Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
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.
92
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.
93
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.
94
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."
95
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).
96
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.
97
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. 
98
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06379/SN06379.pdf

Past adoption practices and the disclosure of adoption information
Standard Note: SN/SP/6379
Last updated: 9 October 2014
Author: Manjit Gheera
Section Social Policy Section

Various groups have campaigned for the Westminster Government to apologise for policies amounting to ‘forced adoption’ in the UK in the 1940s and 1950s. Pressure on the Government to apologise gathered momentum following a national apology in March 2013 by the Australian Prime Minister for forced adoption practices in the 1940s and 1950s in Australia.

This note provides a brief history of adoption legislation and information on historical forced adoption practices. It also provides information on mechanisms for adopted children, birth parents and other relatives to access adoption information and establish contact.

This note applies to England and Wales.  This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required.  This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the  content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.


Contents
1 Background 3
2 A history of legal adoption 4
2.1 Adoption of Children Act 1926 4
2.2 Changes in 1940s 4
2.3 Access to birth records–developments in the latter part of the Twentieth Century 5
3 Current law 6
3.1 Placement with parental consent 6
Placement under a placement order 7
4 Disclosure of adoption information 7
4.1 Person adopted after 30 December 2005 – section 56 information 8
4.2 Persons adopted before December 2005 10
Intermediary services for pre-December 2005 adoptions 10
5 Useful information for adopted people and birth parents 11
5.1 Further reading 12

1 Background
Various groups have campaigned for the Westminster Government to apologise for policies amounting to ‘forced adoption’ in UK in the 1940s and 1950s. There have also been a number of Early Day Motions tabled by Members of Parliament calling for an apology, for example an Early Day Motion (EDM 301), sponsored by John Leech MP, on the subject of (historical) forced child adoption was tabled on 1 September 2014.  That this House recognises the suffering that forced child adoptions during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s caused, which took place owing to social pressures on women who had children outside marriage; notes the unacceptable adoption and care practices of the past, such as not giving information about welfare services including housing and financial help which were available at the time, and not questioning whether women putting their children up for adoption had given informed consent; further recognises the negligence of previous governments, with regard to ensuring that the care provided for unmarried mothers was appropriate and that they and their children were not mistreated or discriminated against, resulting in many women suffering traumatising pre and post-natal experiences and children being denied contact with their birth parents; further notes that the Australian Prime Minister has in 2014 apologised to the victims of forced adoptions in Australia; and therefore calls on the Government to apologise in order to go some way towards helping the parents and children who were victims of these practices.1  The list of signatures can be viewed on the Parliament website. The Children’s Minister, Edward Timpson MP has also been asked about Government support for victims of forced adoptions:

Ian Paisley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps her Department has taken to support parents and children who were victims of forced adoptions in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.  Edward Timpson: I have a great deal of sympathy for those parents and children who were affected by pressures, during the post-war years, to give children up for adoption. Since the 1970s there have been major shifts in the way society sees the family, single mothers, and the needs of children and successive governments have done much to collectively resolve the social ills of the past. Society has become less judgmental and it is now, rightly, no longer considered a stigma for an unmarried mother to keep her baby.  The importance of facilitating greater openness in adoption has been recognised for a number of years. Adopted adults have the legal right to see their birth certificate and their adoption file in order to find out about their family history and the circumstances in which they were adopted. Both adopted adults and their birth relatives are able to apply to intermediary agencies for assistance with tracing family members.  Intermediary agencies also provide counselling, support, and advice to adopted adults and birth relatives. Further changes through the Children and Families Act 2014 will extend the provision of intermediary agencies to assist a wider category of relatives, 1 EDM 301 [on Forced Child Adoption], 1 September 2014

