The right to family life: adoption of children of unmarried women 1949-1976

It is striking that it has taken a great deal of time–decades - before we have faced up to the truth of what was happening to hundreds of thousands of mothers and their children. Babies were taken away from mothers who didn’t want to let them go. They were told they had no other option and would, in the words of one witness ‘with an ounce of help’ have seized the chance to keep their sons and daughters with them and brought them up themselves.

While each experience is unique, we were struck by telling similarities in the stories we heard. Unmarried women were told that they had given up their baby for adoption, when in fact they felt they had no choice. We need to correct the record. Some children grew up thinking their mothers were feckless or irresponsible or gave them up without a care in the world. This is patently untrue. We have heard that many unmarried women put up their children because they wanted the very best for their child, and adoption was presented as the only option. However, that does not equate to giving up their child willingly. By saying mothers gave up their babies for adoption, there has been a perpetuation of a view that they didn’t care or love their babies enough to keep them and were content to give them to another family.

The evidence that we have received has done something towards setting the record straight on what actually happened to many unmarried women who became pregnant during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, and the appalling way in which they were often treated by those whose job it was to help them—professionals such as social workers, medical staff including doctors, midwives and nurses and sadly, often, by their own family members.

The evidence from mothers and from adopted people vividly demonstrates the struggles that individuals continue to face every day in living with the impact of those brutal and cruel processes.

This is about principles. Human rights exist because of the inherent humanity of each of us. The mothers were subjected to this cruelty because they were regarded as transgressors. They were not, but it underlines that human rights should be protected for all, including those who at that time are regarded as transgressors. (Paragraph 82) The effects today

There is a shortage of counsellors able to provide post-adoption support and the existing process for Ofsted regulation is one barrier to counsellors working in this area. The Government should consider as a matter of urgency how to make sure that the necessary regulations to protect standards do not prevent mothers and adult adoptees getting the support they need. (Paragraph 94) The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976 37

There are huge disparities in the timeliness of the responses of local authorities to requests for access to adoption records, to which adopted people have had a right since 1976, leading to unnecessary stress and frustration for those individuals who have decided to seek out family members. The Government should monitor and publish compliance by local authorities with adherence to the guidance that sets down deadlines for responses to requests for adoption records.

Birth and adoption certificates contain different names, with no connection made between the two. The Government should explore ways of ensuring a transparent link for those adopted people who wish it between both certificates, so that it is clear that they relate to the same person.

Adopted people face serious practical difficulties in putting in place plans for preventative medical care because they do not have access their parents’ medical histories. The disadvantages include a lack of access to benefits reliant on those details, for example free eye tests for those with a family history of glaucoma.

A system should be established so that a parent can pass on medical information that could be relevant to their child. This system would need to comply with data protection and privacy laws given that it would be dealing with sensitive personal data relating to health. However, this would facilitate adopted children being put in the same position as other children, whose parents can more readily chose to share sensitive relevant medical information with them.

The restrictions during the covid-19 pandemic highlighted the barriers faced by people wishing to visit, often to support, members of their family. The Government should put in place rules and processes that allow adopted people to identify themselves as a relative for the purposes of foreign travel and that mirror the requirements for foreign travel and visas that apply to other family members. The Government should encourage other States to adopt a similar approach in their own visa rules.

There is a wide range in quality of service by those employed, often at the expense of the individual, to trace relatives. While many were excellent, some were not, and some people were frustrated at the inefficacy of the complaints system for intermediaries. The Government should re-visit the complaint systems for intermediaries, and ensure that those systems are easily accessible and sufficiently promoted.

There is currently a missed opportunity for intermediaries to facilitate future contact between family members, without compromising on the importance of the rights of family members who do not wish to be contacted. The Government should reassess the rules for the way in which intermediaries operate, with a view to enabling them to offer advice to family members who do not wish to be contacted on the routes and support available to them should their views change in the future.

One of the most enduring and painful questions for mothers without contact with their child is whether or not they are still alive. The Government should explore the options for alerting mothers (who wish to be so notified) to the death of a child that has been adopted. (Paragraph 111) 38 The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976 An apology

There are a number of instances of the UK Government making apologies for occurrences of the past, which caused pain and suffering and in which the State had some involvement and that were clearly and emphatically wrong.

In this instance, many thousands of mothers have had a lifetime of pain and suffering because their babies were taken for adoption. This suffering was compounded by the subsequent branding of them as feckless and uncaring for having irresponsibly “given their child away”. These untruths, the hurtful words implying that women “gave up” their babies for adoption, along with the secrecy and shame that have surrounded their histories for so long have intensified the pain of separation for mother and child.

An apology by the Government and an official recognition that what happened to these mothers was dreadful and wrong, backed up by the other actions recommended in this Report, would go some way to mitigate the pain and suffering of to those affected.

There are some things that only a government can do, and for that reason that falls to the Government to make this apology. (Paragraph 127) England and Wales in 1949 –1976: adoption, human rights and society

The adoption practices that we have heard about lacked humanity and had a profound impact on the family lives of all involved. Many mothers were left feeling they had no real choice in the placement for adoption of their children.

The Government was ultimately responsible for the actions and omissions that led to a lack of protection for unmarried mothers and their babies, including by a failure to ensure that there was a set of clear standards of behaviour for all those working in the adoption system at the time. (Paragraph 147) The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976 39