Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
General Discussion / Learning To Live Faithfully Right Where You Are
« Last post by Forgotten Mother on August 12, 2023, 11:18:46 AM »
https://proverbs31.org/read/devotions/full-post/2022/08/10/learning-to-live-faithfully-right-where-you-are?utm_campaign=Daily%20Devotions&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=221790283&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_QjhDhN7-erM4mGr3QeXOFe3BwLjDtfOZHlS51wkSI4GabkyEfDAkrMLFmrNO2tmIz5EmK6vDczZPGQcNFN6wCORmgkg&utm_content=221790283&utm_source=hs_email#disqus_thread

Learning To Live Faithfully Right Where You Are
August 10, 2022
by Ruth Schwenk

"He must become greater; I must become less.” John 3:30 (NIV)

I unfolded the scrap piece of paper to find a Bible verse scribbled on it. It was a verse I had never read but one that would change my life in countless ways in the years to come.  At the time, I was 15 years old and a new Christian, still just taking my first steps toward Jesus. I hadn’t been to youth group in weeks, so when my friend delivered a note from my youth pastor, I was anxious to open it.  The Bible verse I read that night was John 3:30: “He must become greater; I must become less.”

My youth pastor’s gentle message was clear: I needed to stop living for myself! Up until that point, my life had been centered around me. At that moment, I began to learn what we all must learn: My life every part of it is to be lived for Jesus. And even more significantly, it matters for eternity.  In the Bible, the life of Moses’ mom gives us a peek into why this is so important. Her story has a lesson for all of us, and it is a beautiful account of someone who was faithful when no one was watching, no matter the cost, and not for accolades but for the glory of God.  Moses’ mom’s name was Jochebed, and she knew, as every Hebrew woman did at that time, that to give birth to a baby boy in Egypt was a death sentence for that child. (Exodus 1:15-17) After she gave birth to Moses, she hid her young son for as long as she could. The day came, though, when she had to do the unthinkable. Desperate, she put Moses in a basket in the Nile River.

Moses’ sister, Miriam, watched from a distance as Moses was soon discovered by Pharaoh’s daughter. And it was Moses’ sister who approached Pharaoh’s daughter to suggest a Hebrew woman would be a fitting person to nurse this abandoned baby. With Pharaoh’s daughter’s permission, Miriam reunited young Moses with his birth mom but only for a short season. (Exodus 2:1-9) The time would come when Jochebed would have to let him go again. (Exodus 2:10)  Jochebed’s hidden faithfulness in caring for her son may have seemed insignificant, but God was using her beyond what she could’ve imagined. Moses would grow up to save a nation of fellow Hebrews from slaughter, becoming Israel’s great leader and the man to whom God gave His law. Jochebed’s obedience had an eternal impact on generations to come. She was faithful to what God called her to when no one was watching.  This lesson I learned at the young age of 15 is something I keep coming back to over and over again: The way we live our days is our greatest testimony. No matter what God has called us to, it starts right where we are today. At home. At work. In the grocery store. With our neighbor. It starts with who we really are our integrity and our character.  Every season is different, and every season demands a different capacity from us as humans. Sometimes we will be busy and distracted. Sometimes we will feel like we have it all together. Sometimes we will feel close to God. And sometimes we will feel far away from God. But no matter how we feel or what is going on in our lives, the call is still the same to keep being faithful to God in the seen and unseen moments of our lives.  We must become less, allowing Jesus to live His life in us and through us, trusting God will use our hidden faithfulness today for His glory tomorrow.
92
General Discussion / Running on Empty
« Last post by Forgotten Mother on August 12, 2023, 11:05:47 AM »
https://proverbs31.org/read/devotions/full-post/2022/08/09/running-on-empty?utm_campaign=Daily%20Devotions&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=221790268&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_yV3TD6PZ8Cihq2qvAc3DN02FRpzRfo5WWKwzAOc68GK4o1ZnVfgPQ-suRqc2PWY7aIkUCIT4WKsh-xCMqTrs4uvZt_A&utm_content=221790268&utm_source=hs_email#disqus_thread

Running on Empty
August 9, 2022
by Meghan Mellinger

“Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” Genesis 2:3 (NIV)

Today, I feel like a car that’s run out of gas.  I’ve been speeding through life without stopping hustling and hurrying my way through every invite on my calendar and every person in my life. Sure, I saw the “low fuel” alerts, but I ignored them and just kept going.  And going. And going.  And now I find myself running on empty, overwhelmed and anxious, wrapped up in blankets, candy wrappers everywhere, flipping through every verse my Bible's concordance has on “rest.”  And then a verse I’ve read many times before strikes me differently:  “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done” (Genesis 2:2-3, NIV).

The day God poked holes in the night sky?

Good. The day God created the narwhals?

Good. The day God created man and woman?

Very good. (Genesis 1:16-31) But the day God stopped and rested from His work?

That day was different. That day was set apart. That day was holy.  Rest is so significant that God declared one day of the week for it.  But what does true rest look like?

How do I break the daily grind of performance and productivity to honor a day of rest?

Jesus offers us examples of resting without staring at a screen or eating a whole stuffed-crust pizza in one sitting (guilty!). He shows us rest that is restoring, not mindlessly distracting.  After He served and saved the masses:  Jesus spent alone time with the Father.  Away from His work and His people, Jesus talked with His Dad. There was praying and pleading, rejoicing and praising, listening and waiting. It was quality time together with the One who loved Him the most.  Jesus spent quality time with His closest friends.  Throughout Jesus’ ministry, we see Him sharing food, emotions and time with close friends and family. While Jesus had many followers, He intentionally took time away from the masses for quality time with a few people.  To us, shifting from 100 miles per hour to a complete standstill may feel wrong. It feels counterproductive and is countercultural. It feels almost impossible to cut out 15 minutes a day, let alone a whole entire day, to rest. But it is necessary. It is life-giving, joy-filling and soul-restoring.  It is a day that has to be different from the rest.  Our rest day is our holy day.  A day of rest in the presence of a heavenly Father who loves us more than anything, and a day shared with friends who know us better than anyone. Now that will fill up our tanks.  From the beginning, we were never designed to be constantly on the go. God didn’t rest on the seventh day because He needed to He did it because He knew we would need to.
93
Articles / Daughter Detoxing
« Last post by Forgotten Mother on August 10, 2023, 03:17:48 PM »
https://medium.com/survivors-of-narcissistic-abuse/daughter-detoxing-6ff3af01c8bc

Daughter Detoxing
Gina Miller.
Survivors of Narcissistic Abuse

“Adoption is a better life.’

“But they put food in your mouth and a roof over your head.”

“Aren’t you grateful you were not aborted?”

“Be thankful your birth mother gave you life.”

And the clincher.  “Well, what are you doing on this planet, then?”

