KATHY MITCHELL AND MARCY SUGAR \ Annie's Mailbox Birth mother wants to be a part of children's lives

Dear Annie: I was adopted when I was 4 years old. I am now 32. Thirteen years ago, my biological sister, "Stacy," located me, and we have been close ever since. Last summer, Stacy looked online for our birth mother, "Ellen," and found her living a short distance away.
We went to see Ellen, and she turned out to be a very needy person. Ellen claims she never meant to give us up permanently and has been waiting for the day when we would reappear in her life. She immediately started talking about spending holidays, birthdays and Mother's Day with us. She asked us to call her "Ma."
Stacy and I are not comfortable having such a chummy relationship with Ellen, but we don't want to hurt her. I wrote Ellen a letter, telling her I hoped to have a nice, but limited, friendship with her, since I already have a mother. Unfortunately, Ellen took it rather badly and says she has "lost" me all over again.
Stacy hasn't worked up the courage to tell Ellen how she feels, and now Ellen calls Stacy at all hours, wanting to spend time with her. We are considering an "intervention" to tell Ellen how we both feel. However, we are concerned she may not have the mental acuity to understand what we are saying, and we might end up causing her more pain. Do you have any other ideas? Torn in Massachusetts
Dear Torn: The problem with locating birth parents (or adopted children) is that those involved often have unrealistic expectations. It would be cruel to turn your back on Ellen, but it's OK to set limits (an "intervention" may be too harsh). Be kind, but firm. Yes, Ellen will be unhappy, because she won't have the relationship she craves, but it is necessary that she understand the boundaries.
Dear Annie: I'm writing in response to "Blindsided in Minnesota," who received a wedding invitation that turned out to be for dancing after the reception.
My husband and I recently married. We sent out formal and informal invitations because we couldn't afford to have everyone for dinner. The informal invitations were for the ceremony at 2 p.m. and the reception at 7 p.m. Our formal guests, however, also were invited to dinner at 6 p.m.
The informal guests still enjoyed dancing, free hors d'oeuvres and drinks. Fortunately, these friends understood our financial situation and were grateful to be included. Weddings are expensive and a lot of work. We think "Blindsided" should be more understanding. Just Went Through It in Michigan
Dear Michigan: Not everyone would agree that this is acceptable. Etiquette says to have the wedding you can afford, and not to separate the guests into those who get the expensive dinner and those who don't. Sometimes that means punch and cake for everybody. But if your friends didn't mind being excluded, fine with us.
Dear Annie: You recently answered a reader's inquiry regarding her relationship to her mother's aunt. You stated that the reader would be a "great-niece."
In fact, she would be a grandniece. A great-aunt is a grandparent's aunt, not a parent's aunt. I've never before heard the term "great-grandniece." Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Dear Pough: You are right -- and wrong. We stand corrected that "grandniece" is the more common term. However, a great-aunt is indeed a parent's aunt, meaning the sister of a grandparent. And "great-grandniece" is the correct term for the child of your grandniece. (We hope we got it right this time. Our thanks to all who had their own interesting versions of the answer, and those who wrote to let us know they were just as confused as we were.)
XE-mail your questions to anniesmailbox@com-cast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox™, P.O. Box 118190, Chicago, Ill. 60611.
Creators Syndicate