The right to recover biological surnames and preserve adoption

A landmark ruling allows an adoptee to regain his or her biological surname without revoking the adoption.

Olmo, a man adopted in Bilbao in 1972, has successfully had a Spanish court recognize his right to change his adopted surnames to those of his biological parents. This favorable ruling, according to Olmo, "corrects forced adoptive identification without eliminating adoption." It is the first time a court has ruled on a claim by an adoptee seeking the restoration of his identity.

The recent ruling—still pending enforcement—issued in May 2025 by the Provincial Court of Navarre, sets a historic precedent by recognizing the right of an adopted person to be legally identified by their biological parentage, thus disassociating themselves from the adoptive identity attributed to them, without this or any other ruling in itself annulling the adoption. This decision represents a profound change in the interpretation of the rights of adopted persons. It establishes that the identity of origin, at the request of the interested party, prevails over the legal construction derived from the adoption.

But let's take it one step at a time.

The representation of the ideal adoption is sometimes purely aesthetic; but so is any family that boasts of a lack of imperfection within its core.

The reader will be familiar with heartwarming adoption stories, where a family friend adopted a baby from another latitude and says everything is going swimmingly. The father boasts that an adopted child is like a biological child and that his child has integrated into the family. This widespread view of adoption focuses solely on adoptive parents and not on the adoptees, who are the ones who suffer a total disconnection from their original reality for a long time—sometimes for life.

A paradox arises from this, as the image of the protective function of adoption for a child is shifted toward the right of adoptive parents to be parents—something that doesn't exist. It seems that the opinion, desire, and identity of an adopted person are still considered a betrayal of the adoptive family, and even of society; a threat. Experiences like Olmo's are rarely heard in the general context of the perfect aesthetics of adoption, but the experiences of adoptees should count and matter.

These adoption accounts sometimes twist and turn like capricious meanders and end up in unusual places. For many years, Olmo wanted to go back to the river and recover her identity, reestablish filiation with her biological parents, and annul her adoption. Olmo clarifies that "this decision does not annul my adoption, but it does allow me to use my natural identity in the civil registry and on my ID card, fully exercising the right to identity that was previously restricted."

The reader may be wondering what calamity befell Olmo in his adoptive family that made him want to erase all traces of his identity. The answer is: nothing different from what may or may not happen in other families around the world.

Olmo advocates for the abolition of adoption and argues that "to prevent identity theft from recurring, adoption as an institution must be abolished and replaced with a permanent foster care model. Any new adoption should only be optional and in adulthood, with absolute and effective dual parentage, ensuring that the birth identity always takes priority. The system requires transparency, oversight, and judicial control so that child protection does not become an imposition or a cover-up."

Let's go back a few decades in time.

Olmo was born in Bilbao in 1971 to unknown parents, a foundling: that's what his birth certificate stated. A difficult beginning to share with an adopted child. In May 1972, he was adopted by the couple who registered him and gave him a first and last name: Santiago González Rueda. That same May, his biological parents married in Pamplona, ​​pregnant with their second daughter. Olmo maintains that "no one told my parents, and they never knew about the adoption."

At that precise moment, in the adoption, any possibility of continuing to belong to the family of origin was extinguished. The filiation with the biological family disappeared. This legal disconnection from the biological family is reflected in Article 178 of the Spanish Civil Code: "Adoption results in the extinction of the legal ties between the adopted child and his or her family of origin." In other words, the child is no longer the child of his or her biological parents, nor can those parents consider themselves the parents of this child who has ceased to exist for them.

There's another step. Once a judge grants a child to adoptive parents through adoption, there's no turning back; the parentage cannot be broken or modified, because "adoption is irrevocable," according to Article 180.1 of the Civil Code. In Spain, no adopted person has been able to annul their adoption, even if the illegality of the adoption process has been proven throughout the process. Everything is left behind.

For some adoptees like Olmo, this is an alleged violation of a person's identity rights. In Spain, surnames do not change upon marriage or under any other circumstances.

These two articles, 178 and 180 of the Civil Code, have been a barrier that has prevented many adoptees from restoring their biological identity without having to resort to legal action.

Questions.

What happens if an adopted person finds their biological family and wants to legally belong to it, that is, share the same last name, or even belong to both at the same time? The path seems to be opening up. Is it possible for a judge to revoke an adoption if the adopted person does not wish to belong to their adoptive family of their own free will? For now, it's impossible. Why can't an adopted person who knows their adoption was illegal freely revoke and end their adoption? Because the law doesn't allow it.

"Recognizing biological parentage is only part of the restitution. If the adoptive identity remains in effect, the adoptee is still forced to act under a pretense, as a child they are not. The ruling allows them to be freed from this obligation and restore their true identity, setting a precedent for all adult adoptees seeking recognition for who they truly are," Olmo adds.

Olmo meets his biological family.

Olmo had located his biological family many years ago: a sister, his biological father, and his mother, who died in 1989. He also met twelve uncles and a number of cousins. He had contact with them, but always felt rejected, at least by his father. Olmo took a DNA test to confirm that these people were indeed biological relatives and there was no confusion. DNA never fails; it's unique, it doesn't change, it's eternal, it's almost like a divinity. That's why it's crucial for adoptees to add their saliva to a DNA bank.