These are tropes adoptees hear all the time if we dare say anything about our adoptions that are not grateful and delightful.  However, my story is all too common. I was adopted in early 1961 when a woman was expected to reproduce, whether or not she was fit to be a parent.  The woman who adopted me was certainly not. I believe the only reason I am sane at all is because it took her nearly four years to produce a child of her own. At that time, my life became a living hell.  The above is a picture of me at age five. I see the sadness in my own eyes. That is when she turned on me and began to blame me for my own existence. She had a child of her own, a black-haired child, who resembled her, and she was stuck with me. That is when the beating began and the name-calling.  Garbage, trash, imbecile, moron. I didn’t even know what imbecile meant, but I knew it was bad while the baby was crooned to and adored.  When I was seven, she had another dark-haired baby, and that baby was definitely in, while I was even more on the outside. I always wondered why.  I was so different and outside while they were so accepted and loved.  I tried everything to win their love, but it was not good enough. I could never please them. Nothing I could do was right, and nothing their kids did was wrong. It hurt, and my first suicide attempt was at the age of eleven. I turned my hurt and anger inward and had multiple suicide attempts, which angered them further.  I was always dressed nicely, and the house was always perfect. She had no one over, so I never knew who the house was kept immaculate for, but the wrapping on the house of corruption was perfect.  Inside, it was rotting and putrid. Hatred and vileness were her fruit.  When I found the adoption community, I found it was not me. I found that my story was common. Many adoptees deal with rejection when bio kids enter the picture. We are no longer needed to complete their family, and the adopters turn on us.  I am detoxing from being a daughter. And society does not like it. Adoption is supposed to be beautiful. But I was bought and sold and discarded. I was a commodity that did not fit. And no returns were accepted.  Thank you for stopping by my little corner of the internet. Please consider buying me a “coffee”. It helps me keep my tiny furry overlord in cat food.
94
Articles / Mass grave at Tipperary Mother and Baby Home to be scanned
« Last post by Forgotten Mother on August 10, 2023, 03:07:41 PM »
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/sean-ross-abbey-baby-grave?utm_campaign=IC%20Daily%20-%209%20August%20-%202023-08-09&utm_medium=Email&_hsmi=269597861&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--z1F41LU0GDXGO2TBBuRwG4qQAgh6JGTTrONU6bPWiqnUeGqi8bicnw0JSnRLVAlDlaViX0l1Qqv0Wx-e7VIRFijxgrjkVlu9q_iRQRrn5QfrHWGo&utm_content=Story1&utm_source=HubSpot

Mass grave at Tipperary Mother and Baby Home to be scanned
Parcels of land surrounding the Angels' Plot at the former Catholic home, Sean Ross Abbey, will be searched for undetected graves.
IrishCentral Staff
@IrishCentral
Aug 09, 2023

Land adjacent to the Angels’ Plot at Sean Ross Abbey, in Roscrea, County Tipperary,  will be scanned to uncover a possible mass grave.  Plans to scan the land on the grounds of the former Mother and Baby Home at Sean Ross Abbey, in Tipperary, have made significant progress according to We Are Still Here, a survivor's group.  Ireland's governmental Department of Children recently confirmed they would fund the scans of lands located near the "Angels' Plot", a burial site where numerous children who died at the facility were laid to rest.   Between the 1930s and 1990s, Sean Ross Abbey bore witness to a tragic number of child deaths. The exact number of children who died remains uncertain, but estimates suggest that the figure could be in the hundreds.  The causes of these deaths ranged from illnesses like tuberculosis and malnutrition to neglect and subpar medical care. These vulnerable children, born to unmarried mothers, were often subjected to harsh living conditions that contributed to their frailty.  The survivors group from Sean Ross Abbey, We Are Still Here, met with representatives of Tipperary County Council and the firm who will be carrying out the scans, Precision Utility Mapping, to discuss the need for the underground scans and how they will be carried out.  Teresa Collins, who was born at Sean Ross Abbey in 1963, told the Offaly Express,  “It was hugely positive to make this move forward and to host representatives of Tipperary County Council and Precision Utility Mapping at the site where scans for any possible undetected burials will take place in the near future.  This scan will take place on a parcel of land adjacent to the Angels’ Plot where the Commission of Investigation undertook investigations a number of years ago."

The existence of the Angels' Plot came to light in the 1990s when former residents began to share their stories of the harsh treatment and neglect they suffered. Many believed that their deceased peers were buried in the Angels' Plot, prompting calls for investigations and accountability.  Collins continued “According to the Commission of Investigation, the total number of infant deaths having occurred at Sean Ross Abbey amounted to 1,078. However, it is not feasible to conclude that all burials occurred in the relatively confined space of the Angels’ Plot where the Commission of Investigation carried out some investigative works.  This necessitates the need for separate scans of a particular area of land adjacent to the Angels’ Plot."

Research indicates that there were at least 18 Mother and Baby Homes operating in Ireland between the 1920s and 1990s. The exact number might vary depending on how one categorizes certain institutions that shared similar functions. Some of the most well-known institutions include Sean Ross Abbey in County Tipperary, Bessborough in County Cork, and Tuam Mother and Baby Home in County Galway.  The child deaths at Sean Ross Abbey were intertwined with allegations of abuse. Many former residents and survivors have come forward with harrowing accounts of emotional, physical, and even sexual abuse perpetuated by nuns and staff members. The survivors recount tales of cruelty, neglect, and mistreatment, further darkening the reputation of the facility and those who were supposed to provide care.  As public awareness grew about the tragedies at Sean Ross Abbey, calls for accountability intensified. The Irish government initiated investigations into the operations of the facility and the actions of the Catholic Church. These investigations shed light on the suffering endured by unwed mothers and their children, revealing the systemic failures and abuses that were allowed to persist for decades.  In recent years, efforts have been made to honor the memory of the children who suffered and died at Sean Ross Abbey. Memorials and commemorations have been established to remember their lives and acknowledge the pain they endured. These efforts also serve as a reminder of the importance of uncovering historical injustices and seeking justice for the victims.
95
General Discussion / Know When To Hold Your Peace
« Last post by Forgotten Mother on August 08, 2023, 03:48:24 PM »
https://proverbs31.org/read/devotions/full-post/2022/08/02/know-when-to-hold-your-peace?utm_campaign=Daily%20Devotions&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=220855305&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--DxDR_ZpnG-chHzSRRwXHi5IJm_X-BYUpyFRgxg2uN6jU-bwnZtF-thAkYl9hM05q2eYyuEM2sKRlVjtvhOVmbwgIDxA&utm_content=220855305&utm_source=hs_email#disqus_thread

Know When To Hold Your Peace
August 2, 2022
by Chrystal Evans Hurst

“Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, 'So You are the King of the Jews?' And Jesus said to him, ‘It is as you say’ … And still He did not answer him in regard to even a single charge, so the governor was greatly amazed.” Matthew 27:11, 14 (NASB)

Recently, I had a conversation with a volunteer at church. This young woman had previously expressed a desire to grow as a leader and wanted to share some things she felt would help her do a better job.  I was not ready for what was to follow.  The conversation moved from this young woman talking about herself to talking about me. She pointed to quite a few things I actually thought I was doing right, and she suggested I was doing them quite wrong! Honestly, I’m still wrestling with whether or not the observations were correct. I do want to be a person of integrity. However, I hate it when it seems people don’t understand me, and in that moment, I felt anxious to respond and ready to defend. It took great strength to stay quiet.  Actually.  I didn’t totally stay quiet. After the first and second critique, I couldn’t refrain from speaking up when the third criticism rounded the corner.  “Let me tell you why I do that!”

