Education and employment
43. For some still at school, the pregnancy marked the end of formal education. One witness described how she was: “expelled from school and not allowed to return” and that the headteacher went so far as to tell the school assembly that no-one was to contact her.71 Others returned to education having had the baby: “I carried on at school and then to university.”72 We heard from women who were working when they became pregnant, including “a dark room technician at the hospital X-ray Department”73 and a “nurse and midwife”.74 Most feared dismissal, and would have had no legal redress had they lost
their jobs.75 Indeed, from the evidence that we heard, the reaction of the workplaces was generally negative, even for those who retained their role. “I was told by the Superintendent to think of the baby as being dead so I could return to work 4 weeks after the birth”, recalled one witness.76
Early medical appointments
44. We heard how mothers felt excluded from discussions about the future of their child from the earliest stages of their pregnancy. One witness wrote: “I recall them discussing the options as if I was not in the room.”77
45. This included early doctor appointments, when those took place, where women were excluded from the discussion or felt unable to ask questions because of the presence of their own mother. We heard examples of the dismissive and cruel way in which the
65 Anonymous (ACU0021)
66 Mary Husted (ACU0092)
67 Anonymous (ACU0094)
68 Judy Baker, (ACU0018)
69 Anonymous (ACU0021)
70 Mrs Veronica Smith (ACU0031)
71 Anonymous (ACU0022)
72 Anonymous (ACU0108)
73 Anonymous (ACU0001)
74 Mrs Bernadette Wallman (ACU0026)
75 The legal framework for a claim for unfair dismissal did not exist then; nor did the discriminatory rights for pregnant women now protected by the Equality Act 2010; nor the protections in the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which didn’t enter into force until 1981.
76 Anonymous (ACU0001)
77 Diana Defries (ACU0008)
15The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976 mothers were treated by those medical professionals. One woman remembered how: “[M]y (male) GP told me that I was a social menace.”78 Another GP told the witness: “I hear you’ve been a naughty girl.”79 After that, she recalled that: “he spoke only to my mother.”
46. From the earliest stages of the pregnancy, the women were offered little or no medical or ante-natal care, a pattern that continued in many instances until the very final stages of the pregnancy.80
Early contact with adoption agencies
47. We heard how mothers were directed to adoption agencies through different routes. One described how her “parish priest linked me up with the adoption agency social worker”;81 another how she was advised by “a local vicar’s wife”.82 Once again, the mothers often felt hampered by not being alone and unable to: “talk in front of my mother... I probably would have said I wanted the baby if I had been interviewed alone.”83 Another described how she had “attended but was not allowed to have any say”.84
48. Some hoped for advice on how to keep their baby, but were told that it was “wrong to even think that getting such help would be possible”.85 One mother recalled how the adoption agency social worker “never entertained the idea that I would keep my baby.”86 Another mother wrote: “I just asked for some help and everything spiralled out of my control after that. I was belittled and bullied into thinking I had only one option”,87 namely for the baby to be adopted. She continued: “At no time was I told there was any way in which I could bring up my child no financial support, no nurseries so that I could work and no housing available.” Another mother wrote: “No-one ever told me of the support that was available. I had no idea that there could have been an alternative outcome.”88
49. Many felt that they could have lived with their child and, sometimes, partner “with the correct information and support”.89 All they had required was: “someone on my side and an ounce of assistance. If the adoption agency had just left me alone, or perhaps pointed me towards social services, I think I could have figured it out.”90 Instead, many felt “trapped within a situation to persuade me to have my child adopted.”91 There was “never any discussion about keeping my baby” wrote one witness, “I was just presented with a fait accompli.”92 Another witness wrote: “I was forced into this decision by the
professionals in charge.”93 Almost all of the mothers we heard from “wanted to keep” their babies.94
78 Anonymous (ACU0001)
79 Diana Defries (ACU0008)
80 Anonymous (ACU0077)
81 Mrs Bernadette Wallman (ACU0026)
82 Anonymous (ACU0001)
83 Anonymous (ACU0021)
84 Rosann Miller (ACU0097)
85 Anonymous (ACU0001)
86 Mrs Bernadette Wallman (ACU0026)
87 Mrs Lorraine Le-gate (ACU0005)
88 Diana Defries (ACU0008)
89 Anonymous (ACU0022)
90 Mrs Bernadette Wallman (ACU0026)
91 Anonymous (ACU0102)
92 Anonymous (ACU0035)
93 Anonymous (ACU0041)
94 Anonymous (ACU0089)
The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–197616
The role of different professionals
50. Even after the Adoption of Children Act 1949 saw a shift towards a central Government policy, with local authorities responsible for making arrangements for the adoption of children, the existing voluntary systems of the Church of England, Catholic Church, and Salvation Army largely remained in place leading to what Dr Michael Lambert describes as a “mixed economy” of statutory and voluntary provision.95
51. In their written evidence, mothers spoke of State employees, such as social workers and NHS doctors, nurses and midwives, as well as the employees and volunteers attached to those voluntary organisations. While we heard examples of kindnesses to the mothers,96 the criticisms and descriptions of abuse refer to all of these institutions and cannot be ascribed to one group alone.