1 Background
Various groups have campaigned for the Westminster Government to apologise for policies amounting to ‘forced adoption’ in UK in the 1940s and 1950s. There have also been a number of Early Day Motions tabled by Members of Parliament calling for an apology, for example an Early Day Motion (EDM 301), sponsored by John Leech MP, on the subject of (historical) forced child adoption was tabled on 1 September 2014.  That this House recognises the suffering that forced child adoptions during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s caused, which took place owing to social pressures on women who had children outside marriage; notes the unacceptable adoption and care practices of the past, such as not giving information about welfare services including housing and financial help which were available at the time, and not questioning whether women putting their children up for adoption had given informed consent; further recognises the negligence of previous governments, with regard to ensuring that the care provided for unmarried mothers was appropriate and that they and their children were not mistreated or discriminated against, resulting in many women suffering traumatising pre and post-natal experiences and children being denied contact with their birth parents; further notes that the Australian Prime Minister has in 2014 apologised to the victims of forced adoptions in Australia; and therefore calls on the Government to apologise in order to go some way towards helping the parents and children who were victims of these practices.1   The list of signatures can be viewed on the Parliament website.  The Children’s Minister, Edward Timpson MP has also been asked about Government support for victims of forced adoptions:
Ian Paisley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps her Department has taken to support parents and children who were victims of forced adoptions in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.  Edward Timpson: I have a great deal of sympathy for those parents and children who  were affected by pressures, during the post-war years, to give children up for adoption. Since the 1970s there have been major shifts in the way society sees the family, single mothers, and the needs of children and successive governments have done much to collectively resolve the social ills of the past. Society has become less judgmental and it is now, rightly, no longer considered a stigma for an unmarried mother to keep her baby.  The importance of facilitating greater openness in adoption has been recognised for a number of years. Adopted adults have the legal right to see their birth certificate and their adoption file in order to find out about their family history and the circumstances in which they were adopted. Both adopted adults and their birth relatives are able to apply to intermediary agencies for assistance with tracing family members.  Intermediary agencies also provide counselling, support, and advice to adopted adults and birth relatives. Further changes through the Children and Families Act 2014 will extend the provision of intermediary agencies to assist a wider category of relatives,
1 EDM 301 [on Forced Child Adoption], 1 September 2014
Secrecy is an important issue in the history of adoption but is not an easy subject for historical research of enquiry. So much investigation about it must be anecdotal relying on individual autobiographies, interviews, rumours or even gossip or else remain conjecture; inevitably the nature of secrecy means that many people will not speak of their secrets.6  The Adoption of Children Act 1949 (England and Wales), which began as a Private Member’s Bill, provided that the placement of children for adoption would thenceforth be supervised by local authorities. It also that provided parental consent to the making of an adoption order, in pursuant to an application, could be given without knowledge of the applicant’s identity. Cretney states that in practice “consent could now be given to an adoption by a person about whom the mother knew nothing; and the emphasis originally placed on the need for her to take a personal decision about the adopters’ suitability had disappeared.”7 The names of adopters were not disclosed on application forms but serial numbers were used instead. Access to the identity of the parent could only be given if an application was made to the Register General. In addition, the 1949 Act gave adopted children the same status as birth children giving them the rights to inherit. It made provision for the treatment of adopted people as children of adopters for the purposes of intestacies, wills and settlement.8 From 1949, and the beginning of an adoption system that was driven by social workers and an effort to protect children, an increasing number of older children were removed from the care of abusive parents and made available for adoption. Family law barrister, David Bedingfield writes:
The legal concept of adoption began to be seen as a blunt tool that often did not fit the needs of individual children. A middle ground was sought for children who needed substitute families but who also would benefit from continued contact with their birth families.9  The Adoption Act 1950 (England and Wales) consolidated previous legislation, confirming and emphasising the prevailing ‘clean break –fresh start’ view of adoption.
2.3 Access to birth records–developments in the latter part of the Twentieth Century
In the decades following the 1949 Act, a number of Government appointed committees reported on the issue of allowing adopted children greater access to information about their birth families. In 1972, the Houghton Committee concluded:
We take the view that on reaching the age of majority an adopted person should not be denied access to his original birth records. We therefore recommend that all adopted adults in England and Wales, whenever adopted, should in future be permitted to obtain a copy of their original birth entry... 10  The Committee’s report provided the basis for provisions in the Children Act 1975 relating to services for adopted adults. The subsequent Adoption Act 1976 placed a duty on each local
6 Ibid, p202
7 Stephen Cretney, Law reform and the Family, Clarendon Press, 1998, p192
8 The Adoption of Children Act 1949, s 9
9 Bedingfield, Adoption or Special Guardianship? The Impact of Re S, Re AJ and Re M-J, Family Law Week
10 Houghton Committee report, 1972 para 303, quoted in Howe & Feast, Adoption Search & Reunion; The Children’s Society, 2000
authority to provide a comprehensive adoption service to all those involved in adoption
including:
(a) adopted children;
(b) parents and guardians of such children; and
(c) adopters and prospective adopters.
The Act acknowledged that people who have had a personal connection to adoption should
have a right to a service if they had unresolved issues and counselling needs.


