The Adoption Scandal

Mint Sauce

Apologies if there is already a thread on this, cant see it at the moment, but it seems some of the most vunerable in our society, our children, have been fcuked over again.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0530/966986-adoption/

Its emerged that between 1946 and 1969 there has been at least 126 cases, where children were adopted, that those who adopted them, were named as the birth parents. You really have to wonder just how bad it was for kids in our our so called Christian Country, if they were not abused by the Church, they were dumped in the laundrys, and now some of them, will never know their real parents, and any real parents were pretty much told to forget about them.

It also seems, that this 126 is only the tip of the iceberg. Just a shame, that alot of those responsible, will probably by never held accountable, or answer why they did what they did. Feeling so mad hearing and reading about this today.

:mad:

I don't understand this. I'm assuming their adoptive parents knew but still chose to hide the truth from them?

Cee-Jay-Cee

Ah don’t worry the next scandal will be along shortly and this one will be forgotten about.

nowaynever

Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it?

SEPT 23 1989

did Leo mention the dark days of 2018 when 4000 children were homeless?

Anyway back to the latest scandal

Joe Dog

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Apologies if there is already a thread on this, cant see it at the moment, but it seems some of the most vunerable in our society, our children, have been fcuked over again.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0530/966986-adoption/

Its emerged that between 1946 and 1969 there has been at least 126 cases, where children were adopted, that those who adopted them, were named as the birth parents. You really have to wonder just how bad it was for kids in our our so called Christian Country, if they were not abused by the Church, they were dumped in the laundrys, and now some of them, will never know their real parents, and any real parents were pretty much told to forget about them.

It also seems, that this 126 is only the tip of the iceberg. Just a shame, that alot of those responsible, will probably by never held accountable, or answer why they did what they did. Feeling so mad hearing and reading about this today.

:mad:

The people who are in the main the most accountable are the parents and families of these women who allowed them to be put into these homes.

They have way way more responsibility than the church or the government of the times (even though they obviously have to shoulder some of the blame).

nowaynever

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

did Leo mention the dark days of 2018 when 4000 children were homeless?

Anyway back to the latest scandal

All in tents along the canal were they?

Electric Sheep

Joe Dog wrote: »

The people who are in the main the most accountable are the parents and families of these women who allowed them to be put into these homes.

They have way way more responsibility than the church or the government of the times (even though they obviously have to shoulder some of the blame).

You don't think the adoptive parents who allowed the falsification of records should also be held accountable?

McCrack

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Apologies if there is already a thread on this, cant see it at the moment, but it seems some of the most vunerable in our society, our children, have been fcuked over again.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0530/966986-adoption/

Its emerged that between 1946 and 1969 there has been at least 126 cases, where children were adopted, that those who adopted them, were named as the birth parents. You really have to wonder just how bad it was for kids in our our so called Christian Country, if they were not abused by the Church, they were dumped in the laundrys, and now some of them, will never know their real parents, and any real parents were pretty much told to forget about them.

It also seems, that this 126 is only the tip of the iceberg. Just a shame, that alot of those responsible, will probably by never held accountable, or answer why they did what they did. Feeling so mad hearing and reading about this today.

:mad:

Leaving aside the issue at present I would think the majority of adopted people consider their "real parents" the ones that raised them and not their biological ones.

Klonker

I'm going to be honest and I'll probably be shot down for it, I don't think this is that big of a deal.

Wrong? Most definitely and shouldn't have happened but I just don't think it's a huge deal even to those affected.

Joe Dog

Electric Sheep wrote: »

You don't think the adoptive parents who allowed the falsification of records should also be held accountable?

It may be wrong but I would imagine adoptive parents always have the worry of being replaced when the children find out and being abandoned by the child they adopted. I'm willing to give people like that a pass as if you adopt a child in the first place you seem to be a decent enough individual.

The people who allowed their children to be put in this state run homes are the people who should take most of the blame, people tend to forget that the church were not armed so there is no real excuse.

odyssey06

No good can come from opening up this can of worms. Let sleeping dogs lie.