52. In its written evidence, the Salvation Army, whose last Mother and Baby home closed in 1980, described how this area of its work grew to support the vulnerable women who were seeking its support, and who were pregnant. While it acknowledges that were it “supporting such need today, our practices would be different”, it did also detail the orders and regulations under which its officers practised and the expectation that its services: “must be of a professional standard commensurate with other maternity institutions.”97
Moving away from home
53. We heard how many mothers spent time in hostels or with family members, friends, or other contacts away from the mother’s home during their pregnancy.98 While some described their treatment as kind,99 and the host as having been acting charitably, for others the experience was very different. During her oral evidence Ann Keen said of the father of the house in which she stayed: I want to say this, because many of the other mothers who are not able
to speak today have also said the same. That man abused me very badly, because he said that nobody would believe me. He could abuse me because I was a bad girl, I was a wicked girl, so he could do what he wanted to me because he was able to, because nobody would believe me.100
54. We heard that most mothers moved into a mother and baby home for the final few weeks of their pregnancy, often six weeks before the birth. While each of the experiences detailed by the birth mothers was in its own way unique, we were struck by some of the recurring themes from the accounts of the stays in these homes. Some of the most compelling were the descriptions of the ways in which the women were made to feel they were being “punished” for their transgression. Numerous witnesses described how they were made to scrub stairs and floors. “We were made to scrub the floor on our knees and if we objected we were slapped ... “, recalled one of those mothers,101 and one recalled being “used as domestics”.102 In her oral evidence, Judy Baker recalled: "You had this great big
95 Dr Michael Lambert (ACU0024)
96 Q16
97 The Salvation Army (ACU0051)
98 Anonymous (ACU0077), Anonymous (ACU0110)
99 Anonymous (ACU0072)
100 Q13
101 Anonymous (ACU0093)
102 Anonymous (ACU0110)
17The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976 belly, and you were kneeling down on your hands and knees scrubbing this staircase.”103 Others described cleaning rugs104 and being made to walk to church “in a crocodile every Sunday”.105 Other accounts were a vivid reminder of the youth and camaraderie of the women living together for this short time: “We would want to listen to ‘Pick of the Pops’ on a Sunday and have a little dance about, again with our great big fat bellies”, said Judy.106
55. The mother and baby homes in which most of the mothers spent the days and weeks immediately before and after the birth, and from which their babies were taken to foster carers or adoptive families, existed in ordinary houses and buildings across the country. Some were run by the State, others by religious and charitable bodies. All were part of society’s way of “managing” the women who were regarded as having transgressed society’s moral standards, and their babies.
56. Of those who told us about their experiences, very few were given any medical advice or ante natal care in the final weeks of their pregnancy,107 and many approached the birth in a state of unintentional ignorance and often fear. “I was never told what to expect when the baby came” said one, “... a traumatic experience for a 15 year old.”108 “I had no idea what was going to happen”, recalled Judy Baker.109
57. A number of the mothers did not recognise the first signs of labour. While a few went on to give birth in the home, most were taken to hospital after the labour started.
During the birth
58. The accounts of the birth that we heard had the common feature that mothers felt that their “punishment” for their unmarried status was simply continuing. One witness said: “The treatment in hospital was frankly unhumane.”110
59. We heard many examples of cruel phrases being used during the labour: “Have you learnt your lesson now?”,111 recalled one. One mother was told she “deserved all the pain I got.”112 “A doctor told me that I should be sterilised as I must be a nymphomaniac”, wrote another mother.113 “I had no idea what he was talking about ... ” “You’ve had your fun now you can pay for it”, another recalled overhearing.114
After the birth
60. After the birth, many recalled how the baby was put out of their reach,115 in case “many feet from me”.116 We heard how the refusal to communicate by some nurses and
