Post by bunkershill on Jan 26, 2015 6:34:11 GMT
Adoption affects something like 1 in 100 of us in the UK, and having found this website, I am astounded at the lack of interest shown by the British.
Really, I shouldn't be, because if it comes up in conversation that I was adopted, people usually respond with something like "oh, that's interesting. Where are you going on holiday this year?"
Let me just say that older British adoptees wishing to know more about who they are and where they come from have quite a task discovering what happened to them as babies and children. These days the interest is mainly in people whose mothers became involved with Mother and Baby homes run by the churches or Dr Bernardos, and for them, there is a little hope because there are records hidden away. But just how many more of us were given away using the traditional private adoption procedures? If this is you, and if you want to know more about yourself, you need the intellect of Sherlock Holmes and the memory of George Smiley.
Until 1926 there were no laws in the UK about adoption. The 1926 Adoption of Children Act was essentially passed in order to prevent biological parents handing over their unwanted children to others for upbringing, only to reclaim them later on. In those days, the Courts held that blood ties counted fore more than attachments, and there were numerous feuds over where a child should be. Adoption in those days meant that one or two adults' parental rights and obligations were permanently obliterated, while one or two other adults obtained rights and obligations with respect to the child. There was little or no consideration given at all to the child, or to the suitability of the adopting adults. That 1926 Act was updated in 1949, the main change being that full adoption (severing of relationship) couldn't take place until the child had been in the adopting people's custody (yes, custody) for three consecutive months. Those archaic and deplorable statutes were updated several times more until the UK finally ratified the 1968 Hague Convention on Children. The corresponding UK law was passed in 1976. Nonetheless, adoption law has since been revised again and again, until we have today legislation that in no way resembles the situation in 1950.
For what it's worth, I know from my grandparents that I was adopted at birth over sixty years ago. My posh biological family were greatly embarrassed that their underage and unmarried daughter was pregnant, and I had to go. They paid my adoptive parents to provide me with board and lodging plus a very nice gratuity to keep their mouths shut. Part of the deal was that the adopting couple register themselves as my parents. Well why not? Plenty of women lied about who a child's father was, so why not lie about the mother too? Registrars required no proof, didn't ask questions, and merely recorded what they were told. And as it happens, I was adopted again in older childhood, and this time the law required my consent. What a sham! I knew nothing of what was taking place, only that I was ushered into a court room, confirmed my name, and was shown out again. That was it. I had said yes to mother number three.
Trying to unravel a story such as mine is almost an impossible task. It isn't made easier that I live overseas, and the Passport Office will only look into my background if there is an intermediary they appoint in the country where I live. It speaks volumes that their appointed intermediary is the Family Law division of the Appeals Court where I live.
The United Kingdom was certainly not a child-friendly place when I grew up there. I am pleased to see that legislation has gradually improved, putting the children first, but what about attitudes? I rather think that England is a nice place to be from.
Really, I shouldn't be, because if it comes up in conversation that I was adopted, people usually respond with something like "oh, that's interesting. Where are you going on holiday this year?"
Let me just say that older British adoptees wishing to know more about who they are and where they come from have quite a task discovering what happened to them as babies and children. These days the interest is mainly in people whose mothers became involved with Mother and Baby homes run by the churches or Dr Bernardos, and for them, there is a little hope because there are records hidden away. But just how many more of us were given away using the traditional private adoption procedures? If this is you, and if you want to know more about yourself, you need the intellect of Sherlock Holmes and the memory of George Smiley.
Until 1926 there were no laws in the UK about adoption. The 1926 Adoption of Children Act was essentially passed in order to prevent biological parents handing over their unwanted children to others for upbringing, only to reclaim them later on. In those days, the Courts held that blood ties counted fore more than attachments, and there were numerous feuds over where a child should be. Adoption in those days meant that one or two adults' parental rights and obligations were permanently obliterated, while one or two other adults obtained rights and obligations with respect to the child. There was little or no consideration given at all to the child, or to the suitability of the adopting adults. That 1926 Act was updated in 1949, the main change being that full adoption (severing of relationship) couldn't take place until the child had been in the adopting people's custody (yes, custody) for three consecutive months. Those archaic and deplorable statutes were updated several times more until the UK finally ratified the 1968 Hague Convention on Children. The corresponding UK law was passed in 1976. Nonetheless, adoption law has since been revised again and again, until we have today legislation that in no way resembles the situation in 1950.
For what it's worth, I know from my grandparents that I was adopted at birth over sixty years ago. My posh biological family were greatly embarrassed that their underage and unmarried daughter was pregnant, and I had to go. They paid my adoptive parents to provide me with board and lodging plus a very nice gratuity to keep their mouths shut. Part of the deal was that the adopting couple register themselves as my parents. Well why not? Plenty of women lied about who a child's father was, so why not lie about the mother too? Registrars required no proof, didn't ask questions, and merely recorded what they were told. And as it happens, I was adopted again in older childhood, and this time the law required my consent. What a sham! I knew nothing of what was taking place, only that I was ushered into a court room, confirmed my name, and was shown out again. That was it. I had said yes to mother number three.
Trying to unravel a story such as mine is almost an impossible task. It isn't made easier that I live overseas, and the Passport Office will only look into my background if there is an intermediary they appoint in the country where I live. It speaks volumes that their appointed intermediary is the Family Law division of the Appeals Court where I live.
The United Kingdom was certainly not a child-friendly place when I grew up there. I am pleased to see that legislation has gradually improved, putting the children first, but what about attitudes? I rather think that England is a nice place to be from.