As soon as the words rolled off of my tongue, shame washed over me. I had lost sight of myself by exchanging the priority of being seen by God for the desire to be seen in a good light by another person.  I want to be a person capable of owning the space she is in, resisting the urge to prove myself when words are spoken against me because I know who I am and where I stand. I’d like to say I’ve always been that girl — but that isn’t the case. I’ve often been tripped up by the balancing act of being secure in myself while also taking ownership of the spaces I’ve been invited to occupy. The attempt to measure my words hasn’t always been easy for me.  Discouragement comes quickly when communication is hard and someone seems bent on misunderstanding me. In these moments, I can be tempted to escape by becoming defensive or, conversely, choosing to hold back words when they actually would be useful.  Self-assurance is a whole thing.  Jesus is all too familiar with this struggle as well.  Matthew 27:11-14 tells us that even while Jesus was being accused by chief priests and elders, He did not offer any answer. Even when Pilate asked Him to speak up, He still didn’t speak up to defend Himself.  You would think that, given the circumstances, Jesus’ response would have been anything but silence. I mean, He was in a fight for His life. But instead, something rather fascinating took place.  Jesus chose to answer when it was sensible to do so, and when it wasn’t He held on to what He knew to be true about who He was and maintained His position in connection to His Father.  What would the world look like if we knew when to give an answer or when no explanation was needed?

Sometimes we get things reversed, and in some of our attempts to hold on to who we are, we actually end up losing ourselves.  We forget we are fathered by the God who spun the stars into space.  We forget He makes our steps secure.  We forget we are made powerful through our connection with Him.  I want to challenge you to become aware of how you give an answer. Are you more interested in acceptance?

Or do you first choose to lean in to what your Father thinks about you and what He requires of you as a result? What does He have to say about who you are?

Ephesians 1:3-14 says …

You are blessed.
You are chosen.
You are adopted.
You are beloved.
You are redeemed.
You are forgiven.
You are loved.
You are known.
You are God’s own possession.

When you and I operate from a place of being loved and belonging, it will change our response to others. When we stand firm in our identity in Christ, we will also know when to answer and when to hold our peace.
96
General Discussion / You Are Significant to His Kingdom
« Last post by Forgotten Mother on August 08, 2023, 03:40:46 PM »
https://proverbs31.org/read/devotions/full-post/2022/08/01/you-are-significant-to-his-kingdom?utm_campaign=Daily%20Devotions&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=220854871&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_6Wz5T83NNQRLjq5WQpFF0xqYS9vgIpDzHvyHH1EMduys1u0ZedhGtNKX6vNm6zpg_G5mrDL7V8YkAUt0nrmzOfeo7SQ&utm_content=220854871&utm_source=hs_email#disqus_thread

You Are Significant to His Kingdom
August 1, 2022
by Savannah Gwinn-Wright, COMPEL Training Member

“For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them …” Romans 12:4-6 (NKJV)

Growing up in church, my deepest desire was to be used by God. Yet through comparison culture, the enemy convinced me that because of (insert the long list of my shortcomings here), I wasn’t making a significant impact in the Kingdom.  I battled this mentality for years until one day, as I was comparing myself to a specific person, God gently reminded me, “I made you both.”

In that moment, friend, I was liberated by this truth:  There is no competition in the Kingdom of God.  God’s Word intentionally refers to His people as “the body” of Christ. In Romans 12:4-5, Paul states, “For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.”

Because of their different purposes, all parts of the body are essential for its success.  Did you know the smallest bone in the human body rests in your middle ear, measuring just 3 millimeters by 2.5 millimeters? If size indicated significance, we could quickly dismiss this tiny bone as unnecessary. Yet without it, we would experience severe hearing loss.  As Christ followers, we’re each called to minister to our circles of influence with our gifts. (1 Peter 4:10-11) I wonder how many members of the body are unable to hear what God is speaking because we allow comparison, competition and our resulting insecurities to keep us from releasing what He has placed within us?

How different history could be if the Bible’s hidden heroes hadn’t obeyed God’s call. We know the legacy of Moses but rarely hear about Shiphrah and Puah, two midwives whose faithfulness to God saved Moses in infancy. (Exodus 1:17) We speak of Elijah’s bravery but rarely discuss how it was the simple obedience of Ahab’s servant, Obadiah, that brought Elijah to Mount Carmel. (1 Kings 18) Could it be that a Kingdom moment is awaiting your willingness to say “yes” to God’s purposes for you?

Friend, don’t allow the enemy to silence you, or to suppress what you’re carrying for Christ, with feelings of insignificance. You are essential to the success of the body, and he knows that. Whatever gift you’ve been given, be willing to share it.  “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.” (Romans 12:6-8, NKJV)

It could mean preaching to thousands from a platform or sharing your testimony with a friend over lunch. It could mean writing a worship song that reaches nations or singing scriptures over your little ones as they drift off to sleep.  Kingdom success is not measured with earthly standards. If your obedience leads just one person to Jesus, all of heaven rejoices. That is significance in the Kingdom.
97
Articles / Mother-and-baby group pulls out of forum meetings
« Last post by Forgotten Mother on August 02, 2023, 11:44:03 AM »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-65526126

Mother-and-baby group pulls out of forum meetings

8 May

The largest group campaigning on behalf of NI survivors of mother-and-baby homes is pulling out of meetings with the Executive's survivors' forum.  Birth Mothers and their Children emailed the secretary of state, the head of the NI Civil Service and a number of political representatives.  It said it had become "disenfranchised" with the lack of a statutory inquiry into the institutions.  Attending forum meetings had caused further upset to its members, it added.  The group expressed frustration about the lack of a redress scheme 18 months after a truth and recovery report was published.  "We have relentlessly campaigned from the outset for a statutory inquiry with full powers to call witnesses, and to force the institutions to release documents," the group said in its email.  However, this has not yet occurred and we are still waiting for truth and justice."

At least 10,500 women passed through mother-and-baby homes and baby institutions in Northern Ireland.  That included more than 3,000 women who spent time in a Magdalene laundry.  These institutions were, in effect, workhouses and were situated in Londonderry, Belfast, and Newry.  Edel Johnston, of Birth Mothers and their Children, told Radio Ulster's Evening Extra programme: "We've become increasingly disillusioned and disenfranchised with the prevarication and the delays that have been caused.  "The report was written in October 2021; it is now May 2023 and we are no further forward.  What a cruel irony that the mechanism that was supposed to help us is causing more pain, more suffering.  For a lot of our members redress is the only form of justice that they will ever have because they will never see a public inquiry with all these delays."

The group's solicitor, Claire McKeegan, said Birth Mothers and their Children had written to a number of MPs seeking support for legislation in Westminster in the absence of a sitting Northern Ireland Assembly.  "These things can't wait any longer," she said.

"It's 10 years since Edel's group began their campaign."

She added: "We would be appealing to officials to meet with these victims and survivors as soon as possible with a view to taking a draft bill through parliament."
98
Politics / Adoption in England and Wales - the twentieth century
« Last post by RDsmum on July 30, 2023, 04:35:05 PM »
https://www.historyandpolicy.org/docs/dfe-jenny-keating.pdf

Adoption in England and Wales - the twentieth century
Dr Jenny Keating
Senior Research Fellow Institute of Historical Research

• Adoption ‘classic adoption’ the popular picture of a childless married couple adopting an unknown baby really only existed for 50 years 1920s - 1970s
• Even then it was never as simple as that. Pre 2WW a substantial minority of single people even some men adopted children.
– And in the 1950s, a third of illegitimate children being adopted were adopted by their mother or father on their own or by their birth parent with a new partner.
– And another group of adoptions during this period were of children being adopted by their divorced parent’s new partner.

Before this ‘classic era’ there was a form of adoption in the early 20C probably closer to what happens now Poor Law adoption
• Poor Law Guardians –precursors of local authority social services could take over parental rights for children who were ‘deserted’ or orphans or whose parents were disabled or judged impaired or unfit to have control of them. It could be revoked.
• There has been little research on this but it appears that ‘parental neglect’ was the reason most children were ‘adopted’ in this way
• Most of these children would be fostered out with long-term foster parents but in theory they remained under care of the Guardians who were meant to visit them at least twice a year.
• By the 1920s it appears that Poor Law adoption was in decline. As the Clerk to Southwark Guardians reported in 1920, this was because of “the difficulty of
finding really suitable foster parents” even though the Ministry of Health had relaxed the regulations.

