Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Adoption Scandal
Options
Comments
-
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Some of the ad's used at the time are saddening to read.
"Will childless couple adopt Finbarr? Aged 2 years, 2 months, healthy little boy, very intelligent, happy disposition, full surrender, no fee, home must be fully recommended, priests reference essential"
I don't see anything particularly saddening about this, apart from maybe the priests reference being required.
This child was being given the opportunity of a reasonably good home. Probably his best or only option of some sort of life.
People seem to be somehow outraged by the fact adoptions were paid for.
But virtually all adoptions today involve a costly fee usually abroad. And there is no such outrage. There is probably a fee paid to the adoption agency which is based here.
Adoption of Irish born babies is a thing of the past it seems.0 -
The main reason for the anger wasn't about not upsetting the women - the anger was because medically crucial time was lost.
And then to compound it, when the women sought answers the state fought them in the courts. The two situations are radically different.
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the the reaction of a 50 something to a child or a 20 something to receiving this kind of news is different. Adopted people on this thread have even said that.
It is not ageist to suggest that people at different stages of their lives will react differently to a major life event.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that some people will find this news to be very upsetting, useless and traumatic. No doubt whatsoever.
Multiple people on this thread have proposed the setting up of a system whereby people can find out this information, without having it foisted on them and avoiding inflicting unnecessary trauma. There is no denial of rights.
You obviously think there is no anger among the adopted group of people in this country - they have also sought answers from the state to no avail. As many are now over 50, they also feel time has been lost and they also want medical information.
There is no doubt that people of different ages respond to major life events in different ways.
However, there is no justification to withhold facts of personal information based on someone's age - it is discriminatory. That is adding insult to injury to many in the adopted community0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »to the extent that were irish women were in the last century?
Viewing the past through modern eyes. Read my extensive post on this.
There were precious few options available to these women.
Adoption seems to have been the best - by far.
Money may have changed hands yes. It has always happened even today. How do you think these babies are fed and funded?
Sh*ty time in Ireland's history I will grant you that, but adoption was the best case scenario for virtually all these babies, given how they were conceived, catholic Ireland, fallen women, families who couldn't care less, and wanted the baby and problem gone away as soon as possible.
Moralizing about it is pointless.0 -
Advertisement
-
Auguste Comte wrote: »Have you anything to back that up?Shurimgreat wrote: »Laughable response.
I'll take that as a no then.Shurimgreat wrote: »
Are you alleging
I'm not alleging anything, you are the one making allegations. The reason I asked could you back up what you are claiming was as an adoptee from the time in question I have done a lot of research into adoption in, into and from Ireland at the time, very little of which would back up your claims that,They likely treated them far better than how the families of these babies treated them. The families didn't want anything to do with them and were unwilling to feed, house or raise them.
The vast majority of firsthand accounts I have read tell a different story than the one you are peddling here.
I was hoping that you might point me to some independant accounts to further my research, I like to keep an open mind about most things.0 -
Lovely ending..may there be many more..
https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2018/0601/967481-adoption-kevin-battle/0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »Yes. Adoption was like winning the lottery. It saved most of the babies who were adopted.
The rest I agreed suffered. But then again they were abandoned. They were dispensable. Once they entered the homes, their families made sure to forget about them and likely talk of them was forbidden.
Its a pity the families of these babies also didn't see fit to follow up, bring them food and so on. But out of sight out of mind I guess.
The families were not allowed to see them. Period. They were prisoners. Please stop accusing folk.0 -
There are two films available online that will sort some of the issues being raised
Sex in a Cold Climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtxOePGgXPs documentary
The Magdalenes
fiction and I think not free
see trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzFMDRSOc000 -
Join Date:Posts: 25439
The whole scandal came about because people made decisions to cover up and falsify facts about the lives of others without giving them any choice in the matter. I can't believe that some here are still advocating that, despite all the stories telling us that people who have their own history withheld from them causes them more grief and hurt.
Others should not get to choose for those affected any more. They should be identified in so far as possible, and invited to view whatever information may pertain to their birth, and let them choose to find out or not. Ireland tried the "Authorities knows best approach" and it failed miserably so they try treating them as citizens, as adults and who are capable of making up their own mind on this.