103 Q16
104 Anonymous (ACU0102)
105 Ibid.
106 Q16
107 Betty Mills (ACU0063)
108 Anonymous (ACU0113)
109 Q16
110 Anonymous (ACU0085)
111 Anonymous (ACU0022)
112 Dawn Young (ACU0016)
113 Anonymous (ACU0117)
114 Anonymous (ACU0099)
115 Anonymous (ACU0022)
116 Diana Defries (ACU0008)
The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–197618 midwives continued after the birth. One mother wrote: “I could not get anyone to speak to me. It was as if I wasn’t really there.”117 Another mother remembered how: “
- ne sister deliberately ignored me when I spoke to her.”118
61. Contact between mother and baby was minimised. “I wasn’t allowed to see, hold or feed my baby”, said one mother.119 Another saw her baby “for a few hours after she was born” and then once more on the day she was discharged.120 Some mothers were able to breastfeed their babies,121 but others were only able to bottle feed their babies122 “as it was considered that breastfeeding would create too strong a bond.”123
62. Many had no medical care after the birth. “I never had any follow up treatment or check up”, wrote one.124 “I believe this lack of physical health care led to my being unable to have any further children”, wrote another, who said it was “[a]n indescribable grief.”125
Taking the baby
We heard harrowing accounts of the babies being taken from the mothers, generally between 10 days and two weeks after the birth. “I never got to say goodbye. They took her into the next room where her new parents were waiting for her and that was it”, said Judy Baker.126 “I was made to pick the baby up and hand it to [the] woman who walked away with him”, wrote another.127 “[T]hey pulled her out of my arms”, said one.128 ”I had to hand my baby over crying and pleading again for help and to be allowed to keep him. The pain was unbearable ... ”, wrote another.129 Others recalled: “I remember my legs gave way under me and my precious infant howled as if her world was coming to an end ... “130 and “I screamed and hung onto him like a woman possessed.”131 One mother described walking her baby to the social worker’s car as “the longest, loneliest and most panic-stricken walk of my life.”132
Adoption
Adoption as a decision
63. Raising a child as an unmarried mother without support was nearly impossible at this time. Women told us that they were not given any information about options available to them, other than adoption.
117 Ibid.
118 Anonymous (ACU0021)
119 Anonymous (ACU0110)
120 Anonymous (ACU0072)
121 Anonymous (ACU0093)
122 Anonymous (ACU0117)
123 Anonymous (ACU0110)
124 Anonymous (ACU0072)
125 Mrs Eileen Griffiths (ACU0006)
126 Q16
127 Anonymous (ACU0093)
128 Anonymous (ACU0068)
129 Anonymous (ACU0041)
130 Diana Defries (ACU0008)
131 Anonymous (ACU0093)
132 Anonymous (ACU0022)
19The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976
64. The 1949 Adoption Act stipulated that a mother could not consent to adoption until at least six weeks after the birth,133 and adoptive parents could not apply for an adoption order until at least three months after the child had been placed with them, during which time the birth mother had the right to “reclaim” the child.134
65. Although most signed the final legal paperwork, generally six weeks after their baby had actually been taken, the physical and mental trauma caused by the women’s unhappiness and reluctance to do so was abundantly clear from the evidence that we received.135 Dr Michael Lambert, Fellow in Social Inequalities at Lancaster University, explained to the Committee that shame, stigma and guilt were the driving forces in restricting any meaningful conversation about other possible outcomes, and that it could be very hard to move away from that process once it was put into motion.136 The evidence
submitted to this inquiry corroborates this. One mother wrote about how she felt she: “didn’t have any choice or say in the adoption process”,137 and another explained how she: was worn down with what the adoptive parents could give the child when I could give him nothing. I was threatened with being arrested, my son being put into a children’s home if I denied him a good home with the adoptive parents and having any subsequent children taken away from me. I was told lies and coerced into allowing the adoption of my child.138
66. Pamela Hodgkins, an adopted person and founder of the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents (NORCAP), explained how women experienced adoption and consent: Many women report that after the birth of their baby they became part of a conveyor belt system moving towards adoption. Even after the application was made mothers could apply to the court for their child to be returned to their care with a good chance of success. The key was that no one explained the limits of their consent at this stage, whilst no one said this was final and irrevocable consent (which it was not)
neither was it pointed out they could reconsider, explore other options and ask for their baby back.139
The process of adoption
67. The time spent between the baby being taken and signing the legal paperwork finalising the adoption several weeks later was immensely difficult for the mothers from whom we heard. Presented with only two options, to “selfishly keep your child and ruin his life or relinquish him for adoption as the only way he can be happy” was an “intolerable choice” and many signed “while suffering anxiety and depression” and without fully understanding the implications of what they had done.140
133 Jatinder Sandhu, The birth mother and the evolution of adoption policy and practice in England since 1926,
October 2012, p. 217
134 Ibid, p. 23
135 Veronica Ann Smith (ACU0031)
136 Q8
137 Anonymous (ACU0030)
138 Mrs. Lorraine Le-gate (ACU0005)
139 Pamela Hodgkins MBE (ACU0032)
140 Anonymous (ACU0044)
The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–197622
77. It is striking that it has taken a great deal of time decades before we have faced up to the truth of what was happening to hundreds of thousands of mothers and their children. Babies were taken away from mothers who didn’t want to let them go. They were told they had no other option and would, in the words of one witness ‘with an ounce of help’ have seized the chance to keep their sons and daughters with them and brought them up themselves.