• No adoption legislation in the UK until 1926
• Unlike most English speaking countries in the British Empire and former colonies
•First adoption legislation in the UK was the Adoption of Children Act 1926 which covered England and Wales
•It was followed by the Adoption of Children (Northern Ireland) Act 1929 and the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act 1930.

Why did the legislation happen then?
• Growth of organised adoption and adoption societies during and after the First World War
• Pressure from adoption societies, adopting parents and children’s charities and the NCUMC for the legalisation of adoption
•The 1920s were an era of domestic legislative reform divorce and guardianship reform , opening up the professions to women, more sympathetic treatment of infanticide etc  and finally giving women the vote on the same basis as men in 1928. Adoption legislation could be seen as part of this.

What did the legislation say?
• Not a great deal it was an enabling Act. For the first time it gave all adopting parents the right to go to a court to get a secure legal entitlement to keep their adopted child.
• It laid down that adopters must not be under 25 years old or less than 21 years older than the child
• Married couples could make a joint application to adopt but otherwise applications must be in one name only. Single men could not adopt female children except in ‘special circumstances’.
• If adoptive parents died intestate their adopted children would have no rights to inherit from their estate too big an encroachment on ancient property rights.
• It didn’t make adoption completely secret so that relinquishing parents and adopted children could never trace each other, as adoption societies wanted but it made it hard for them to do so.

What did the legislation not say?
A great deal
• There was no compulsion on adopters to legally adopt their child so informal adoption could continue
• Apart from a ‘guardian ad litem’ report for the court which was often scanty there was no regulation of the adoption process either before or after the legal proceedings

After the 1926 Act what happened?
• The Act proved popular by the mid 1930s over 5000 children were being legally adopted every year
• But concern grew about the way adoptions were carried out, eg:
• everything was very casual and haphazard even the most reputable adoption societies rarely interviewed prospective adoptive parents or looked at their homes, and they sometimes made only the most rudimentary checks with referees.
• notorious maternity homes passed babies on to adoptive parents taking fees from both parents and the birth mother
• children were shipped overseas, without any checks or safeguards, particularly to the Netherlands where adoption was frowned on by the authoristies

This concern, led by organisations like the NSPCC and the NCUMC  resulted in the setting up of a Departmental Committee to look at the whole issue of how adoption was being carried out in England and Wales.  It was chaired by Miss Florence Horsbrugh MP who was later the first Conservative woman to be a member of the Cabinet. It presented its report in 1937, citing numerous examples of poor practice and making a number of recommendations which eventually resulted in the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act 1939. The implementation of this was delayed by the onset of war.  But by 1942 there were so many stories of malpractice of babies being swapped around on railway stations and given away through newspaper adverts that an exception was made and the law was brought in, in June 1943.

The Sunday Dispatch’s correspondent, ‘Elizabeth Ann’ claimed to organise at least two adoptions a week through the ‘Sunday Dispatch Wartime Aunts Scheme’.
She wanted to free up adoption still further. One of her articles in August 1942 was headlined:  “If You Want to Adopt a Baby—You Will Find a Lot of Red Tape in the Way”.
It continued:  “I am looking for someone with a pair of shears sharp enough to cut through a tangle of red tape that is threatening the lives of hundreds, probably thousands of future citizens of Britain the red tape is that concerned with the business of adoption.” (Sunday Dispatch, 23 August 1942)

The Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act 1939 began the process of regulating adoption and giving local authorities much of the responsibility for this although very few were directly involved with organising adoptions.

Measures included:
• adoption societies would have to register with local authorities. The societies would now have to have proper procedures for approving adopters and organising probationary periods and other safeguards.
• financial inducements around adoptions were banned, as were personal adoption adverts
•Informal (ie unlegalised) adoptions were to be regulated by local authorities

Post 2WW
• Immediately post-war, the Curtis Committee findings led to the Children Act 1948 which reorganised children’s services into the care of local authorities. It praised adoption as a possible method of dealing with children in care but considered ‘boarding out’ (fostering) as a more realistic option for children who still had parents living.
•Interviewing the Home Office representative in August 1945 they asked why there were more parents wishing to adopt than children available “considering how many destitute children there are..?”
• The gist of his reply is not utterly dissimilar from what might be said now: “There are a large number of factors that contribute to that. One of them is that there are a large number of quite unsuitable people always wanting to adopt children.  Then of course there are a great many destitute children who are not available for adoption [because] either their parents are not willing to agree, or their state of health is not suitable. I think mostly the people who want to adopt children want them under the age of two, and I understand from the Societies that the very great majority want girls”.

The 1950s
•More legislation at the end of the 1940s meant that the adoption process was a more streamlined process; the relinquishing parent now had no way of finding out who was adopting her child.
•However it did not alter the rather chaotic way adoptions were arranged only an estimated quarter of adoptions were carried out by registered adoption societies. Apart from the London County Council very few local authorities were involved with arranging adoptions on any significant scale so all the rest were mainly informal arrangements by friends and acquaintances, or individual professionals like doctors and matrons.
• The Hurst Committee, another Departmental Committee on adoption in 1954, recommended greater involvement of local authorities in adoption and also suggested that almost any child was adoptable, even if disabled up to now only healthy white children had been seen as possible adoption material.
• The number of legal adoptions had risen in 1946 to over 21,000 but during the 1950s there were around 13,000 a year.
• Adoption ‘classic adoption’ the popular picture of a childless married couple adopting an unknown baby really only existed for 50 years 1920s - 1970s
• Even then it was never as simple as that. Pre 2WW a substantial minority of single people even some men adopted children.
– And in the 1950s, a third of illegitimate children being adopted were adopted by their mother or father on their own or by their birth parent with a new partner.
– And another group of adoptions during this period were of children being adopted by their divorced parent’s new partner.

Before this ‘classic era’ there was a form of adoption in the early 20C probably closer to what happens now Poor Law adoption
• Poor Law Guardians precursors of local authority social services could take over parental rights for children who were ‘deserted’ or orphans or whose parents were disabled or judged impaired or unfit to have control of them. It could be revoked.
• There has been little research on this but it appears that ‘parental neglect’ was the reason most children were ‘adopted’ in this way
• Most of these children would be fostered out with long-term foster parents but in theory they remained under care of the Guardians who were meant to visit them at least twice a year.
• By the 1920s it appears that Poor Law adoption was in decline. As the Clerk to Southwark Guardians reported in 1920, this was because of “the difficulty of finding really suitable foster parents” even though the Ministry of Health had relaxed the regulations.
• No adoption legislation in the UK until 1926
• Unlike most English speaking countries in the British Empire and former colonies
•First adoption legislation in the UK was the Adoption of Children Act 1926 which covered England and Wales
•It was followed by the Adoption of Children (Northern Ireland) Act 1929 and the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act 1930

Why did the legislation happen then?
• Growth of organised adoption and adoption societies during and after the First World War
• Pressure from adoption societies, adopting parents and children’s charities and the NCUMC for the legalisation of adoption
•The 1920s were an era of domestic legislative reform divorce and guardianship reform , opening up the professions to women, more sympathetic treatment of infanticide etc and finally giving women the vote on the same basis as men in 1928. Adoption legislation could be seen as part of this.