TheValeyard

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand this. I'm assuming their adoptive parents knew but still chose to hide the truth from them?

Yeah, they had to have known. Maybe shame of not conceiving a child themselves or not wanting it to be known the child was adopted? light rights or something?, ive no idea? Bizarre time our recent past.

Joe Dog

Joe Dog wrote: »

It may be wrong but I would imagine adoptive parents always have the worry of being replaced when the children find out and being abandoned by the child they adopted. I'm willing to give people like that a pass as if you adopt a child in the first place you seem to be a decent enough individual.

The people who allowed their children to be put in this state run homes are the people who should take most of the blame, people tend to forget that the church were not armed so there is no real excuse.

It's not that simple. Not telling a child that they are adopted can have serious affects on that child. Now the truth maybe be kept out of compassion and fear but really it isn't in the best interests of the children. They must be put first.

TheValeyard

odyssey06 wrote: »

No good can come from opening up this can of worms. Let sleeping dogs lie.

No, truth needs to come out, even on health grounds. The health of your parents (genetics, inherited diseases, etc) May not affect you at all, but a whole different unknown set of conditions.

On medical grounds alone, people need to know the truth about their past.

buried

Great how they can sit on these stories and then dish them out to the media who can main headline them, while down at Dublin Castle the most shocking tales of absolute, corrupt, criminal dogF**KERY is being reported just before the Sports news on TV news.

TheValeyard

buried wrote: »

Great how they can sit on these stories and then dish them out to the media who can main headline them when down at Dublin Castle the most shocking tales of absolute, corrupt, criminal dogF**KERY is being dished just before the Sports news.

?

Joe Dog

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not that simple. Not telling a child that they are adopted can have serious affects on that child. Now the truth maybe be kept out of compassion and fear but really it isn't in the best interests of the children. They must be put first.

I know it's not right to withhold the information but I can completely understand why someone would do this.

With all the talk of "empathy" in the last while maybe people should have some "empathy" for the parents who adopted children and understand why they would withhold the information.









BTW: I put empathy is quotation marks because I think some people just use that word because its emotive and suits their agenda rather than actually meaning it.

buried

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

?

You don't know whats being said at the 'Disclosures Tribunal' down at Dublin Castle, Murray?

Jimbob1977

I thought most biological parents wouldn't want to be traced in the Ireland of the 1940s to 1970s.

Hence, the organisation believed (rightly or wrongly) that the subterfuge was preferable.

TheValeyard

buried wrote: »

You don't know whats being said at the 'Disclosures Tribunal' down at Dublin Castle, Murray?

Ah no, I read about that! Yeah, horrible stuff!!

But tbh, so much scandal and shocking stories these days, its easy to get lost in it

Joe Dog

Joe Dog wrote: »

I know it's not right to withhold the information but I can completely understand why someone would do this.

With all the talk of "empathy" in the last while maybe people should have some "empathy" for the parents who adopted children and understand why they would withhold the information.









BTW: I put empathy is quotation marks because I think some people just use that word because its emotive and suits their agenda rather than actually meaning it.

Oh believe me I understand completely about the position adopted parents find themselves in but my understanding doesn't mean I don't believe they should withhold information from the child.

odyssey06

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

No, truth needs to come out, even on health grounds. The health of your parents (genetics, inherited diseases, etc) May not affect you at all, but a whole different unknown set of conditions.
On medical grounds alone, people need to know the truth about their past.

I don't think they do, need to. Small remote chance it might be helpful but I'm not seeing a need.

These people are at least in their 50s by now. Some are in their 70s.
Their biological parents are most likely dead.

What are the chances that (a) they have an inherited disease which has not yet manifested and (b) will be able to track down their biological parents or their medical records and (c) that information will be medically useful?

spurious

I'd be more concerned about the effect of finding out that the people closest to them lied to them all their lives.

strandroad

They might know that they were adopted, their parents knew obviously and might have shared the knowledge with the children (some probably withheld it though). It's the documentation that is fake, not necessarily their life stories as told in the family.

