Poor Law Application deciphering

[Calvin Wyatt]

I wonder whether the Mother was trying to keep her child safe as these were the war years, or, maybe she was doing vital war work herself.
Maybe his wife visited him or met up with him if he was in the country at some point without leave entitlement.
Carol

Yes I had wondered if the war had an impact on why he was sent out of Glasgow. Bellshill where he was sent is pretty far from Dalmarnock and not even in Glasgow, so that may have been a factor.

Yes there has to be some explanation. I just wasn't sure if it was common for there to be time to see his wife etc or if we would be away from home for the full duration of his service.

[Treetotal]

Nice work Philip, the only thing I would add is that it might be Ashgrove Street.
Carol

Spelling correction.

[RJ_Paton]

I wonder whether the Mother was trying to keep her child safe as these were the war years, or, maybe she was doing vital war work herself.

I believe that this is unlikely as it would have been recorded as such - The Poor Relief Board would not have voluntarily paid for the care of the child without referencing a charge to the mother. I have found them to be very particular about retrieving money.

Maybe his wife visited him or met up with him if he was in the country at some point without leave entitlement.
Carol

Possible, but experience (and cynicism) tend to look for a different explanation 

[Treetotal]

I don't know the answer Falkyrn, just offering possible scenarios  I guess sending for the birth certificate for the child might be the way forward.
Carol

[RJ_Paton]

I don't know the answer Falkyrn, just offering possible scenarios  I guess sending for the birth certificate for the child might be the way forward.
Carol

Always good to get different viewpoints.

Unfortunately the paper trail is not always the answer, if the father of the child was not her husband a lot would depend upon the honesty of the woman when notifying the Registrar - there was a certain presumption of paternity when a married woman recorded the birth of a child.

[scotmum]

The note for 11 Sep 1915 is interesting:
Sept 11      At ( ?? ) Sheriff Court Mrs Scholes was convicted and admonished

The nature of the offence is not mentioned, but an admonishment suggests that it could not have been too serious - and it did not prevent her having James McMenemy placed with her around four months later.

Wonder if it was actually 1914? A mention in Hamilton Advertiser newspaper of September 19th 1914, re a Euphemia Greenshields or Scholes  under Breaches of the Children Act. She was admonished for neglecting to notify the Parish Council that  a child under her charge had been removed from her care.

Payments were made to those taking on children, so obviously it had implications if a child was being paid for but wasn't living there.

[Calvin Wyatt]

I wonder whether the Mother was trying to keep her child safe as these were the war years, or, maybe she was doing vital war work herself.

I believe that this is unlikely as it would have been recorded as such - The Poor Relief Board would not have voluntarily paid for the care of the child without referencing a charge to the mother. I have found them to be very particular about retrieving money.

Maybe his wife visited him or met up with him if he was in the country at some point without leave entitlement.
Carol

Possible, but experience (and cynicism) tend to look for a different explanation 

This is Mary Ann, their second child's birth certificate. It notes her father is James but of course whether that's true or not, I'm not entirely sure.

[RJ_Paton]

Until proven otherwise the lady has to be given the benefit of the doubt 

As Treetotal says one possibility is that the couple met up for a short time during his leave (official or otherwise) without any proof to either support or refute her claim regarding paternity the benefit of the doubt must apply.

[Calvin Wyatt]

Until proven otherwise the lady has to be given the benefit of the doubt 

As Treetotal says one possibility is that the couple met up for a short time during his leave (official or otherwise) without any proof to either support or refute her claim regarding paternity the benefit of the doubt must apply.

I am inclined to believe her, she was well liked within the family im usually very skeptical, but in this case, i agree, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. it may also be that Ii'm misinterpreting the service record also.