What did the legislation say?
• Not a great deal it was an enabling Act. For the first time it gave all adopting parents the right to go to a court to get a secure legal entitlement to keep their adopted child.
• It laid down that adopters must not be under 25 years old or less than 21 years older than the child
• Married couples could make a joint application to adopt but otherwise applications must be in one name only. Single men could not adopt female children except in ‘special circumstances’.
• If adoptive parents died intestate their adopted children would have no rights to inherit from their estate too big an encroachment on ancient property rights.
• It didn’t make adoption completely secret so that relinquishing parents and adopted children could never trace each other, as adoption societies wanted but it made it hard for them to do so.

What did the legislation not say?
A great deal
• There was no compulsion on adopters to legally adopt their child so informal adoption could continue
• Apart from a ‘guardian ad litem’ report for the court which was often scanty there was no regulation of the adoption process either before or after the legal proceedings

After the 1926 Act what happened?
• The Act proved popular by the mid 1930s over 5000 children were being legally adopted every year
• But concern grew about the way adoptions were carried out, eg:
• everything was very casual and haphazard even the most reputable adoption societies rarely interviewed prospective adoptive parents or looked at their homes, and they sometimes made only the most rudimentary checks with referees.
• notorious maternity homes passed babies on to adoptive parents taking fees from both parents and the birth mother
• children were shipped overseas, without any checks or safeguards, particularly to the Netherlands where adoption was frowned on by the authorities

From John Bull,, 4 June 1932.
This concern, led by organisations like the NSPCC and the NCUMC , resulted in the setting up of a Departmental Committee to look at the whole issue of how adoption was being carried out in England and Wales. It was chaired by Miss Florence Horsbrugh MP who was later the first Conservative woman to be a member of the Cabinet. It presented its report in 1937, citing numerous examples of poor practice and making a number of recommendations which eventually resulted in the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act 1939. The implementation of this was delayed by the onset of war. But by 1942 there were so many stories of malpractice of babies being swapped around on railway stations and given away through newspaper adverts that an exception was made and the law was brought in, in June 1943.  The Sunday Dispatch’s correspondent, ‘Elizabeth Ann’ claimed to organise at least two adoptions a week through the ‘Sunday Dispatch Wartime Aunts Scheme’. She wanted to free up adoption still further. One of her articles in August 1942 was headlined:  “If You Want to Adopt a Baby You Will Find a Lot of Red Tape in the Way”.

It continued:  “I am looking for someone with a pair of shears sharp enough to cut through a tangle of red tape that is threatening the lives of hundreds, probably thousands of future citizens of Britain the red tape is that concerned with the business of adoption.” (Sunday Dispatch, 23 August 1942)

Egs of classified ads in local papers:
“Wanted—some baby-lover to adopt baby girl; love only—Alderson, Flat 3, 182
Lavender Hill, Enfield, Middx”. (Kentish Independent, 22 August 1941)
“Offered for Adoption, 4 months old baby girl, all rights forfeited—Write P7428,
‘Guardian’ Office, Warrington”. (Warrington Guardian, 16 August 1941)
The Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act 1939 began the process of regulating adoption and giving local authorities much of the responsibility for this although very few were directly involved with organising adoptions.

Measures included:
• adoption societies would have to register with local authorities. The societies would now have to have proper procedures for approving adopters and organising probationary periods and other safeguards.
• financial inducements around adoptions were banned, as were personal adoption adverts
•Informal (ie unlegalised) adoptions were to be regulated by local authorities

Post 2WW
• Immediately post-war, the Curtis Committee findings led to the Children Act 1948 which reorganised children’s services into the care of local authorities. It praised adoption as a possible method of dealing with children in care but considered ‘boarding out’ (fostering) as a more realistic option for children who still had parents living.
•Interviewing the Home Office representative in August 1945 they asked why there were more parents wishing to adopt than children available “considering how many destitute children there are..?”
• The gist of his reply is not utterly dissimilar from what might be said now:  “There are a large number of factors that contribute to that. One of them is that there are a large number of quite unsuitable people always wanting to adopt children.  Then of course there are a great many destitute children who are not available for adoption [because] either their parents are not willing to agree, or their state of health is not suitable. I think mostly the people who want to adopt children want them under the age of two, and I understand from the Societies that the very great majority want girls”.

The 1950s
•More legislation at the end of the 1940s meant that the adoption process was a more streamlined process; the relinquishing parent now had no way of finding out who was adopting her child.
•However it did not alter the rather chaotic way adoptions were arranged only an estimated quarter of adoptions were carried out by registered adoption societies.  Apart from the London County Council very few local authorities were involved with arranging adoptions on any significant scale so all the rest were mainly informal arrangements by friends and acquaintances, or individual professionals like doctors and matrons.
• The Hurst Committee, another Departmental Committee on adoption in 1954, recommended greater involvement of local authorities in adoption and also suggested that almost any child was adoptable, even if disabled up to now only healthy white children had been seen as possible adoption material.
• The number of legal adoptions had risen in 1946 to over 21,000 but during the 1950s there were around 13,000 a year.

Child migrants
•The emigration of UK children to British colonies goes back several hundred years but in this context it is most relevant that in the 1950s and 1960s between 3,000-7,000 children were hipped to Australia and a combined total of over 1000 were sent to New Zealand, Rhodesia and Canada statistics are incredibly vague and for a long time the British Government denied the post-war programme had happened. The final party arrived in Australia in 1970.
• The reasoning behind this was that countries like Australia needed “good, white British stock” as opposed to the Italians and Greeks who were beginning to migrate there in large numbers in the 1950s. And for the children it was meant to be the chance for a better life.
• In Australia their treatment in large remote institutions in the 1950s is now particularly notorious and the Australian PM Kevin Rudd made a much-publicised apology for it in November 2009. Gordon Brown made a similar but much less publicised apology in February 2010.
• Most of the children involved were in children’s homes or foster care in the UK but in many instances their parents were still alive, if unable to care for them. Many parents were not told their children were being sent overseas; some were told their children had died or been adopted in the UK. Similarly many of the children were told their parents were dead only to find, 40 or 50 years later that they had not been.

The 1960s
• 1968 saw the peak number of adoptions in England and Wales over 24,800.
• Official statistics were never very detailed (minimal before the 2WW) but it appears that during the 1960s efforts were made to facilitate Black, mixed race and disabled children being adopted. Some of the adoption societies were completely unprepared to do this but others did so.
•Throughout this immediate post-war period almost 40% of children were adopted by one of their own natural parents. Just over 60% were adopted by other relatives and non-related people and over 90% of these non-parental adoptions involved illegitimate children.
• After 1968 a decline began in the number of illegitimate children offered for adoption as abortion and contraception became more available and as society’s attitudes to unmarried mothers changed. The stigma continued but limited levels of social security, childcare and housing were increasingly available so that more and more unmarried mothers could keep their children.

The 1970s
1972 the Houghton Committee reported on adoption. Its recommendations were incorporated in the Children Act 1975 and Adoption Act 1976.
•Aimed to ‘professionalise’ and regulate adoption work.
•This would be part of a “well-integrated and integrated childcare service” in which local authorities would be central.
•Adoption societies (still carrying out majority of stranger adoptions although already declining in influence as fewer babies available for adoption) would have to work closely with local authorities and would be subject to much more stringent approval criteria but those that were approved would have greater autonomy.  Indeed many small ones subsequently closed down but the survivors became large and professional.
• Other recommendations which were implemented included the introduction of “freeing a child for adoption”, if necessary by court order against parental wishes.
• And most famous and most controversial giving adopted adults in England and Wales the right to obtain a copy of their original birth certificate.