3 Current law
The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (2002 Act), establishes a statutory code and legal structure regulating the circumstances in which a child can be placed for adoption and the consequences once such a placement is made. The process of placement involves substantial court involvement. Under the 2002 Act, before a placement for adoption can be made, a parent must be fully engaged in the decision-making process, either by express consent or by having the opportunity to contest the issue in court proceedings. If either a parent consents to placement for adoption, or the court makes a placement order, and an adoptive placement is then made, the options for overturning the move towards adoption or challenging the eventual adoption are significantly restricted.  The 2002 Act establishes two routes by which an adoption agency may be authorised to place a child for adoption:
• placement with parental consent;
• placement under a placement order. 
3.1 Placement with parental consent Section 19(1) of the 2002 Act authorises an adoption agency to place a child for adoption where it is satisfied that each parent or guardian of the child has consented (and has not withdrawn the consent) to the child:
• being placed for adoption with prospective adopters identified in the consent; or
• being placed for adoption with any prospective adopters who may be chosen by the agency.
‘Consent’ means consent given unconditionally and with full understanding of what is involved.11 Consent to placement for adoption may be withdrawn; however any purported withdrawal will be ineffective if it occurs after an adoption application has been made.12  Where consent to placement for adoption has been given, and the child is placed with prospective adopters, if consent is subsequently withdrawn and the parent requests the return of the child, the child must be returned to the adoption agency unless an application is, or has been, made for a placement order and the application has not been disposed of.13
11 Sections 52(5) and 6, Adoption and Children Act 2002
12 Ibid.
13 Section 32, Adoption and Children Act 2002
The local authority must review their decision to place a child for adoption and may seek to protect a child’s placement by issuing an application for a placement order after a request for the return of a child has been made.14
Placement under a placement order
A ‘placement order’ is “an order made by the court authorising a local authority to place a child for adoption with any prospective adopters who may be chosen by the authority”.15  The court may not make a placement order unless:16
• the child is subject to a care order; or
• the court is satisfied that the threshold conditions in s 31(2) of the Children Act
1989 are met; or
• the child has no parent or guardian; and
• each parent or guardian has consented to the child being placed for adoption
with any prospective adopters who may be chosen by the local authority and
has not withdrawn consent, or the parent’s consent should be dispensed with
under section 52 of the 2002 Act,.
The threshold conditions under s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 require the court to be satisfied that:
(a) the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm is attributable to-
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
(ii) the child’s being beyond parental control.