78. While each experience is unique, we were struck by telling similarities in the stories we heard. Unmarried women were told that they had given up their baby for adoption, when in fact they felt they had no choice. We need to correct the record. Some children grew up thinking their mothers were feckless or irresponsible or gave them up without a care in the world. This is patently untrue. We have heard that many unmarried women put up their children because they wanted the very best for their child, and adoption was presented as the only option. However, that does not equate to giving up their child willingly. By saying mothers gave up their babies for adoption, there has been a perpetuation of a view that they didn’t care or love their babies enough to keep them and were content to give them to another family.
79. The evidence that we have received has done something towards setting the record straight on what actually happened to many unmarried women who became pregnant during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, and the appalling way in which they were often treated by those whose job it was to help them professionals such as social workers, medical staff including doctors, midwives and nurses and sadly, often, by their own family members.
80. The evidence from mothers and from adopted people vividly demonstrates the struggles that individuals continue to face every day in living with the impact of those brutal and cruel processes.
81. This is about principles. Human rights exist because of the inherent humanity of each of us. The mothers were subjected to this cruelty because they were regarded as transgressors. They were not, but it underlines that human rights should be protected for all, including those who at that time are regarded as transgressors. 23The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976 3 The effects today
The continuing impact
The experience of birth mothers
82. We heard about the continuing impact of the adoption of their baby on the mothers. “I had panic attacks but my mother told me to get on with life”, wrote one mother;162 “I became depressed and attempted suicide”, said another.163 “Sometimes I would feel as if there was a kind of spring in the base of my spine and it would coil tighter and tighter”, said another.164 One mother wrote: “I have suffered with my mental health over the last 57 years.”165 “No-one can describe the mental trauma and emotions I have had to endure”, said another.166
83. Many found the experience of motherhood subsequently re-traumatising. “I suffered for over a year with post-natal depression and found that my experience of having my first son adopted impacted my maternal feelings and ability as a mother”, wrote one mother.167 “My relationship with my son has never been what it should be ... my daughter was always at the back of my mind”, said another.168
84. At our oral evidence session, we asked if Judy Baker had “put it all behind” her, as so many mothers were advised. “No, never” she replied. “You can see that. This is 53 years later and here I am, a wreck because of what happened to me and my daughter.”169
85. Other mothers did not want to have another child or could not have another. “I could not ...consider having any more children until I saw him again”, wrote one.170 When asked at our oral evidence session if she had gone on to have other children, Ann Keen replied: “No, I did not. I did not want any. I only wanted him.”171
The experience of adopted people
86. Some adopted people had experienced abuse - emotional, physical, and sexual by their adopters and by others, the impact of which was ongoing. We heard written evidence of many adopted people who had felt the impact of their adoption on their subsequent adult relationships.172
87. We have heard much around the question of identity, including when adopted people had lost the cultural links of their original parents. At our roundtable event, we heard how those with mixed heritage felt they were left alone to “acclimatise” themselves to the fact and its implications.
162 Anonymous (ACU0021)
163 Anonymous (ACU0022)
164 Mrs Bernadette Wallman (ACU0026)
165 Anonymous (ACU0035)
166 Anonymous (ACU0041)
167 Anonymous (ACU0035)
168 Anonymous (ACU0072)
169 Q16
170 Anonymous (ACU0044)
171 Q16
172 Eddie Gadd (ACU0137)
The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–197624
The experience of other family members
88. We heard some evidence about the experience of other family members. One wrote: “I think my husband had it right when he said to me ‘The point is that you not being allowed to raise your first child has affected all of us.’”173 Some mothers described the impact on the children they later went on to have: “he was and still is a very sensitive person, who himself suffers from depression as a result of my effect on him.”174
The experience of reunions
89. We heard evidence of the experience of reunions between mothers and grown children, who were often well into adulthood. Some had built happy relationships. “I’ve reunited with my son and we have a wonderful relationship”, wrote one.175 “We have not looked back since”, said another.176 Many are tinged with regret. In the words of one mother: “The man is returned to me, but not the child. The lost child is forever lost.”177 Many felt unable to continue the contact. “I no longer have any contact with my daughter or grandchildren”, wrote one mother.17
Therapeutic support
90. Many mothers and adopted people have accessed therapy and counselling to help them with the long-lasting effects following the adoption. A number spoke of the support they had received from the Post Adoption Centre (PAC), National Association for Reuniting Adopted People and their Parents (NORCAP) and the Natural Parents network (NPN),179 though noting with regret that NORCAP is no longer in existence and the NPN on Facebook only.180 While some of the counselling provided was free of charge, most is self-funded. At our roundtable on 27 April 2022, we heard of the difficulties some had had in accessing therapy, and of the shortage of qualified therapists available.
91. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, adoption support agencies provide help and support to adopted children and adults, including counselling.181 Ofsted’s document Introduction to adoption support agencies: A children’s social care guide to registration explains that a counsellor needs to register as an adoption support agency if they provide an adoption-related service to people requiring counselling for adoption-related issues. However, if an adoption-related issue arises after counselling has begun and it is not the primary reason a person is undertaking counselling, registering is not necessary.182
173 Dawn Young (ACU0016)
174 Anonymous (ACU0107)
175 Anonymous (ACU0085)
176 Rosann Miller (ACU0097)
177 Mary Husted (ACU0092)
178 Anonymous (ACU0068)
179 Anonymous (ACU0001)
180 Mrs Veronica Smith (ACU0031)
181 Ofsted, Introduction to adoption support agencies, July 2015 (updated February 2019)
182 The document suggests that good practice would be to seek advice from a registered adoption support service, and if during the first session it emerges that adoption is the main reason a person is accessing counselling, the client should be advised of their right to access adoption support services, and that it is against the law to provide counselling on adoption-related matters without registering as, or being under contract with a registered adoption support service. (see: p. 8.)
25The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976
92. We heard that this requirement to register to provide adoption support acted as a disincentive to many counsellors, and that there was a shortfall in the number of counsellors available to undertake this work as a result. In his oral evidence, Nadhim Zahawi, the then Secretary of State for Education, acknowledged this “barrier to adult adoptees accessing and receiving support”, and said that he wanted to “get rid of any bureaucratic barriers” to “improve service delivery” while being “careful that we do notvsacrifice quality”. He went on to say:vWe will consult very shortly on removing the requirement for providersvof support services for adult adoptees having to register with Ofsted. In practice, that should make it much easier, and also more cost effective, for these providers to run their businesses. It will mean that support is more accessible for the adults who need it.183
93. There is a shortage of counsellors able to provide post-adoption support and the existing process for Ofsted regulation is one barrier to counsellors working in this area. The Government should consider as a matter of urgency how to make sure that the necessary regulations to protect standards do not prevent mothers and adult adoptees getting the support they need.
Access to paper records
94. While adopted people have had a right to access their adoption records since 1976, we heard of the huge disparities in the length of time this took. In his written evidence, one social worker described how access to information helped many of his clients, but that the timescales “vary hugely between a couple of months to one or two years.”184 At our roundtable event we heard how, having decided they wanted to investigate their adoption, adopted people felt frustrated at the unnecessary delays they met in their efforts to access their records.
95. Others also expressed consternation at the uneven provision of support services by local authorities since 2002, when the right to access records was extended, and local authorities were given a discretionary power to establish intermediary services.
96. There are huge disparities in the timeliness of the responses of local authorities to requests for access to adoption records, to which adopted people have had a right since 1976, leading to unnecessary stress and frustration for those individuals who have decided to seek out family members. The Government should monitor and publish compliance by local authorities with adherence to the guidance that sets down deadlines for responses to requests for adoption records.
Transparency on birth certificates and adoption orders
97. We heard of the distress and the impact on sense of identity caused by the disconnect between the birth certificate and adoption order and of the need for a single piece of paperwork in order to make the identity of the individual clear before and after adoption and aid tracing.
183 Q29
184 Nick Guy (ACU0025)
The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–197626
98. In his oral evidence, the Secretary of State emphasised the importance of not routinely adding adoptive names to birth certificates to protect children, but said that processes had been introduced: to aid tracing where both parties want this to happen, including for mothers and children from this period. Adoptive children over 18 and birth parents can add themselves to the Adoption Contact Register, which is held at the General Register Office. The Registrar-General may disclose that information from the Adopted Children Register and the Adoption Contact Register to the adopted-out adult in order for them to obtain a
certified copy of their birth certificate.185
99. Birth and adoption certificates contain different names, with no connection made between the two. The Government should explore ways of ensuring a transparent link for those adopted people who wish it between both certificates, so that it is clear that they relate to the same person.