1980s onwards
• Rapid decline in adoption from the 1960s. By 1980 registered adoptions had more than halved (10,600) then halved again to 1998 (4,300). In the years since then it has gone up and down but the total is always between just over 4000 to just under 6000.
•In the 1950s over a third of adoptions involved babies by 1980 it was 24%, by 1998 4%. In 2011 it was 2%, but more children aged 1-4 years were being adopted (62% cf 34% in 1998).
• Decrease in available babies has changed the nature of adoption. Most adoptions are now about children being adopted out of local authority care.
•In 1952 these were only 3.2% of all adoptions;
•In 1968 they were 8.7%.
• In the 1990s they were a third or more of all adoptions.
• In 2011-12, 3,695 (3,450 in England and 245 in Wales) children were adopted from care out of the total 4,777 adoptions in England and Wales, (77.3% of the total).

The 1960s
• 1968 saw the peak number of adoptions in England and Wales over 24,800.
• Official statistics were never very detailed (minimal before the 2WW) but it appears that during the 1960s efforts were made to facilitate Black, mixed race and disabled children being adopted. Some of the adoption societies were completely unprepared to do this but others did so.
•Throughout this immediate post-war period almost 40% of children were adopted by one of their own natural parents. Just over 60% were adopted by other relatives and non-related people and over 90% of these non-parental adoptions involved illegitimate children.
• After 1968 a decline began in the number of illegitimate children offered for adoption as abortion and contraception became more available and as society’s attitudes to unmarried mothers changed. The stigma continued but limited levels of social security, childcare and housing were increasingly available so that more and more unmarried mothers could keep their children.

The 1970s
1972 the Houghton Committee reported on adoption. Its recommendations were incorporated in the Children Act 1975 and Adoption Act 1976.
•Aimed to ‘professionalise’ and regulate adoption work.
•This would be part of a “well-integrated and integrated childcare service” in which local authorities would be central.
•Adoption societies (still carrying out majority of stranger adoptions although already declining in influence as fewer babies available for adoption) would have to work closely with local authorities and would be subject to much more stringent approval criteria but those that were approved would have greater autonomy. Indeed many small ones subsequently closed down but the survivors became large and professional.
• Other recommendations which were implemented included the introduction of “freeing a child for adoption”, if necessary by court order against parental wishes.
• And most famous and most controversial giving adopted adults in England and Wales the right to obtain a copy of their original birth certificate.

1980s onwards
• Rapid decline in adoption from the 1960s. By 1980 registered adoptions had more than halved (10,600) – then halved again to 1998 (4,300). In the years since then it has gone up and down but the total is always between just over 4000 to just under 6000.
•In the 1950s over a third of adoptions involved babies by 1980 it was 24%, by 1998  4%. In 2011 it was 2%, but more children aged 1-4 years were being adopted (62% cf 34% in 1998).
• Decrease in available babies has changed the nature of adoption. Most adoptions are now about children being adopted out of local authority care.
•In 1952 these were only 3.2% of all adoptions;
•In 1968 they were 8.7%.
• In the 1990s they were a third or more of all adoptions.
• In 2011-12, 3,695 (3,450 in England and 245 in Wales) children were adopted from care out of the total 4,777 adoptions in England and Wales, (77.3% of the total).
99
https://howtobeadopted.com/blog/2021/the-history-of-adoption-in-england-and-wales-by-pam-hodgkins-mbe

The history of adoption in England and Wales by Pam Hodgkins MBE

A guide to adoption in England and Wales by adoptee and adoptee rights advocate Pam Hodgkins MBE

Pam kindly agreed for us to publish the following after a conversation about the government inquiry: The right to family life: adoption of children of unmarried women 1949-1976 Read on for a bio of Pam, who founded NORCAP.

The 1926 Adoption Act

There was no legal adoption as we know it now before the 1926 Adoption Act was implemented.  When this Bill was going through Parliament many suggested it was unwise and would lead to ‘fecklessness’ as unmarried mothers would be able to pass over all liability for their “bastard infants”.  Others claimed that severing the legal link between birth parents and their children would ‘protect the investment of the adopting parents and prevent the birth parents reclaiming the child once s/he was of ‘an age to earn a wage’. Before legal adoption some charities, concerned that people raising a child may indeed lose their investment, had earlier introduced an ‘indenture of adoption’.  This was a legally binding contract, very similar to an apprenticeship indenture.  It cost one guinea (£1.05) and each party had to pay half the cost this resulted in one elderly woman sending me a copy of her adoption indenture with a covering letter which said “You will see from the enclosed my parents bought me for 10/6 from the Waifs and Strays.”  10/6 (ten and six) is 52.5p and the Waifs and Strays was a national charity later known as the Church of England Children’s Society, and now simply The Children’s Society.

Secrecy around adoption and birth parents’ names

There was no secrecy around adoption for the first 20 years of legal adoption in England and Wales.  The court papers, signed by each, gave the full name and address of both the adopters and the birth parent(s) named on the birth certificate.  Until the war years, courts were unwilling to make an adoption order unless the birth mother, at least, appeared at the adoption hearing, and many hearings were postponed in Birmingham to get the mother to attend.  Both the birth parents and would-be adopters and the baby would be in the courtroom together for the hearing.  When adoption law was reviewed post-war some of the adoption agencies suggested it would protect the adopters if they could make their application using a serial number to ensure the birth mother did not learn their names and address.  I have not found any evidence being presented as to why this was thought necessary.

Although introduced as a clause that could be used ‘when necessary’, within a very short time all agency adoption applications were being made under a serial number and the illusion of secrecy being important became firmly entrenched.  It is hard to say if the use of serial numbers became commonplace in non-agency ‘third party placements’  but I have been told by birth mothers that the person who arranged their baby’s adoption would place a piece of paper or a book over most of the document obscuring the adopters’ details, and simply instruct them to ‘sign there’.

Informally arranged adoptions

Many people do not realise that it was perfectly lawful for anyone to arrange an adoption right up until the adoption agency regulations 1983 were implemented in May 1984.  Many of those individuals making such arrangements were professionals such as doctors, clergy and lawyers but in reality anyone could do it, and there have been accounts of door-to-door tradespeople such as bakers or milk roundsmen learning of a baby whose parent or more likely grandparent wanted it to be adopted and also a couple on the round who wanted to adopt and therefore introduced the two parties.  The local council had to be notified by the prospective adopters and to conduct a welfare assessment, but this was only after the placement had been made.

Why the father’s name is not listed in many cases

When they first see their original birth certificate many adopted people assume that the dash across the space where the father’s details could be entered means their mother did not know who their father was.  This is untrue.  When a couple are married either of them can register the birth and give details of their spouse to the Registrar.  This is called presumed paternity.  However an unmarried woman could not name a man as the father of her child unless she had gained an affiliation order against him i.e. a court decided that he is the father of her child. The alternative was that the father accompanied the mother to register the birth and they each gave their individual details to the Registrar and signed as informants.  This was not practicable in the 50s, 60s and into the 70s when women generally remained in hospital for 10 days after the birth and the Registrar attended the maternity unit to enable babies to be registered.  At that time visiting on maternity wards was limited to just the husband of the mother; boyfriends or fathers of babies not married to the mother were not admitted.  This made it very challenging for an unmarried father to be named on the birth certificate even if both he and the mother would have wished it.  It was not in the interests of the adoption agency to actively assist the father to be included, as if he was named on the birth certificate they would later need to gain his consent to the adoption. If he was not named only the mother had to be persuaded to consent.