4 Disclosure of adoption information
The disclosure of adoption information is now governed by the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and its supporting regulations. The Act makes provision for two adoption registers and for adoption agencies to provide intermediary services to assist applicants in adoption information searches.  The Adoption Contact Register exists to assist those adoptees and their natural families who wish to express a view about contact with each other. The register, which is held by the Registrar General,17 is divided into two parts. In Part 1 are entered the details on any adopted person. Part 2 will contain the prescribed information about any relative who wishes to express a view about contact with the adoptee and who has information necessary to enable him to obtain a certified copy of the adoptee’s birth record.18 This information will only be entered in respect of an adopted person whose birth record is kept by the Registrar General.
14 Regulation 38, Adoption Agencies Regulation 2005 (SI 2005/389)
15 Section 21(1), Adoption and Children Act 2002
16 Section 21(2) and 3, Adoption and Children Act 2002
17 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 80.
18 Ibid, s 80(5)
The Adoption Contact Register system operates by the Register General transmitting to the adopted person whose name appears in Part 1, the name and address of any relative entered in Part 2 who has asked for contact.19 The register is not open to public inspection.  The Adoption Contact Register came into existence in 1991 (under Children Act 1989) but was enhanced by the Adoption and Children Act 2002 so an applicant can specify with whom he or she desires contact, or the applicant can specify the person with whom he or she does not want contact. This means that adopted people and birth relatives will be able to have their wish for ‘no contact’ registered on the Adoption Contact Register. So information on the Register can be shared unless the subject registers a wish for no contact.  The second register is the Adopted Children Register20 kept by the Register General at the General Register Office. Every adoption must be registered in the Adopted Children Register21 by the Registrar General at the General Register Office. The Adopted Children Register contains the particulars of adoptions authorised by order of a court in England or Wales on or after 1 January 1927. The only information that is available from the Adopted Children Register is a certificated copy of an entry, which is the equivalent of a birth certificate for an adopted person.  An entry on the Adopted Children Register will only contain the adoptive details of a person and has no information that relates back to the corresponding birth entry. On making an adoption order, the court may order that the Registrar General should not reveal the details of the adoption which are recorded in the Adopted Children Register without the leave of the court.22


4.1 Person adopted after 30 December 2005 – section 56 information In relation to a person who has been adopted on or after 30 December 2005, the disclosure of information relating to his adoption is governed by the Adoption and Children Act 2002, sections 56-65 and by the Disclosure of Adoption Information (Post-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005.23 The information covered by these regulations is known as ‘section 56 information’ by reference to the Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 56. The section 56 information that an adoption agency is required to keep includes:24
1. the adoption case record;
2. any information that has been supplied by a natural parent or relative or other significant person in the adopted person’s life, with the intention that the adopted person may, should he wish to, be given that information;
3. any information supplied by the adoptive parents or other persons which is relevant to matters arising after the making of the adoption order;
4. any information that the adopted person has requested should be kept;
5. any information given to the adoption agency in respect of an adopted person by the Registrar General under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 79(5) (information that would enable an adopted person to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth);
19 Adopted Children and Adoption Contact Registers Regulations 2005 (No. 924), reg 9
20 Adoption and Children Act 2002, Schedule 1
21 Adoption and Children Act 2002, Schedule 1
22 Re X (A Minor) (Adoption Details: Disclosure) [1994] 2 FLR 450; Re W (Adoption Details: Disclosure) [1998]
2 FLR 625.
23 SI 2005/888
24 Disclosure of Adoption Information (Post-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005, regulation 4
6. any information disclosed to the adoption agency about an entry relating to the adopted person on the Adoption Contact Register.  An adoption agency is not required to keep information falling within (2)–(4) above if it considers that to do so would be prejudicial to the adopted person’s welfare or that it would not be reasonably practicable to keep it.25 Section 56 information must be kept in secure conditions for at least 100 years.26 Identifying section 56 information can be disclosed to third parties under limited circumstances. Any section 56 information kept by an adoption agency about an adopted person or a third party and is, or includes, identifying information about the person in question is ‘protected information’ and may only be disclosed by the agency to a person (other than the person that the information is about) in pursuance of sections 56-61 of the 2002 Act.27 This prohibition does not prevent an agency disclosing information pursuant to a ‘prescribed agreement’28 or under the Disclosure of Adoption Information (Post-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005. A ‘prescribed agreement’ is either one under which either an adoptive parent, or each person who (before the adoption) was a parent with parental responsibility, permits the disclosure of information about himself, or it is an agreement made with any person who is over the age of 18 years at the time that the agreement is made.29  An adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years has the right, at his request, to receive from the appropriate adoption agency any information which would enable him to obtain a certified copy of his birth certificate (unless the High Court otherwise orders) or any prescribed information which had been disclosed to his adopters during the adoption process (under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 54).30 Any order by the High Court preventing disclosure may only be made on an application by the adoption agency and where the court is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional.31 The adopted person also has the right to receive from the court that made the adoption order a copy of documents from the court file.32  If the adoption agency does not have sufficient information to allow a qualified person to obtain his birth record, the agency must seek the necessary information from the Registrar General.33  Adoption agencies have discretion to disclose material on their adoption records, and must exercise that discretion against the background of the adoption legislation and in the context of the particular circumstances of the case.
25 Disclosure of Adoption Information (Post-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005, regulation 4
26 Ibid, regs 5 and 6
27 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 57(1); see Disclosure of Adoption Information (Post-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005
28 Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 57(5) and 6
29 Disclosure of Adoption Information (Post-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005, regulation 11
30 Section 60
31 Ibid
32 DAI(PCA)R 2005, reg 17
33 Ibid reg 19