The best outcome with adoption is for the child to have no memory of even being told, it's something that's just part of who they are. Mam and dad would have been saying it to them from a very young age. If this doesn't happen then there is the situation of "when is the best time to tell". Can you imagine telling a 20 yr old everything they thought to be true actually isn't?

Now I think there does reach a point where telling the adopted person isn't a good idea and that's if they are very elderly. What good would it do to tell an 80 yr old they are not the biological son or daughter of their parents?

So it's best to do so at the very beginning and save so much heartache.

tretorn

There is also the question of inheritance and some people wont welcome a half sibling arriving for their share of the inheritance

tretorn

tretorn wrote: »

There is also the question of inheritance and some people wont welcome a half sibling arriving for their share of the inheritance

As far as I know adoptees have no claim on the family of origin's inheritance

HeidiHeidi

Deleted User wrote: »

As far as I know adoptees have no claim on the family of origin's inheritance

But they might imagine they have a claim on their adoptive famiy inheritance since they think they're biological children of that family going by their birth certs. Without a legal adoption cert, they're actually unrelated.



Heard a fella talking about this on the radio today. I have to say I didn't think it was that big a deal until that was pointed out.

downwesht

I wonder how many of the adoptees were children of priests and nuns.....?The religious orders must be held to account.CAB should collect the reparation money and use it to fund the investigations so that the real truth comes out.

uck51js9zml2yt

This isnt a new story. Its been known about for years just like the kids who were disappeared to the U.S,Canada and Australia.

Everybody was complicate in what happened. The parents who gave up their kids, the adopters, the church, the state. Society in general. Are we to lock up everybody?

HeidiHeidi

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But they might imagine they have a claim on their adoptive famiy inheritance since they think they're biological children of that family going by their birth certs. Without a legal adoption cert, they're actually unrelated.



Heard a fella talking about this on the radio today. I have to say I didn't think it was that big a deal until that was pointed out.

Hmm. Adoptive children do have a claim on the adopted family inheritance because they are legally part of that family. All ties with the biological family would have been severed with the adoption order.

This scandal seems to place those now adults in a kind of limbo. They are not the biological children of their parents but have no paper work to say so. In fact it says opposite which isn't true.

tretorn

If the adoption was done illegally then they are the children of the natural parents and could claim they were fostered rather than adopted.
This could mean they are entitled to inheritance.
This was probably done do the birth mother wouldnt be found, she may have wanted it this way.

Always number 1

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

did Leo mention the dark days of 2018 when 4000 children were homeless?

Anyway back to the latest scandal

Is this 4000 children sleeping rough or 4000 children that SOME of whom were born to work shy parents or parents who turned down housing that wasn't next door to their ma or thought having a child would be a great way to get a gaff???

Anyway back to the thread, this will bring poor old Simon and Leo back down to earth after their 'heroics' last weekend..

McCrack

tretorn wrote: »

If the adoption was done illegally then they are the children of the natural parents and could claim they were fostered rather than adopted.
This could mean they are entitled to inheritance.
This was probably done do the birth mother wouldnt be found, she may have wanted it this way.

Succession law doesnt work like that

No child is ever "entitled"' to an inheritance

Section 117 can be invoked but thats not for this discussion but just take it that children do not have any automatic right to an inheritance from their parents (adopted or not)

Franz Von Peppercorn

Great. I was missing some outrage today.

mrslancaster

McCrack wrote: »

Leaving aside the issue at present I would think the majority of adopted people consider their "real parents" the ones that raised them and not their biological ones.

Klonker wrote: »

I'm going to be honest and I'll probably be shot down for it, I don't think this is that big of a deal.

Wrong? Most definitely and shouldn't have happened but I just don't think it's a huge deal even to those affected.

odyssey06 wrote: »

No good can come from opening up this can of worms. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Lost for words at the above posts.

Hopefully none of you will get a letter in the next few weeks from Tusla to tell you that you are not who you think you are. How would you feel then?