Adoptive parents not sharing details of their child’s original name

It is also accepted as fact that adopted people could not have details of their original name until 1976.  This is false.  As clear from the details above all adoptive parents knew the details of the birth of the child they wished to adopt.  They had to submit a copy of the child’s birth certificate to the court as one of the documents needed when applying for an adoption order.  Some adopters thought to actually keep a copy or to copy out the details and probably few ever forgot the details on that certificate.  The key issue was would the adopters later share that information with their son or daughter? 

Some may actually have believed they were not allowed to, perhaps the agency suggested that to them, but it was never true.  For adopted people whose adopters did not share their birth details with them there was no right of access to that information, but they could apply to the court for an order to be made to instruct the Registrar General to disclose their birth information to them.  It does not appear to be recorded how many made such applications and how many were successful.

Parliament debate in 1975

The debate in Parliament on 26 November 1975 was to determine if every adopted person who wished to know his/her birth details should be able to access this information without recourse to the court.  Observers recount that it was a close run thing, with passionate personal contributions from a number of Members of the House.  The provision passed once a ‘safeguard’ had been agreed that anyone adopted before the clause was passed would need to meet with a ‘counsellor’ prior to receiving the information.  There were many different interpretations of the purpose and powers linked to this requirement.  Many adopted people believed the information could be withheld if the applicant did not appear reasonable and responsible (it could not).  On just one occasion the Registrar General was concerned about an application received that he applied to the court for an order empowering him to refuse to provide the information.  The information the adopted person became entitled to receive one year after the clause passed was ‘information which would enable him/her to apply for a copy of his/her birth entry’. There was no right given to adopted people to read or receive information from the adoption file.  Luckily when Birth Records Counselling was introduced in November 1976 most social workers and agencies undertaking the statutory counselling recognised the benefit of placing information in context and did provide file information too.  The importance of this has since been emphasised by Practice Guidance issued by the government 30 years later.

Current government debate

The current debate around ‘Forced Adoptions’ is interesting and clearly Parliament has been convinced that many women who are recorded as having ‘relinquished’ their child for adoption only did so because they had been manipulated  and pressurised to do so with other options being excluded without examination.  It is likely that adoption workers, clergy and maternity service professionals will all be found to have acted in a manner in which many women now feel they were ‘forced’ to give up their babies.

Accounts by many women of their treatment in the maternity unit and/or in Mother and Baby Homes run by religious orders and as a feeder arm to adoption agencies is horrendous, especially when judged by standards applying now, but other factors do need to be considered.  The one factor that appears to have been frequently overlooked is the support or lack of support offered to the mother by her own family.  If the extended family was supportive, some young couples could and did marry and bring up their own child.  Without the support of the father of her child many women were able to take their baby home as their own family were willing for that to happen.  In some cases, grandparents provided childcare to enable the mother to work to support herself and her child; other families simply placed the new baby in their family as the youngest child of the mother’s parents, so a Mother became de facto an older sibling and the grandparents assumed the role, responsibilities and rights of parents, just like Kat and Zoe in the Eastenders storyline.

Governments formally apologising to birth mothers

The first country to apologise to birth mothers was Australia, this gave impetus to the campaign here in England and Wales.  However there are significant differences in part practice.  In Australia it was common for unmarried mothers to be chloroformed at the moment of deliver and their baby removed before they saw it or knew its gender.  They were also required to give binding consent to adoption within five days of the birth, some say they were not allowed to be discharged from the hospital without doing so.

In England and Wales, although a few women do give similar reports, the law was clear a mother could not give consent to adoption until at least 42 days after delivery and in most cases up to the 1970s would have her baby in a Mother and Baby Home or return to a Home shortly after birth.  Expectant mothers were generally admitted to the Mother and Baby Home when between 24 and 28 weeks pregnant – many say before their pregnancy became obvious.  Mothers were expected to care for their babies, albeit in a regulated structure, including being encouraged to breast feed as this was recognised as best for baby. 

If a mother requested that her baby went to live with prospective adopters or foster carers before being six weeks old, the mother could change her mind and require the baby was immediately returned to her at any point until the baby was six weeks at which point prospective adopters could make their application to adopt.  To avoid adopters being upset by mothers changing their minds, many agencies chose not to place a baby until it was six weeks old when the application to adopt could be made immediately.  Once their application was submitted the child became ‘protected’ and could not be moved without the direction of the court. During the 13 week ‘welfare supervision period’, which could not be completed until the baby was 19 weeks old (6 weeks + 13 weeks) the parent(s) had to give informed consent before a JP and, if they chose not to do so and requested the return of their baby, it seems the court would look favourably on their request.  The problem seems to have been that no one actually spent time explaining this to most unmarried mothers, or explored with them how they might find a place to live with their child and what financial support could be available to them.  No wonder so many felt forced to agree to adoption.

This article was meticulously compiled and recounted by Pam Hodgkins MBE

Pam was born to an unmarried mother whose own mother managed the situation by arranging for her daughter to live 100 miles away from home and her baby to be adopted as soon after birth as possible. The birth and pregnancy were hidden from Pam’s birth mother's own father and brother.

Pam was placed with prospective adopters, who turned out to be wonderful despite having been turned down for adoption by CECS and NCH as did not have indoor loo or bathroom. It was a private arrangement made between the attending GP and a clergyman Pam’s birth mother was sent to stay with. When told the proposed adopters were 'only working class', Pam’s maternal grandmother is reported to have said "So, the father was working class, that is why we are in this mess!"

Pam grew up surrounded by love and truth. “I cannot recall ever being told I was adopted I just grew up always knowing, so I presume the word was first used when I was still pre-verbal. Love was extended to my birth mother, who my adoptive mother always held in high regard and to whom she always felt indebted - nightly prayers were 'God Bless Mummy and Daddy and Mary wherever she is'.“

Pam made one attempt to trace her birth mother when she was aged 13/14 after a row with her Mum about the time she had to come home from a party. It was the usual, ‘My real mother would let me stay until 11pm!’ She says, “Luckily I failed at that time, but later found I was very, very close.”

Pam married and had two sons. She became unwell with a rare condition aged 30 and got worn out saying ‘I don’t know, I was adopted’ to her GP and hospital doctors asking about family history. “If it was not important why did they ask? And if it was important why did I not know?”

Pam actually traced her birth mother sic months later and had a clipboard list of questions for her. She met her, loved her, forgot her list of questions! She worried about her birth mother and feared her marriage might today be classed as coercive control. 30 years on she was still grateful to her husband for marrying her despite [her having had a baby out of wedlock] …

Pam remained in contact with her birth mother, and they remained important to each other for 13 years until she died aged 67 of secondary breast cancer. Pam is resented by her birth mother’s  husband and youngest daughter and has a limited relationship with other daughter although their lifestyles and interests are too different for them to be close.

Pam has built a relationship with her birth mother's brother and his wonderful family. He and his wife are parents to five born-to children plus three adopted. As a specialist in crippling diseases of childhood, he worked on secondment to Canadian relief organisations in the most challenging places and times. Also he had a TB hip as a small child and spent five years in sanatorium where he was not expected to live to adulthood. She also has very close relationships with her cousins and actually lived close to them in Canada for 10 years.

Pam’s birth mother told her who her birth father was when they first met. She also said he subsequently married an Oscar winning actress! Pam built a relationship that has endured with her birth father and his son of that marriage. She realised he would have been an awful father when he was 23 and her adoptive dad was much better suited to that role. She says, “Roy was an amazing man to know as an adult - once met, never forgotten. I sat with him on the day he died 14 June 2017 the day of the Grenfell fire and also the day on which my adoptive father would have been 100.”