4.2 Persons adopted before December 2005
For those who were adopted before 30 December 2005, the procedure for tracing birth records is governed by Adoption and Children Act 2002, Schedule 2 and the Adoption Information and Intermediary Services (Pre-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005.34. Adopted persons may apply to the Register General for such information as is necessary to enable the adoptee to obtain a copy of his birth records. Information held by the Registrar General must be disclosed to the appropriate adoption agency if they make an application in the prescribed form to the Registrar.35 Alternatively, a person adopted before 30 December 2005 may apply to the court for an order requiring the Registrar General to disclose identifying information to them, provided that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’.36  Before proceeding with any application an intermediary agency must provide information to the applicant about counselling services that are available.37 Any application must be handled under the procedure specified in the 2005 regulations.  An intermediary agency may not disclose any information to an applicant about the adopted person without that person’s consent.38 If the adopted person has died or is incapable of giving consent, such information may be given to the applicant. Intermediary services for pre-December 2005 adoptions In addition, an applicant (who may be the adopted person or a relative of his) can make an application under the Adoption Information and Intermediary Services (Pre-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 200539 (AIIS(PCA)R 2005) for ‘intermediary services’.40 These are defined as a service for the purpose of:
• assisting adopted persons who are over the age of 18 years and who were adopted prior to 30 December 2005, to obtain information in relation to their adoption; and
• facilitating contact between such persons and their relatives.41
The services may be provided by a registered adoption support agency or an adoption agency.42 An intermediary agency that accepts an application under AIIS(PCA)R 2005 is not required to proceed with the process if it considers that it would not be appropriate to do so having regard to all of the circumstances of the case, but in particular the welfare of the applicant, the subject adopted person or any other person who may be identified or otherwise affected by the application (particularly if that person is under the age of 18).43
34 SI 2005/890
35 ACA 2002, s 79(5)
36 Ibid
37 Ibid, reg 10
38 Ibid, reg 1
39 SI 2005/890
40 AIIS(PC)R 2005 reg 1
41 Ibid reg 3
42 Ibid,
43 AIIS(PC)R 2005 reg 6
Before proceeding with any application, an intermediary agency must provide information to the applicant about counselling services that are available.44 Any application must be handled under the procedure specified in the 2005 regulations.  An intermediary agency may not disclose any information to an applicant about the adopted person without that person’s consent.45 An adopted person may put down a veto under the AIIS(PCA)R 2005 to the effect that that he does not wish to be contacted by an intermediary agency in relation to an application under those regulations or that he only wishes to be contacted in specified circumstances.46 To be effective any veto must be in writing sent to the appropriate adoption agency.47 Where the adoption agency is notified of such a veto, it must keep a written record of it on the adopted person’s case record and ensure that it is made known to any intermediary agency that contacts it in relation to an application under AIIS(PCA)R 2005.48 Where an intermediary agency is aware that a veto applies, it must not proceed with the application unless the circumstances fall within the exceptions specified in the veto.49  The provision therefore allows adopted persons to receive assistance in obtaining information about their adoption and to facilitate contact. However, those intermediary services are not available to other relatives, such as the children of the adoptee. For adoptions made on or after 30 December 2005, when the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was brought into force, the legal framework under sections 56-61 applies which allows adopted persons and their relatives to access information about the adoption.50  The Children and Families Act 2014 contains a measure to amend the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to extend the provision of intermediary services to other prescribed persons in addition to the adopted person and the birth family for pre-December 2005 adoptions.51  It would therefore correct the anomaly that currently exists between pre- and post-December 2005 adoptions. The new provision was inserted as an amendment when the then Children and Families Bill was proceedings through the House of Lords. The debate on the amendment can be read on the Parliament website.52  Although the provision, section 1 of the Children and Families Act 2014, was brought into force on 25th July 2014, it requires the Government to lay regulations setting out which persons with a ‘prescribed relationship’ to the adopted person can also apply for intermediary services. Those regulations have not yet been laid.53.


