Forced adoption- who was responsible?

Still happening! Professor Roy Meadow saying one cot death is a tragedy two is suspicious and three is murder unless proved otherwise led to social services snatching thousands of newborns.Where are the poor little things now?

I’d suggest that the young mothers weren’t all teens and in their twenties were still very young g and vulnerable. With contraception not being readily available. I’d suggest most likely they were more easily taken advantage of too…..

nightowl

Most adoptions are still forced, but in a different way. Very few babies are relinquished willingly for adoption, most children who are adopted have been taken from their parents under the full weight of law. There is great disparity in practice across Europe and further afield. I think there is a debate to be had around this before we can rest on our laurels and say everything is fine now.

That is still hard for the mothers, but if there is a clear risk the baby / young child may come to physical harm or signs of sexual abuse, then I think most people would feel that child protection is the priority.

It's very difficult from the topic of this thread, which is adoptions forced on unmarried mothers who didn't manage a "shotgun" wedding but wanted to keep their baby.

I really don’t think the government are to blame for forced adoptions.
I think it was really very much down to the families of these poor girls.
If the father of the child wasn’t willing to marry the girl then it fell to the girls family to pick up the pieces and if they didn’t or couldn’t support her then there was no other option but to put the child up for adoption.
The attitude of society at the time made it very difficult to keep a baby outside of marriage and the judgement for mother, child and her family was almost unbearable in some circles.
I really don’t understand why these girls blame the government, don’t they look at their own families and the choice that was made?

AuntieE

Am I the only one to think that all this apologising has got out of hand?

When my sister was born in 195-something, her 16 year old mother gave her up for adoption because she had no means of supporting herself and a baby - who would look after the child, while she was at work?

I have no idea if this poor woman felt forced or not to put her child up for adoption. She may never have wanted the baby, or she may have felt she was doing the right thing by the child.

She acted according to the moral norms of the time and the possiblities she had. So did slave owners in the 17th and 18th centuries - and we have had to apologise to the descendants of the slaves for what our ancestors did.

We can, should and must accept the consequences of our own actions, but there is no rhyme or reason in having to apologise for things done at a time when they either were legal or morally acceptable. Nor can anyone be held accountable for another person's behaviour, unless they could have stopped that person from doing wrong.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

My husband was born in 1956 to an unmarried mother.
She was 19, until 1970 you were not considered an adult until 21, so therefore you did what your parents told you to do.

She was told she had bought shame on the family, she went to a Mother and baby home then was sent abroad after the birth.

She did eventually marry my husband’s father but never had anymore children.

She was accepting of the fact that in the 1950’s that was how things were

Despite enormous wealth they would not have been good parents, my husband is very aware that his adoptive parents were the better option.

There was no cruelty involved unlike the Catholic Church, the adoption wasn’t forced, there were no options.

I do think the Catholic Church should be apologising for the disgraceful treatment of unmarried mothers and their children.
It’s shocking to think the last Magdalene laundry closed in 1956.

In the late 70s a friend of mine became pregnant to a musician in a band. We lived in student accommodation at the time. Her dad was a police officer and told her under no circumstances could she go home until after the baby was born. So, when we we all out living it up this poor girl had to stay by in by herself. She had already decided to give the baby up for adoption. After the baby was born and we all finished our exams she went to work in America and never came back.
Looking back we didn't really know how to help her, but I know I was so shocked at the attitude of her parents. I often wonder if they found each other eventually... so sad but maybe it did have a happy ending?
Not so long ago really...

Whingey

Still happening! Professor Roy Meadow saying one cot death is a tragedy two is suspicious and three is murder unless proved otherwise led to social services snatching thousands of newborns.Where are the poor little things now?

Roy Meadows was proved wrong, and struck off the medical council .

Where's the evidence for "the snatching of thousands of
newborns? "

What exactly is "still happening"?