In 2010, it was confirmed that Olmo shared maternal and paternal DNA with his biological sister. There was no doubt: the parents of his sister, who was fifteen months younger than Olmo, were also his. And years later, Olmo decided to recover his last name and his affiliation with them. He spent another five years trying to gain his father's understanding and support, something that never happened despite the fact they knew each other. Finally, in 2021, Olmo decided to pursue criminal proceedings and report that he was trafficked, then sue his biological father for affiliation and annulment of the adoption.

In Bilbao, the city where he was born, Olmo filed a complaint alleging that his adoption there in 1972 was irregular, among other reasons due to the lack of consent from his biological parents to be placed for adoption. Olmo maintained that, after years of investigation and accumulating evidence, he concluded that he was taken from his mother without consent. He argued that the adoption—his own—should be annulled. He considered that a series of crimes had been committed during the process, such as unlawful detention, assumed childbirth, and document falsification. However, the Investigating Court No. 8 of Bilbao in 2021 and then the Provincial Court of Vizcaya in 2022 closed the doors to criminal proceedings, considering that these alleged crimes had already expired.

Olmo today. Photo courtesy of Olmo Gómez Aldaz.

Olmo explains that "my case falls within a broader context: that of abducted children, victims of baby theft and fraudulent adoptions. Adoption has functioned as a cover-up mechanism, protecting those responsible and erasing the children's existence. Society has tended to recognize only mothers as victims, rendering the children invisible and perpetuating re-victimization. This ruling demonstrates that abducted children are also victims and that the restoration of identity is a right."

Olmo then went to the Navarrese courts through civil proceedings, where he knew his biological family resided, and filed a lawsuit against his father for paternity and surnames, and at the same time, for the annulment of the adoption. He believed he wouldn't be able to recover his paternity without a crucial first step: the annulment of the adoption. He demanded that his biological father acknowledge his paternity. But his biological father opposed this recognition of paternity, which made the procedure even more complicated. His father rejected him. And these double rejections of adopted children are like a poison-filled bullet to the neck.

Think about the previous sentence.

Think again.

Olmo demanded the return of his biological parents' surnames: Gómez Aldaz. The biological relationship between Olmo and his father was also confirmed. The National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences issued a report in July 2022 confirming Olmo's father-son relationship with his father. Despite demonstrating that father and son were biologically related, they were not legally related. Olmo was still subject to another affiliation: adoption. He felt that, even though he had known his family, he could not escape adoption.

Once the hearing was over, and at the request of the prosecutor's office, this same Navarre court declared itself incompetent to rule on Olmo's petition for annulment of adoption. It considered that, in any case, the decision on the annulment of the adoption fell within the jurisdiction of the courts in Bilbao, the city where the adoption took place in 1972.

At the same time, and on the same day, the same Navarrese court, in light of the biological evidence presented, declared the non-marital paternal relationship between Olmo and his biological father to be legally binding. Olmo clarifies that "this judicial decision sets a clear precedent: a court can recognize biological parentage and allow adoptive identity to be disregarded. It implies a profound change in the interpretation of fundamental rights: birth identity takes priority over the legal fiction of adoption."

However, due to the Navarrese court's lack of jurisdiction, another article of the Civil Code, Article 180.4, had to be interpreted, which establishes that "the determination of the adopted person's natural parentage does not affect the adoption." This means that if the biological parents of an adopted person are their natural biological parents (DNA), even if there is no legal parentage because the adopted person belongs to another family, the adoptive family, nothing would prevent the adopted person's identity from being that of the biological family. In this case, this is interpreted as the right to return Olmo's surname without revoking his status as an adopted person.

This is a novel aspect of the ruling, something that has never happened before in Spain. Just as it had never happened before, it also leaves some confusion about the consequences of this decision on inheritance and other rights and obligations. The court requested the Bilbao Civil Registry correct the name and surname, and thus Santiago González Rueda legally ceased to exist and became Olmo Gómez Aldaz.

Olmo believes that this ruling has adequately restored her biological identity, and that from this moment on, she has recovered the identity she was denied at birth and that was sequestered through adoption. "The harm of adoption is not limited to fraudulent cases. All adoptees suffer the effects of identity imposition: loss of identity, subordination to a legal fiction, and social alienation. The State bears direct responsibility: it allowed a system that stole and falsified identities and still maintains legal structures that conceal these crimes. Recognizing only mothers is insufficient; adopted children also need reparation, protection of our identity, and guarantees of non-repetition."

The experiences of adopted people are untouchable, because it is the adoptees who bear the sole responsibility of having been adopted and what that means for them and for the world; a responsibility so great that, when it overflows, it is irresponsible. Recovering biological identity—an idea that years ago seemed almost like an Olmo prophecy—has been fulfilled.

The verdict was made public early on May 15th. A few hours later, Olmo's biological father died after a battle with cancer. The biological father had always opposed his biological son sharing his last name and life with him. Sometimes rejection lasts a lifetime and is inexplicable; they are also pure experience, and even though they hurt and poison, they are real. Because adoption is about fighting rejection, one after another.

Olmo lives in Valladolid with his partner. He has two sons and a daughter who is finishing university.