As for letting sleeping dogs lie, the people who are affected by this may well be traumatised. They could have children and grandchildren who will all be affected by this. They may have lived their entire lives based on a lie if their 'parents' kept the truth from them. Their kids and grandkids all have a fictitious story of their background.

This is not about children who went through adoption but they also deserve to know who they are and their origins.

Joe Dog

mrslancaster wrote: »

Lost for words at the above posts.

Hopefully none of you will get a letter in the next few weeks from Tusla to tell you that you are not who you think you are. How would you feel then?

As for letting sleeping dogs lie, the people who are affected by this may well be traumatised. They could have children and grandchildren who will all be affected by this. They may have lived their entire lives based on a lie if their 'parents' kept the truth from them. Their kids and grandkids all have a fictitious story of their background.

This is not about children who went through adoption but they also deserve to know who they are and their origins.

It's only a lie if the children who were adopted ever find out about it.

Personally I think if someone gets to adulthood and they genuinely didn't know they were adopted and had no idea then they would be better off not knowing, I know that if it was the case I was adopted or even if my father wasn't my biological father I would 100% not want to know.

Ignorance is Bliss and to be honest some things in life you would be better off not to know.

Assetbacked

mrslancaster wrote: »

Lost for words at the above posts.

Hopefully none of you will get a letter in the next few weeks from Tusla to tell you that you are not who you think you are. How would you feel then?

As for letting sleeping dogs lie, the people who are affected by this may well be traumatised. They could have children and grandchildren who will all be affected by this. They may have lived their entire lives based on a lie if their 'parents' kept the truth from them. Their kids and grandkids all have a fictitious story of their background.

This is not about children who went through adoption but they also deserve to know who they are and their origins.

We are products of our surroundings. With humans, ignorance is bliss. What they do not know will not hurt them in this case.

odyssey06

mrslancaster wrote: »

Lost for words at the above posts.

Hopefully none of you will get a letter in the next few weeks from Tusla to tell you that you are not who you think you are. How would you feel then?

As for letting sleeping dogs lie, the people who are affected by this may well be traumatised. They could have children and grandchildren who will all be affected by this. They may have lived their entire lives based on a lie if their 'parents' kept the truth from them. Their kids and grandkids all have a fictitious story of their background.

This is not about children who went through adoption but they also deserve to know who they are and their origins.

So why tell them? Do they have to be told?

My point about letting sleeping dogs lie is why send out the letters at all?
Some of these people are in their 70s...

Would I want to get the letter. Lord no. Even if I was one of the people affected.

Trasna1

Klonker wrote: »

I'm going to be honest and I'll probably be shot down for it, I don't think this is that big of a deal.

Wrong? Most definitely and shouldn't have happened but I just don't think it's a huge deal even to those affected.

There are between 1% and 3% of people who have the wrong fathers on their birth cert. With DNA testing becoming more commonplace, it won't be just illegal adoptions that will be causing issues.

Interesting timing from the minister to release this now.

mrslancaster

Joe Dog wrote: »

It's only a lie if the children who were adopted ever find out about it.

Personally I think if someone gets to adulthood and they genuinely didn't know they were adopted and had no idea then they would be better off not knowing, I know that if it was the case I was adopted or even if my father wasn't my biological father I would 100% not want to know.

Ignorance is Bliss and to be honest some things in life you would be better off not to know.

The point is they were not adopted:D They were registered as the natural child of the couple.

Every person has a right to know where they come from. What they choose to do with the information is their decision.

Other people should not get to decide - same principal as the recent referendum and the marriage equality.

Maybe you think adopted/false registered people should not be treated equally or have less rights?

Joe Dog

mrslancaster wrote: »

The point is they were not adopted:D They were registered as the natural child of the couple.

Every person has a right to know where they come from. What they choose to do with the information is their decision.

Other people should not get to decide - same principal as the recent referendum and the marriage equality.

Maybe you think adopted/false registered people should not be treated equally or have less rights?

You honestly seem to want to be deliberately miss the point I made.