5 Useful information for adopted people and birth parents Information on intermediary services is also available on the Adoption Search Reunion website, owned by the charity, British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF).
44 Ibid, reg 10
45 Ibid, reg 1
46 Ibid, reg 8
47 Ibid
48 Ibid
49 Ibid
50 Under sections 56-65 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002
51 Children and Families Act 2014, section 1
52 HL Deb 9 December 2013, cc589-94
53 A Government consultation on the changes: Department for Education, Consultation on Intermediary Services For Descendants-Relatives Of Adopted People 10 April 2014, indicated that regulations would be brought “into force in September 2014”


Further information about tracing adoption records for both adopted people and their birth relatives is set out on the Gov.uk website.
5.1 Further reading
• Background information to the development of modern adoption law is set out in the Library research paper to the then Adoption and Children Bill (RP/01/78) which became the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
• Stephen Cretney, Law reform and the Family, Clarendon Press, 1998
• Patricia Morgan, Adoption: The Continuing Debate, IEA Health and Welfare Unit, 1999
• Howe & Feast, Adoption, Search & Reunion – The long-term experience of adopted adults, Children’s Society, 2000
• Stephen Cretney, Family Law in the Twentieth Century- A history, Oxford University Press, 2003
• Hunter Davies, Relative Strangers- A history of adoption, Time Warner, 2003
• Jenny Keating, A Child for Keeps – The History of Adoption in England, 1918-45 Palgrave MacMillan, 2009
99
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12299927/Man-tortured-trans-activist-brands-dangerous-violent-individual.html

EXCLUSIVE Hospital worker, 52, who was kidnapped and tortured by trans activist who told a cheering crowd to 'punch TERFs in the face' brands her a 'dangerous, violent individual'

    Darren Sheridan spoke publicly for the first time of how he feared he would die
    He has hit out at zealot over inflammatory comments against feminists

By David Pilditch

Published: 09:26, 16 July 2023 | Updated: 10:10, 16 July 2023

A hospital worker kidnapped and tortured by a transgender activist who told a cheering crowd at a rally to 'punch TERFs in the face' today branded her a 'dangerous, violent individual'.  Darren Sheridan, 52, spoke publicly for the first time of how he feared he would die after being savagely beaten and tormented during 24 hours held captive by Sarah Jane Baker and her brother.  Now he has hit out at the zealot over her inflammatory comments against feminists critical of trans ideology.  Baker sparked outrage after telling a cheering crowd at a trans pride rally: 'I was gonna come here and be really fluffy and be really nice and say yeah be really lovely and queer and gay.  Nah, if you see a TERF, punch them in the f****** face.'