The idea for NORCAP came in the early 1980s. I read in the newspaper of an adopted woman who longed to trace her birth mother and I sent a reply via the editor, offering practical assistance as I had recently searched successfully. I also offer to discuss implications which turned out to be more powerful than I had anticipated. I heard back almost immediately from the woman and one other adopted person who I assumed had handled the letter. The next day, the postman delivered a sack of letters wanting help, and one contained the clipping from the newspaper intended just for the original correspondent.

I contacted social services to ask for details of organisation that would help these people and was told there was none. However the director of SSD in Warwickshire, where I lived, met with me. She agreed an organisation was needed offered to help if I started one. She did not mention she was retiring in six weeks and moving to Cornwall! And so NORCAP began by accident, one might say like the majority of its subsequent members.

I was working as a teacher in further education but spent next three years being told, “Yes, but as a SOCIAL WORKER…” Anyone feeling patronised by social workers today should have felt what it was like 40 years ago! In 1986, I gave up and trained as a social worker. I always 'worked' for NORCAP from the day it was set up until I retired in 2011. I was only employed by the organisation part time for four years and full time for six. Once a qualified social worker, I worked for the British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) as a regional consultant in the Midlands and as a project of BAAF set up the West Midlands Post Adoption Service. I was also independent Chair of various adoption and fostering panels and an initial chair of an Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) panel. I worked with others, particularly Julia Feast, to persuade the government to include access to intermediary services for birth relatives of adopted adults in the 2002 Adoption Act.

I retired to Canada in 2011 with the intention of doing post-grad research into the high incidence of premature death amongst adopted people, particularly adopted young men under 30. This hypothesis grew out of practice experience when providing intermediary services and the not infrequent number of times we found the adopted man we were seeking had died as a teenager or young adult. Although backed by a university the intention was thwarted as the data I needed from three national cohort studies - could not be exported outside the EU. I returned to the UK the pull of grandchildren too strong to resist and was shocked to find the progress we had made towards universal intermediary services in 2002 and implemented in 2006 was so eroded by the complexity of regulation and the decade of austerity to the extent few people had any access to a service that was affordable. I have been working with former NORCAP friends over the past two years to try to establish an entirely volunteer staffed intermediary service and this had actually been assisted by the learning and experience gained during the pandemic that has shown us the many options for using new technology and working and training remotely without diminishing the quality of service. I should be 100% retired but there is still clearly work to be done.
100
https://www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/news/2023/1/24/serial-sex-offender-who-pursued-a-campaign-of-rape-while-operating-a-fake-escort-agency-is-sentenced-to-31-years-in-prison

Serial sex offender who pursued a ‘campaign of rape’ while operating a ‘fake’ escort agency is sentenced to 31 years in prison
January 24, 2023

Nurazzaman Shahin, who was sentenced yesterday at Snaresbrook Crown Court, was found guilty of 22 offences after two women supported by Centre for Women’s Justice played a crucial role in bringing him to justice.  As young women, both ‘Sam’ and ‘Audrey’ were targeted by Shahin via legitimate job platforms and applied for agency work at his advertised escorting business, Soulmate Escorts. When they arrived at Shahin’s offices for their interview, they were ushered into a private room, and coerced into having sex with him against their will. Shahin then prostituted and financially exploited ‘Sam’ and ‘Audrey’ over a period of several days, forcing them into dangerous situations with ‘punters’, and coercing them into sexual acts against their will, for which he received payment.  ‘Sam’ and ‘Audrey’ first came forward, together, to report Shahin to the Metropolitan Police in 2018. They were left in disbelief when, the following year, the Metropolitan Police revealed that they had not referred their cases to the Crown Prosecution Service and would not be taking any further action.   With support from Centre for Women’s Justice, ‘Sam’ and ‘Audrey’ refused to accept this outcome, and continued to question what steps the police were taking to put a stop to Shahin’s crimes. It was not until 2021 that Shahin was finally prosecuted in connection with his repeat offending, by which time the Metropolitan Police had identified a number of his other victims. Since then, ‘Sam’ and ‘Audrey’ have had to wait a further two years for the outcome of the trial.  It is now clear to ‘Sam’ and ‘Audrey’ that Shahin continued to harm other women long after they came forward. At his Sentencing, the court heard how Shahin pursued a ‘campaign of rape’ over several years, having established a ‘system’ by which he would lure women with the offer of legitimate, non-sexual work, so that he could have a constant supply of women to sexually abuse and exploit.   On behalf of the Crown, Prosecution Counsel Paul Douglass told the court that Shahin had evidently assumed his victims would feel inhibited from reporting what he had done or that if they did report him to the police, they would not be believed. ‘It is a matter of enormous regret’, said Mr Douglass, ‘that to an extent he was right’ as evidenced by the numerous police decisions to take no further action against Mr Shahin after his victims initially came forward.
 
In total Shahin was convicted of 8 offences of rape against 4 different women, as well as several offences involving sexual assault and assault by penetration. He has also been convicted of controlling prostitution for his personal gain.  In a Victim Impact Statement read, in person’, by ‘Audrey’, she told the Defendant: ‘Shahin, you cannot undo the trauma you caused me. This is my life sentence. I will carry it to my grave.’
 
In a Victim Impact Statement read, in person, by ‘Sam’, she said: ‘I hope Shahin will grow old, bitter and alone in his cell with the voices of all those women (Sisters, Daughters) he saw as collateral ringing in his ears, taking back their power and their truth’.
 
Responding to the sentence imposed, ‘Audrey’ said: ‘I’m very happy with the result after such a long a battle. I believe that justice has finally been served. It feels like it’s taken such a long time to be understood.’
 
‘Sam’ said: ‘I’m really pleased, but it feels surreal too. I appreciated hearing the judge apologise to us and her recognition of the victims’ commitment and strength. It was emotional for me. It was good to hear someone acknowledge the failings that happened here, and to reassure the victims in the room that there was nothing to be ashamed of. For any other women who come forward, you are most certainly not alone.’
 
Her Honour Justice Alison Levitt concluded that a custodial sentence of 31 years was necessary to reflect the very significant harm that Shahin had caused and the ‘contempt’ that he had shown for his victims. She described Shahin as a ‘parasite’ who preyed on vulnerable women and systematically manipulated everyone around him.   In her Sentencing Remarks, the Judge thanked all of the women who had testified against Shahin for their ‘enormous courage, dignity and determination’. She added that she wanted to ‘apologise’ to all of them ‘on behalf of the criminal justice system’ for the length of time that it had taken to bring Shahin to justice, noting that this had not only contributed to the suffering of the victims who came forward, but also enabled Shahin to rape more women. Later, she said to ‘Sam’ that she was ‘truly sorry’ for ‘the police’s initial refusal to take this investigation forward’.
 
Although this trial focused exclusively on offences reported to the police within the past 5 years, a public decision made by the Upper Immigration Tribunal reveals that as of 2015 Shahin had already been reported to the Metropolitan Police for a total of 11 offences including alleged offences of rape, sexual assault and controlling prostitution. As the Upper Immigration Tribunal noted, none of these allegations recorded by the Metropolitan Police resulted in a prosecution. Nonetheless, the Home Office is said to have refused Shahin leave to remain in the UK based on the allegations made about his conduct, noting that he was ‘well-known’ for running an escort agency called Soulmate Escorts that also offered sexual services. 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]