I'm not sure what I think about the 'different times' argument. On one hand I can see it - all of us can, I'm sure, think of attitudes and behaviour that has changed in acceptability over our lifetimes. On the other, there is an argument that wrong is wrong, and we tried war criminals years after their crimes, and even when they regret what they did in their youth when 'times were different' and 'they were only obeying orders'.

Like so many things, there were people involved at all levels. The parents, the people who worked in the homes, the government, the NHS (I assume), social workers who took the babies, the adoption agencies, and arguably even the adoptive parents. Are they equally culpable, or are there degrees of blame?

A teacher who caned children would rightly be prosecuted for assault now, but what about those who did so in the 1970s? It's the same offence, but times and attitudes were different.

What is the point of retrospective justice? I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not sure that it is true that only the people involved can know what is fair. The law doesn't work like that. People who have lost loved ones to murder would probably argue for heinous punishments, and who can blame them - if my children were victims I would do the same. We have to have a considered approach, and it is not fair to punish people for things that were not considered crimes when they happened.

In many cases, the parents who disowned the girls would have done so not just because of approbation from neighbours, but also because they couldn't afford to feed another family member. A young woman would be expected to earn money for the family, which meant that staying home with a baby created two extra mouths to feed.

Many people complain about benefits, but they did give people options they hadn't had before. Is it better to encourage young women to have babies by housing them and giving them benefits, or to effectively disallow them the option to keep their babies by not providing childcare? There are too many variables in both cases, I think.

I have no experience of forced adoption, but having had two babies I can imagine how traumatic it must have been, and my heart aches for the women who had it happen to them, but at least some of the people involved must have thought they were acting for the best. It's another one of those situations where there are more questions than answers, I think.

It is difficult, and as others have said unless you stood in their shoes, how would we really know what might help others heal. Interesting point about punishment given by teachers doodledog I remember very well a particular teacher when I was 11 who everyone knew would cane children for the slightest thing and a few boys who gave the teacher an excuse in most weekly lessons, so it makes you wonder what home life was like for them. Over the years I stopped worrying and hardly took any notice of the caning etc. Difficult unless you experienced it for others to rule out whether an apology should be made. I think when there is talk of compensation it is to enable counselling but I do know for sure.

The people who should apologise are the fathers, who refused to take responsibility.

eazybee

The people who should apologise are the fathers, who refused to take responsibility.

Yes, and particularly the ones whose heads pop over the horizon when the child is 18. When all the work is done, and all the heartache gone through, they suddenly find a fatherly impulse. Uncanny, isn't it?

As someone who was pregnant and unmarried in the 60s and an adopted person to boot, I agree that Government apologies now are meaningless. There were other forces at play mainly religion and 'what will the neighbors say.' I really don't remember any pressure being brought to bear on me at the time. I did marry the father of my child but had several months of trying to decide what would be the best thing to do. I take the point that some people may find comfort in an apology.

Surely it was nothing to do with the governments of the time, it was social attitudes. Having a baby outside marriage brought disgrace to the mother and to all of her family and it was impossible for the mother to support her child.
Those poor young girls who had ‘got into trouble’ were told and believed that their babies would be better off if adopted.
Having our present government apologise to them now is utter nonsense.

Parents may be subconsciously transferring the blame from their own parents who did not support them onto the Authorities. This is possibly more comfortable for them to accept. If this proposed apology makes them feel better then so be it. I personally don't believe the authorities were at fault. I know 2 mums in my village alone who were supported to keep their babies despite the stigma.

I can no more imagine throwing my beloved child out on the streets to fend for herself and MY grandchild, alone and desperate, than fly.
Bugger what anyone thought.
Absolute shame on the parents who put the opinions of neighbours above the welfare of their flesh and blood.
My mum and dad "had" to get married when she was expecting me, my Nan dragging her to church to confess her sin to the priest. Utter bullshit.
My heart absolutely goes out to those betrayed girls and their babies torn apart by pathetic societal pressures. And what good did it do ultimately?
So much suffering, so wrong.