Darren, who still bears the scars from his ordeal as a teenager, said: 'I think it is extreme to have those kind of views. I know she has anger issues but there's still no right to say 'punch somebody in the face'.  I think if people disagree with other people about issues it's much better to have a debate about it then threaten people. By telling the crowd to punch a TERF, she clearly still has anger issues and is a dangerous, violent person.'

Darren knows only too well the level of violence Baker is capable of.  After he was kidnapped Darren was subjected to appalling beatings and forced to carry out humiliating sex acts before being trussed up in a cupboard and left to die.  Recalling harrowing details for the first time he told MailOnline how Baker and her brother showed no remorse after admitting their appalling crimes.  He said: 'I thought I was going to die but in the court case they said that the only thing they regretted about it was that they couldn't break me.' 

The brothers were jailed for seven years by a judge who described the ordeal as 'an exercise in sadism and cruelty which may well have led to his death'.

Baker, now 53, ended up spending 30 years in jail after she was convicted of attempted murder for breaking into a prisoner's cell and trying to strangle him to death.  Darren was just 19 when he was unwittingly caught up in a family feud after his sister Donna married Baker's father.  Baker, who was born Alan, and his brother George were sent out to bring her back and Darren's life changed forever when there was a knock on the door at the family home in Thornton Heath, Surrey.  He was punched in the face after being confronted by the brothers and another man.  Darren said: 'I had three knives pointed at me two either side of my body and one at my neck.  They told me 'You're coming with us'. I had no choice.  I was forcibly taken at knifepoint to a van and bundled into the back.  I couldn't see what was going on as I was face down and there were no windows. I was beaten in the van. I think there were two of them doing it.'

Darren was taken to a squat in London. When the brothers appeared at Maidstone Crown Court in 1989 it emerged he had 39 identifiable injuries including some inflicted with a knife.  Darren told MailOnline: 'I had no idea where I was going. They took me to a flat and led me inside where I was beaten and tortured for 12 hours.  They were punching me and burning me with cigarettes. They were stubbing them out on my neck and I still have the scars from that to this day.  I was forced to perform oral sex on them at knifepoint.  One of them said their dad wanted me dead and they were thinking of ways that they were going to kill me.  They said they were going to get a gun and shoot me.  They said they were going to give me a smiley face where they slit the sides of your mouth. They said they were going to get a razor to scar my face.  I was made to eat cigarette butts and curry powder.  Towards the end I was tied up. They tied me to the back of one chair then put another chair opposite.  My legs were stretched out and were tied to the back of it.  One of them got up and stepped on my legs he was trying to get my kneecaps to break.  It was such a sustained attack I became numb to the pain.  The last thing I remember was being tied up with electricity wire and dumped in an airing cupboard.  They carried me in and just left me there. It was dark and silent. I couldn't hear anything.  The wire was tied around my feet, my hands and my neck in such a way that if I moved it tightened around my neck.  At first I tried to free myself but that's when I realised the wire around my neck was getting tighter and I feared I would strangle myself so I stopped.  I was helpless and I blacked out.'

Darren was saved after somebody else living in the squat raised the alarm and police and paramedics raced to the scene.  Darren said: 'The first thing I remember after that was being in a hospital bed.  I was told that it took six hours before I was able to come out with my name and address because I was drifting in and out of consciousness.  I was told that if I had been left an hour longer I would have been dead.'

Describing the aftermath of his ordeal Darren said: 'It messed up my mental health. I didn't leave the house for a year after that.  I was too afraid to go out. The first year was awful.  For a few good years it was really hard to talk about it without getting emotional, without crying.  It had a massive impact on my life. It took away a lot of confidence.  I have a distrust of people, especially people who are so called family after they did that to me.  I had therapy. It took me a couple of years to come to terms with it. Most of it I buried away.'

Darren, who now works as a healthcare assistant in a hospital's A&E department, said he never had any further dealings with Baker.  But he heard from family members that Baker had attempted to murder another prisoner and had gone on to change gender.  After hearing of Baker's latest incident: 'I'm surprised that he is doing so much for the trans community. I'm surprised that he would put other people before him.'