Medical history
100. Many adopted people told us of their frustration and embarrassment at not knowing their own medical history. Medical appointments were “a challenge and embarrassment which makes me reluctant to seek medical help”, wrote one adopted person.186
101. As well as the discomfort unwittingly caused by questioning by medical professionals, this had clear practical implications. In her oral evidence, Liz Harvie described a genetic condition that had been “discovered too late for me to have been able to manage it properly”.187
102. Adopted people face serious practical difficulties in putting in place plans for preventative medical care because they do not have access to their parents’ medical histories. The disadvantages include a lack of access to benefits reliant on those details, for example free eye tests for those with a family history of glaucoma.
103. A system should be established so that a parent can pass on medical information that could be relevant to their child. This system would need to comply with data protection and privacy laws given that it would be dealing with sensitive personal data relating to health. However, this would facilitate adopted children being put in the same position as other children, whose parents can more readily chose to share sensitive relevant medical information with them.
Ability to travel overseas
104. At our roundtable event, we heard of the practical difficulties faced by adopted people in travelling to see birth relatives overseas, particularly during the pandemic.
105. The restrictions during the covid-19 pandemic highlighted the barriers faced by people wishing to visit, often to support, members of their family. The Government should put in place rules and processes that allow adopted people to identify themselves 185 Q31
186 Anonymous (ACU0029)
187 Q24
27The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976 as a relative for the purposes of foreign travel and that mirror the requirements for foreign travel and visas that apply to other family members. The Government should encourage other States to adopt a similar approach in their own visa rules.
Intermediary services
106. We heard evidence of the great range in quality of service by those employed, again at the expense of the individual, to trace relatives. One mother wrote of “an amazing social worker who was tireless in her attempts to contact my daughter.”188 At the roundtable event on 27 April 2022, some participants expressed concern about the quality of some intermediary work, and a strong feeling that intermediaries should not simply make contact with the relatives, but facilitate contact, for example by leaving contact details with relatives in case they changed their mind about making contact. In his evidence, the Secretary of State said: “Intermediary services provide a valuable role, but I expect them to be helpful, to respond quickly and to focus on easy access to support. I want to know if they are not doing these things and we will absolutely act on it. Whatever recommendations your committee makes around intermediary services, I will absolutely look at that.”189
107. There is a wide range in quality of service by those employed, often at the expense of the individual, to trace relatives. While many were excellent, some were not, and some people were frustrated at the inefficacy of the complaints system for intermediaries. The Government should re-visit the complaint systems for intermediaries, and ensure that those systems are easily accessible and sufficiently promoted.
108. There is currently a missed opportunity for intermediaries to facilitate future contact between family members, without compromising on the importance of the rights of family members who do not wish to be contacted. The Government should reassess the rules for the way in which intermediaries operate, with a view to enabling them to offer advice to family members who do not wish to be contacted on the routes and support available to them should their views change in the future.
Knowing your child has died
109. We heard many stories of the perpetual concern of mothers about the whereabouts and lives of their children. Particularly poignant were the descriptions of mothers simply wishing to know whether or not their child was still alive, and the examples we heard of when a child had tragically died young. When asked what process might be put in place to at least notify mothers of the death of their child, the Secretary of State explained how: “
haring information of this nature in any structured or ordered fashion will be extremely difficult” but undertook to look at any practical suggestions that were made.190
110. One of the most enduring and painful questions for mothers without contact with their child is whether or not they are still alive. The Government should explore the options for alerting mothers (who wish to be so notified) to the death of a child that has been adopted. 88 Anonymous (ACU0108)
189 Q32
190 Q33
The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–197628
4 An apology
111. There have been calls for the UK Government to issue an apology to unmarried
mothers and their children for the treatment they endured during this period.191 Liz Harvie, an adoptee, told the Committee: I would very much welcome an apology to be given to the birth mothers, the birth fathers, to the adoptees, even to the children of adoptees who are still affected by that forced missing link in their ancestral line. Please, an apology to all of us. We are sorry, but we want those words to carry the recognition of our trauma, our distress, our sadness, our grief, which, even though decades old, is still very raw and painful to us.192
112. In his evidence to the Committee, Secretary of State for Education Nadhim Zahawi expressed “deep regret” for what happened and went on: I just want to say that these practices were simply wrong and I am sorry that this was the case, and more generally for what happened. I recognise the hurt and the pain that occurred and I am deeply sorry that so many went through this ordeal. I acknowledge the profound and lasting impact that this had on them, on their sons and daughters, and in some cases the fathers of their children. I am deeply troubled that they were not only so pervasive but that they persisted for so long. It is particularly distressing to see something so joyful and precious as parenthood being treated as something shameful which must be kept secret, despite those involved having done nothing at all wrong.193
113. In 2016, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, apologised for the role the Catholic Church played in these adoption practices: “We apologize for the hurt caused by agencies acting in the name of the Catholic Church ... Sadly for unmarried mothers, adoption was considered to be in the best interests of the mother and child because of the associated stigma and the lack of support for lone parents.”194
114. While the Church of England has not issued a formal apology for their involvement in these adoption practices, a spokesperson also expressed regret in the same year: “What was thought to be the right thing to do at the time has caused great hurt. That is a matter of great regret.”195
115. We welcome the Secretary of State’s detailed remarks, his acknowledgement that these practices were “simply wrong” and for saying that he was sorry for what had happened. He did, however, stop short of agreeing an official apology was necessary because “the Government were not actively engaged”, continuing:
191 Sir David Amess, alongside Harriet Harman MP. delivered a letter to the Prime Minister on behalf of Movement for an Adoption Apology calling for a government apology. See Amess, David, Sir David delivers a letter to the Prime Minister asking for an apology on forced adoptions, 27th May 2021
192 Q24
193 Q25
194 “Catholic church apologises for role in ‘forced adoptions’ over 30-year period”, The Guardian, 3 November 2016