There was no state coercion to have the baby adopted.. There was social pressure from disapproving family. If anything, it was State support and provision which enabled and supported many single girls who wanted, to keep their child, find an affordable home and day care.

This is true. The only girls (because that is what most were) who kept their babies were those with family support or other support that we as social workers organised for them. The ones who felt forced to give their babies up were those from strict religious backgrounds whose families basically threatened to disown them and they were too afraid to try and manage without that. And there were of course the ones as I mentioned above who were in fear of being killed by male relatives.

The only time when the state was (and is) involved in forcing an adoption is where the baby has been received into care for its own safety.

I am not sure quite what the state is being asked to apologise for. In many cases the state was what enabled girls to keep their babies by providing support services.

“Forced Adoptions” now bare no resemblance to the ones under discussion here, it’s a subject worthy of its own thread.
Often the children aren’t babies removed at birth but older children about whom children’s services and other agencies had been long concerned. “Snatching” is not what happens

In the early 1970s I fostered babies straight from hospital who were to be put up for adoption . From what I gleaned from the information I got a lot of them were to be adopted because the parents , mostly the dads, refused to let the poor girls bring them home . I had babies from good homes , mothers teachers etc. but there was no help for them at all if the family did not take them in. We had one baby whose mother wanted up to long term foster her until she could look after the baby but that did not happen . I doubt if I would have agreed anyway . It was heart breaking enough giving the babies away when they were months old . I had one older baby who cried when anyone else took her so parting with her was horrible. Only one of the mums came back for her baby so she must have persuaded her parents , she had not see him sive he was a week old.

Back in the early 60s would-be adopters wanted only perfect white babies, so the young mothers kept their babies if there was any sign of a problem.

I can only think that women who were single mothers at the time and were badly affected by giving the baby up for adoption feel the blame was their own ( in some cases it was) and now think they’ll feel better if someone else now takes the guilt from them by an apology.Mainly it was their family who persuaded them to have the baby adopted but I had a friend aged 19 who was relieved her baby was going to an adoptive family and was wanted.It was her own choice as she wanted to travel and see the world at the time and giving up her job and looking after a baby wasn’t anything she wanted to do.
She could have had a backstreet abortion but decided that giving birth was the right thing to do.

At least all the babies were wanted by the adoptive parents
we ve no idea if that was true there are many stories of cruelty in some adopted families I certainly know one girl (my youngest daughters friend) who was sexually assaulted by the ‘father’ in her adoptive family
It’s pie in the sky to imagine all these adoptions were marvellous we ve no idea

I would have run away and lived on the street sooner than have my baby taken away I always known that

A friend of mine was a young social worker in the 70s, and she talks about taking babies from the arms of weeping mothers to give them to adoptive parents. This was in East London. She feels awful about it now but at the time she thought she was doing the right thing.

silverlining48

Not forgetting the parents who could have let their pregnant daughters stay at home but instead, because of the massive shame about pregnancy out of marriage, insisted their daughters leave and often for the baby to be adopted, ‘never to darken their door ‘ was an expression often used.

Where were they to go other than to a mother and baby home where the girls may have been treated harshly because they had become pregnant. While the fathers of these children carried on with their lives without blame or responsibility.

These girls could not get accommodation or benefits so were dependent on their parents who because of social norms and embarrassment sent them away.

I’m only 61. My very good friend Debbie became pregnant when she (we) were 15. Her father and older brother immediately threw her out of the house, literally.

As a result of help from friends’ parents, she was found a place in a mother and baby home, where she gave birth to a son and was helped into social housing.

Her mother and sister saw her and her child in secret, too frightened of the men in the house to challenge them.

I moved on, we lost touch but it still appals me how badly she was let down by her father.

The only girls (because that is what most were) who kept their babies were those with family support or other support that we as social workers organised for them.

As a childminder I looked after a baby so the teenage mum could go back to school and take her exams.
Her social worker came to see me and said they would pay my fees, as mum was too young to be able to claim any financial support herself.
She still lived at home.