Asked of his views on the transgender issue he said: 'I don't get much involved in politics and stuff like that. I try to keep away from it.'
100
https://proverbs31.org/read/devotions/full-post/2022/06/30/how-do-i-hang-on-to-hope-when-im-still-hurting?utm_campaign=Daily%20Devotions&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=217206929&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_6FLvV8x0MFYMPzsu5ZPUy5CVaVUftisCF8t3HgcpA95qDsEu__Dyvpd_lQmICVTkNOWL8VDBGZaTIfj-rxLZb1c3QAA&utm_content=217206929&utm_source=hs_email#disqus_thread

How Do I Hang On to Hope When I’m Still Hurting?
June 30, 2022
by Lysa TerKeurst

“I waited patiently for the LORD; he inclined to me and heard my cry.” (Psalm 40:1, ESV)

Are there deep disappointments in your life that seem to linger on and on?

Do you feel like you’ve prayed the same prayers over and over, with little to no change?

I understand how hard that is. Over the last few years, I’ve walked through some of the most heartbreaking seasons. And although the circumstances of your life may be different, you probably have your own middle-of-the-night moments wrestling through tears, too.  There are memories that still hurt. Realities that make you wonder if you’ll ever feel normal again. Sufferings that seem forever long. And you’re disappointed that today you aren’t living in the promises of God you’ve begged Him to bring to pass. In your most private moments, you want to scream at the unfairness of it all words you don’t use around your Bible friends. But then there are more hopeful moments when you want to turn up the praise music, lift up honest prayers and declare God is good even when the situation doesn’t seem good.  Hurting but still hoping that is the human journey.  And that is where we find David in Psalm 40. In the first 10 verses, David praised God for delivering him, but then in verses 11 through 17, he was crying out for God to deliver him again. David was hurting but still hoping.  Hoping doesn’t mean we ignore reality. No, hoping means we acknowledge reality in the very same breath that we acknowledge God’s sovereignty His absolute ability and power to work as He sees best.  Our hope can’t be tied to whether or not a circumstance or another person changes. Our hope must be tied to the unchanging promises of God. We hope for the good we know God will ultimately bring from our situation, whether the good turns out to match our desires or not. And sometimes that takes a while. The process often requires us to be persevering and patient.  Honestly, I know that can feel a little overwhelming. I want the promised blessing of Psalm 40:4 (ESV): “Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust …”

But I forget that this kind of trusting in God is often forged in the crucible of longsuffering.  God isn’t picking on me. God is picking me to personally live out one of His promises. It’s a high honor. But it doesn’t always feel that way. I’ve got to walk through the low places of the process before I’m perfectly equipped to live the promise.

We read about some of the low places of the process in Psalm 40:1-3a (ESV):  “I waited patiently for the LORD; he inclined to me and heard my cry. He drew me up from the pit of destruction, out of the miry bog, and set my feet upon a rock, making my steps secure. He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God.” (emphases added)

The idea of waiting patiently is incredibly important in this psalm. The Hebrew word for “waited” in verse 1 indicates the wait is ongoing, and it holds a sense of eager expectancy and hope.  So while I want the solid rock on which to stand, first I have to wait patiently for the Lord to lift me out of the slime and mud and “set my feet” (v. 2). That word “set” in the original Hebrew is qum, which means “to arise or take a stand.” God has to take me through the process of getting unstuck from what’s been holding me captive before I can take a stand.  I also want that “new song” promised in the psalm (v. 3). Did you notice, though, what comes before the promise of a new song?

It's the many cries to the Lord for help. The most powerful praise songs are often guttural cries of pain that have turned into beautiful melodies.  I know this is hard. So let me be the one to lean in and whisper these words to you as we begin to wrestle through this journey together:  God is working things out. He’s not far away. He is right here with us. Even if our prayers aren’t answered in the way and the timing we want. Even when this process feels messy. We will trust God is good.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]