RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Mabeltown on Tuesday 25 February 25 12:24 GMT (UK)
-
A recent DNA test showed my husband as half italian. We linked to a family member so have the surname of the family in question. His mother was adopted but doesn't appear to have a birth certificate in her adopted name. The added issue is that her birth year was 1924 so before any adoption registrations were documented. Even worse is that anyone who would know anything has now passed. We assume that there must be a birth certificate with her biological name on it logged somewhere, but we don't know what that name would be - we only know the date of birth and area of birth. She doesn't appear to be registered under the name of the italian person. Rumour also has it that she was left on the doorstep of a church but we don't know whether that is true or not. We have an idea of the potential father but suspect this was an illicit encounter as his wife had a baby in the same year but the birth dates do not match so wasn't a potential twin. Does anyone know whether we are able to identify a birth certificate at all or is this an impossible task.
-
You said several times here that she was left on the church steps, etc.
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=885460.msg7585906#msg7585906 (3 pages of replies from two merged threads)
-
From an old thread (2013) (https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=644589.0):
Just to add that in January 1926 the Registrar General's Instructions to Registration Officers was that; "Any case of a child found abandoned should be reported to the Registrar General for instructions before any steps are taken for the Registration of the Birth."
and
See section 3 of the 1874 Registration Act, which gives the requirements "In case any living new-born child is found exposed"
-
We assume that there must be a birth certificate with her biological name on it logged somewhere
Why? If a woman is so desperate to rid herself of her baby and ensure there is no connection to herself, that she dumps it on a doorstep anonymously, she is hardly going to register the birth first. Or have I missed something here?
-
Recent case here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg00m1mv3eo
It would seem that the birth of the youngest child has not yet been registered although found a year ago
-
Adoption was only formalised after the Adoption of Children Act 1926 and the index of adopted children is distinct and separate index to the normal index of births.
The birth should have been registered in the the birth name in usual way as per the legislation of the time but what should happen and what actually happens are not always the same thing. Adoption was only formalised after the Adoption of Children Act 1926 so is irrelevant in this case but even post 1926 research is difficult as the Index of Adopted Children (a distinct and separate index to the normal birth index), is not open the the public.
-
Adoption was only formalised after the Adoption of Children Act 1926 so is irrelevant in this case
Not necessarily - many adoptions that had happened years before the 1926 Act were taken through the courts afterwards, to make sure they were properly recorded (especially for inheritance rights for example) and that could be done up until the "child" was 21, so it isn't uncommon to find pre 1926 birth entries marked as "adopted"
Index of Adopted Children (a distinct and separate index to the normal birth index), is not open the the public.
The index for the Adopted Children Register (ACR) is available for anyone to search, and certificates can be ordered using it, but it isn't on-line. It can be viewed on microfiche at the designated libraries who hold copies of the GRO indexes ( along with things like the most recent BMD entries, indexes of civil partnerships etc.).
However the ACR doesn't give any link back to the original birth name/entry - that information is restricted.
-
The birth should have been registered in the the birth name in usual way as per the legislation of the time
WHO is going to register it? Not the birth mother who dumps the kid and disappears.
Any subsequent registration will be done by whatever authorities who have no knowledge of birth parents
-
The birth should have been registered in the the birth name in usual way as per the legislation of the time
WHO is going to register it? Not the birth mother who dumps the kid and disappears.
Any subsequent registration will be done by whatever authorities who have no knowledge of birth parents
I'm sorry I don't have an answer as to who would register the child. Let me have a think and post a reply worthy of quoting out of context.
-
The point I am trying to make is that this post is about a specific person abandoned as a baby. If the mother is so desperate to get rid of her child and ensure no connection to herself, she is hardly going to register the birth before dumping it. Any subsequent registration of the foundling by the appropriate authorities will only have an approximation of the birth date and no information on the birth parents.
We all know what should happen as regards birth registration in 1924 and that although formal adoption wasn't introduced until a few years later, some children were retrospectively adopted.
OP has stated
A recent DNA test showed my husband as half italian. We linked to a family member so have the surname of the family in question. His mother was adopted but doesn't appear to have a birth certificate in her adopted name. The added issue is that her birth year was 1924 so before any adoption registrations were documented. Even worse is that anyone who would know anything has now passed. We assume that there must be a birth certificate with her biological name on it logged somewhere, but we don't know what that name would be - we only know the date of birth and area of birth. She doesn't appear to be registered under the name of the italian person. Rumour also has it that she was left on the doorstep of a church but we don't know whether that is true or not. We have an idea of the potential father but suspect this was an illicit encounter as his wife had a baby in the same year but the birth dates do not match so wasn't a potential twin. Does anyone know whether we are able to identify a birth certificate at all or is this an impossible task.
I am failing to understand why they should make this assumption given that the lady in question was a foundling
-
Nothing to prevent a mother registering child and providing whatever details she wished to but it makes little difference. Anything can be written on a certificate but that doesn't mean it is correct, the DNA wins every time. My grandmother registered 16 children though 4 were abandoned between 1918 and 1928 within a month of the registrations taking place. Some of her descendants refuse to accept their DNA results as they contradict the paper trail, a few 'we're not related' comments have been made over the years, some via comments in public trees, to people they share 350-400cM with, I sometimes wonder how different it would all be if the certs didn't exist.
-
" His mother was adopted"
What is your source for this information?
-
If from England and Wales then this link should help you know where to go next:
https://www.gov.uk/adoption-records