195 Ibid.
29The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976
I have expressed my deep, deep regret, very publicly and repeatedly, as I do again today, but I genuinely feel that the whole of society failed these women and children.196
116. During the past two decades, the UK Government has apologised on a number of different occasions for past, abhorrent events. One example is the apology in 2013 by William Hague, the Foreign Secretary at the time, for the “shocking” levels of violence during the suppression of the Mau Mau insurgency in the 1950s and 1960s.197 In September 2009, Gordon Brown, then Prime Minister, apologised for the “homophobic laws” that criminalised and sanctioned the chemical castration of gay men, such as Alan Turing and which meant that “millions lived in fear” and were treated “terribly” and “unfairly”.198
117. Most recently, David Cameron apologised as Prime Minister in 2010 on the day of the publication of the report of the Saville inquiry into the Bloody Sunday events on 30 January 1972, when thirteen people were shot dead when soldiers opened fire on civil rights demonstrators in Derry/Londonderry.199 That apology was widely welcomed at the time, including by the people who had campaigned for such an apology. In it, he said: ... the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong ... I know that some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, a prime minister needs to issue an apology ... But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and the hurt of that day and with a lifetime of loss. Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces and for that, on behalf of the government, indeed, on behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry. I would also like to acknowledge the grief of the families of those killed. They have pursued their long campaign over 38 years with great patience. Nothing can bring back those who were killed, but I hope, as one relative has put it, the truth coming out can help set people free.200 118. Under the child migration programme 1930–1970, more than 130,000 children were sent to various countries, including Australia and Canada, for a “better life,” but instead “faced servitude, hard labour and abuse.” Gordon Brown issued a “full and unconditional” apology for this “wholly unacceptable practice” supported by “successive UK Governments,” and remarked: Although we cannot undo the events of the past, we can take action now to support people to regain their true identities and reunite with their families 196 Q28
197 William Hague, Statement to Parliament on settlement of Mau Mau claims, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 June 2013
198 Gordon Brown, Treatment of Alan Turing was “appalling” - PM, The National Archives, 10 September 2009
199 “Bloody Sunday: What happened on Sunday 30 January 1972?”, BBC News, 27 January 2022
200 “Bloody Sunday: PM David Cameron’s full statement”, BBC News, 15 June 2010
The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–197630
and loved ones, and to go some way to repair the damage that has been inflicted. I can announce today support for former child migrants that includes the establishment of a new Ł6 million family restoration fund ... There are many painful memories as a result of the child migration schemes, and for many, today’s apology will come too late for them to hear it. We cannot change history, but I believe that by confronting the failings of the past we show that we are determined to do all we can to heal the wounds.201
119. The transatlantic slave trade took place between 1450 and the early 19th century.202 During this time, between 10 million to 28 million Africans were forcibly removed from their countries and shipped to the Americas to be sold as slaves, in conditions so foul that millions died en route.203 Having previously acknowledged that “Great Britain’s rise to global pre-eminence was partially dependent on a system of colonial slave labour”, Tony Blair in 2007 apologised for the role Britain played in the slave trade: We are sorry. And I say it again now ... For us, the most important thing though is obviously to remember what happened in the past and to condemn it and say why it was so entirely unacceptable.204
120. The apologies for Bloody Sunday, the suppression of the Mau Mau insurgency, and the Child Migration programmes were made as statements to the House of Commons. Alan Turing was given a posthumous royal pardon for the treatment he endured, along with a written apology by the then Prime Minister, and the apology for Britain’s role in the slave trade was given by Tony Blair during a news conference with the Ghanian President.
