tacked her on as an afterthought - I'm sure they adore her (she was a preemie from a very difficult pregnancy) and the story of her birth was quite moving. But to find out so "late" in their story just seemed weird to me.
I could only imagine how that must have appeared to birthparents. However, they had successfully adopted, so maybe it was only odd to me. . .
Thanks everyone. I was hoping that it was appropriate to use a family photo, because it just seems unnatural not to. Heck, if I thought it was possible, I would include the dogs in the picture too. I only asked because I've seen several online profiles that picture the couple only. The agency guidelines say that we should include a page on the other children in the family, but that the BMs are primarily interested in learning about the parents.
ColoRXgirl--your comments were interesting. DS was a preemie. I wasn't planning to share much detail about his birth story though, because I'm not sure I want to talk much about the reason for his prematurity (I was diagnosed with cancer while pregnant). Now I will have to think about this.
Thanks for your input everyone!