An elusive Birth registration *COMPLETED*

[suzs]

Yes your right, it was only opened in 1920 and only urgent cases of children/babies were taken in and out of 50 applications only 12 were accepted, dad would have been one of them but there were no other orphanges in Palm Nth at the time, only Wellington and there appears to be no trace of him in them that I can find.  But he could have been under another name in one of them and had it changed when he went to Willard for whatever reason.  The ironic thing was that the first matron was a Ms Gray, same as dad's name but I have been unable to trace who she was and what happened to her - maybe she had an illigitimate child?
I have even applied for some birth registrations in the same name as dad's in later years, same boy up for adoption x 3 times, but neither the Court/Judge or BDM could agree on what section of the Act I should apply under so I had to give that away - it was a joke.  I think some skeletons are just not meant to be found.

Sue

[SPC]

Yes your right, it was only opened in 1920 and only urgent cases of children/babies were taken in and out of 50 applications only 12 were accepted, dad would have been one of them but there were no other orphanges in Palm Nth at the time, only Wellington and there appears to be no trace of him in them that I can find. 

Have you tried the Wanganui Orphanage, which was closer?

Simon

[suzs]

Hi Simon,

I was not aware that there was one in Wanganui.  I have just goggled it but no reference to any names etc, do you know the name of it or any info regarding it.  I suppose I could email the library there.

Thanks

[SPC]

It was the Wanganui Orphanage and Childrens Home, in Campbell St.  It started around 1880s.

Simon

[suzs]

Hi again
Could someone tell me, in regards to birth registrations/adoptions, I have three registrations one in 1922, 1923 and 1932, all regarding the same child.  i.e.  in 1922 fiche  - 2453/1923 & 2268/32; in 1923 fiche -2453/23.  Could 2453, 2268 and 2453 again, be also found in the fiche with another name as this was three failed adoptions but were still registered?   I am unable to obtain any of them as I don't know the original name of the child but thought it may correspondend with another name.  Am I making sense?

Suz

[Lucy2]

Hi Suz

Yes, you're making sense   ....   kind of.    

I just need to read back thru thread to familiarise myself ... will get back to you shortly.

~   Lu

[Lucy2]

....  his DOB  (10 June 1918)

Hmmm ... I don't quite understand why this 1922 birth registration is of interest to you .... when you've said 1918 was his year of birth ?

Any amendment to a birth record, will have been recorded  in the child's actual year of birth (with a cross-reference to the year the amendment took place).

~   Lu

[Lucy2]

 I have three registrations one in 1922, 1923 and 1932, all regarding the same child.  i.e.  in 1922 fiche  - 2453/1923 & 2268/32; in 1923 fiche -2453/23.  Could 2453, 2268 and 2453 again, be also found in the fiche with another name as this was three failed adoptions but were still registered?

Hi again

I'm afraid the folio reference number you've given above, (highlighted) doesn't quite "stack up" ?

Seems 1923 'fiche reference should read as "2453/22" 

How can you be certain these were failed adoptions ?

~   Lu

[suzs]

Thanks Lu

All confusing I know.  When I found there was no birth registration for him in 1918 I was advised to look a couple of years later for late reg.  When I found these three I applied for them and was told they all belonged to the same child and were failed adoptions, hence my trying through the courts to look at them.  It could be conincidence that when, where and the Quarter they are registered match with dad at the time.   So I have been advised recently that often the new fiche number can also be in the registrations for the same child but in his original birth name?

I know the theory is that they are supposed to be cross-referenced to the original year but why would the reg in 1922 fiche have 32 after it yet nothing in the 1932 fiche.   Yes sorry the highligted one - 1923 - should not have 23 after it, it is just 2453.

 I think I am chasing rainbows!.

Sue