121. By considering the events that culminated in these apologies, it is possible to outline common features, and perhaps even criteria, for situations where the Government must apologise. In these instances, the following common features apply:
a) the laws and attitudes of the time would be regarded as utterly unacceptable today.
b) the way in which those affected were treated was manifestly and obviously wrong, and caused a great deal of pain and suffering.
c) the State was ultimately responsible by either act, omission, or both.
122. There are a number of instances of the UK Government making apologies for occurrences of the past, which caused pain and suffering and in which the State had some involvement and that were clearly and emphatically wrong.
123. In this instance, many thousands of mothers have had a lifetime of pain and suffering because their babies were taken for adoption. This suffering was compounded by the subsequent branding of them as feckless and uncaring for having irresponsibly “given their child away”. These untruths, the hurtful words implying that women “gave up” their babies for adoption, along with the secrecy and shame that have surrounded their histories for so long have intensified the pain of separation for mother and child.
201 HC Deb, 24 February 2010, [Commons Chamber]
202 “Blair says “sorry” for slavery”, Reuters, 20 March 2007
203 United Nations, Slavery Remembrance Day: Background Information, 2008
204 Tony Blair, Tony Blair’s statement on the slave trade in full, 27 November 2006
31The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976
124. What happened shouldn’t have happened, and continues to cause pain today. A State should be ready to hold itself to account, to acknowledge wrongdoings of the past, and express regret for the actions and acts of omission that enabled them.
125. An apology by the Government and an official recognition that what happened to these mothers was dreadful and wrong, backed up by the other actions recommended in this Report, would go some way to mitigate the pain and suffering of to those affected.
126. There are some things that only a government can do, and it falls on the Government to make this apology.
The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–197632
5 England and Wales in 1949–1976: adoption, human rights and society
Legislative framework
127. During the twentieth century there were significant changes in adoption law and practices, reflecting in part society’s changing attitudes to unmarried mothers, and to single parent families. This section sets out in brief the developments in the period leading up to 1949, when the focus of this inquiry begins, until 1976 when it ends. During this period, the responsibility for adoption within central government was overseen by various departments, including the Department for Education, the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security, and the Department of Health.205
128. The Adoption of Children Act 1926 provided a legal framework for the courts to make adoption orders for the first time. Before then, adoption was unregulated and carried out on an informal basis within families or between unmarried mothers and couples. The Adoption Act 1939 gave local authorities more responsibility for adoption and established a process for its regulation, though adoption societies continued to be directly involved with the adoption process.
129. Dr Michael Lambert, Fellow in Social Inequalities at Lancaster University, described how in the aftermath of the Second World War: “political priorities embodied both ideals of social reconstruction for a new future, as well as the restoration of normality lost through years of war.”206
130. This inquiry starts in 1949, when the Adoption of Children Act 1949 provided that local authorities would make arrangements for the adoption of children and gave adopted children the same status as birth children, with the right to inherit.207 Dr Lambert explained to us how, despite this shift towards a central Government policy, the voluntary systems that had existed up until that time, under the auspices of, for example, the Church of England, Catholic Church, and Salvation Army, largely remained in place leading to what he describes as a “mixed economy” of statutory and voluntary provision.208 CoramBAAF, an adoption and fostering academy, noted that while the Act attempted to ensure that “the child and their rights, safety and needs are addressed... [w]hat it does not acknowledge is the child’s right to know they were adopted, who they were born to and ... their history and heritage.”209
131. Further Acts in 1950 and 1958 saw further increases in the involvement of authorities and made provisions around the making of the adoption order, with the mother’s consent being required (which must be given no earlier than six weeks after the birth), and the requirement for the attestation of a Justice of the Peace. The Adoption Act 1968 allowed for the recognition of overseas adoptions under English law.
205 Department for Education (ACU0142)
206 Dr Michael Lambert (ACU0024)
207 Ibid.
208 Ibid.
209 CoramBAAF (ACU0116), pg. 7
33The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976
132. The Adoption Act 1976, which marks the end of the period of this inquiry, was largely a response to the recommendations of the Houghton Committee in 1972. The 1976 Act consolidated previous legislation and introduced the principle of ‘freeing a child’ for adoption, with each parent or guardian giving their consent to the making of an adoption order.
133. The period since 1976 has, as the Department for Education told us: “seen further major reforms in our legislation which have put children at the forefront of decisions, and which acknowledge the importance of keeping children in the family unit wherever possible.”210
134. The Government of the time should have recognised the crucial importance of the bond between mother and child and done more to ensure that the policies of the time helped them stay together. It was the State that was ultimately responsible for the actions and omissions within the adoption system that led to a failure to protect women and babies from the actions of some. This includes the failure to ensure that there was a set of clear standards of behaviour for those who played a role in adoption including public sector employees, such as social workers and medical staff, and for the voluntary bodies who played a significant role throughout the period.