What good would it do for people in their 50's to 70's to find out their whole life so far has been a lie.

Sometimes having all information is not the best thing for people.

They should have been told as children they were adopted but of they get to this late stage of their lives without knowing and unless they have always suspected they were adopted (in which case they would probably be looking for the truth themselves) then I would suggest somebody who is completely unaware they were adopted was probably be better off now not to know.

mrslancaster

odyssey06 wrote: »

So why tell them? Do they have to be told?

My point about letting sleeping dogs lie is why send out the letters at all?
Some of these people are in their 70s...

Would I want to get the letter. Lord no. Even if I was one of the people affected.

that's interesting - What does age have to do with it?

Are you saying older citizens should just put up with an injustice simply because successive governments has ignored the problem? Surely you cannot be dismissing people's rights based on age

Joe Dog

mrslancaster wrote: »

Other people should not get to decide - same principal as the recent referendum and the marriage equality.

That was a gay marriage referendum not marriage equality referendum.People who would want to marry their sibling could not do so (regardless of how weird that might be).

Roger_007

If any of these people affected by this are unaware that they are not the natural children of the parents who raised them, then the fault lies entirely with those parents for not telling them.
The fact that a crime was committed in the falsification of their birth certificates is an entirely different matter.

odyssey06

mrslancaster wrote: »

The point is they were not adopted:D They were registered as the natural child of the couple.

Every person has a right to know where they come from. What they choose to do with the information is their decision.

Other people should not get to decide - same principal as the recent referendum and the marriage equality.

Maybe you think adopted/false registered people should not be treated equally or have less rights?

Poll a 1000 people who are over 50 and ask them would they want to be told this information if they were affected?
The vast majority would choose to remain behind the veil of ignorance.

Its not about less rights or equality.
If people must know their origins why dont we have mandatory dna testing to establish true parentage for all irish people today?

Its bonkers inflicting emotional turmoil on these people in this scenario unnecessarily snd out of the blue.

Set up a process where people who suspect they are in this cohort can establish the truth.
Dont send out letters in the post to people whose lives are sailing along in ignorant bliss.

odyssey06

mrslancaster wrote: »

that's interesting - What does age have to do with it?

Are you saying older citizens should just put up with an injustice simply because successive governments has ignored the problem? Surely you cannot be dismissing people's rights based on age

Age, or rather, time has everything to do with some scenarios. We cannot travel back in time to deliver justice. It does not mean anyones rights are dismissed it means there are some things that once done cannot be undone. We can set in place processes to mitigate impact and stop it from happening again.

It would a greater injustice now to upset hundreds of families with information they have not sought nor want.

mrslancaster

odyssey06 wrote: »

Poll a 1000 people who are over 50 and ask them would they want to be told this information if they were affected? The vast majority would choose to remain behind the veil of ignorance....

....Set up a process where people who suspect they are in this cohort can establish the truth....

How do you know they would choose ignorance?

how would that process work?

_Brian

I think it’s so long ago that there is no real benefit in contacting people who are getting on in years and turning their lives upside down.
I’m most cases their parents will be deceased now and so why tell them something that can’t ever come to a resolution.
It’s jist telling them something to undermine their identity, but telling them so late that there is nothing they can do to ask those involved any questions or raises.

So, “your not who you think you are, but we can’t say who you are and you will never ever know and must die never knowing the truth”


I see the argument of “medical history” being rolled out and honestly in this day and age it’s a useful snippet of information but nothing more. For someone in their 60’s onwards their own medical history is really all that counts. Any other relevant issues would likely have surfaced by now and been dealt with.

We shouldn’t let our anger at those responsible for these transgressions cause actions that hurt people in a way that can’t be healed.

I have some perspective on these issues being a father of two adopted children.

Joe Dog

mrslancaster wrote: »

How do you know they would choose ignorance?

how would that process work?

I suspect most people would prefer to go along with their lives. I know I would.

The people who wouldn't are probably people who always suspected they were adopted. For people like that there should be an office set up for them to contact and find out the truth.