The orders need to turn over whatever information they haven't burned yet. They should be legally compelled to and if that means Gardai interviewing an 80 year old nun who kept the books rather than tiptoe around her in undeserved respect until she takes her secrets to the grave, so be it.0 -
Advertisement
-
They should be identified in so far as possible, and invited to view whatever information may pertain to their birth, and let them choose to find out or not.
If you identify them and invite them do discuss it, you cant then say they had a choice to find out or not...
Make contact details available and encourage those concerned about their past contact if THEY DECIDE to do so.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 25439
If you identify them and invite them do discuss it, you cant then say they had a choice to find out or not...
Make contact details available and encourage those concerned about their past contact if THEY DECIDE to do so.
How can a person be concerned about their past if they don't know about their past?0 -
The whole scandal came about because people made decisions to cover up and falsify facts about the lives of others without giving them any choice in the matter. I can't believe that some here are still advocating that, despite all the stories telling us that people who have their own history withheld from them causes them more grief and hurt.
Others should not get to choose for those affected any more. They should be identified in so far as possible, and invited to view whatever information may pertain to their birth, and let them choose to find out or not. Ireland tried the "Authorities knows best approach" and it failed miserably so they try treating them as citizens, as adults and who are capable of making up their own mind on this.
The orders need to turn over whatever information they haven't burned yet. They should be legally compelled to and if that means Gardai interviewing an 80 year old nun who kept the books rather than tiptoe around her in undeserved respect until she takes her secrets to the grave, so be it.
But contacting someone (who may not know they're adopted) and telling them that they can contact the adoptions board for info on their birth is tantamount to telling them they're adopted.
How can you not see this?0 -
And thy deserve to knowCrabRevolution wrote: »But contacting someone (who may not know they're adopted) and telling them that they can contact the adoptions board for info on their birth is tantamount to telling them they're adopted.
How can you not see this?0 -
The whole scandal came about because people made decisions to cover up and falsify facts about the lives of others without giving them any choice in the matter. I can't believe that some here are still advocating that, despite all the stories telling us that people who have their own history withheld from them causes them more grief and hurt.
The orders need to turn over whatever information they haven't burned yet. They should be legally compelled to and if that means Gardai interviewing an 80 year old nun who kept the books rather than tiptoe around her in undeserved respect until she takes her secrets to the grave, so be it.
This has all already been done, although not in the manner you suggest thankfully.
All the Tuam records and those of the other homes are in the hands of the Commissioners who are still working on the report finally due out in Feb next year... All of this we owe to Catherine Corless by the way; google here and read up on it.
The authorities know what they are doing on this and all will be out next year.It will made bitter reading.
The orders are all but gone. Even 4 years ago there were only 2 Bon Secours Srs left who had had any contact with the Home. One had only been there on holiday relief and the other has Altzheimers .0 -
Jacoby Wrong Violin wrote: »And thy deserve to know
Has anyone said they don't deserve to know? I certainly think they deserve to know.
They deserve not to have what can be a very personal and emotional aspect of their lives dealt with in such an insensitive and hamfisted way that you seem to desire. If anything you're suggesting taking the choice of whether they know or not away from them.
It is a fact that at least several of the adoptees involved are unaware that they're adopted, have never had suspicions, never had a lack of identity or being or belonging. They're 100% content with their lives, their relationships and memories of their parents. It is almost a certainty that some of these people will be put through immense distress and suffering if we do as you suggest and at this late stage of their lives inform them that they were adopted.
Sure, there are another group of adoptees out there who may have had suspicions or have been told the truth or have connected the dots, and who want answers and to face up to their past.
You seem to want to service the 2nd group who want to know and f**k the 1st who don't? By telling 100% of those involved, you're guaranteeing to make at least some of them miserable.
Can't we satisfy both groups by saying "Anyone who wants more info on their origins can call 011234567"? That way those who live in blissful ignorance can stay in ignorance, and those who want answers can have them.
What is your issue with suiting everyone's needs down to the ground?0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »Many of these babies were abandoned babies as a result of crises pregnancies. Had they been conceived in more recent years, there is a very high likelihood the majority would have been aborted and there would be no discussion about anything related to adoption.
Adoption is often a messy, controversial area. No-one ends up happy. Which is probably why many choose abortion rather than having the baby and putting them up for adoption. Abortion is far far easier than a 9 months pregnancy and then adoption.
Our handling of adoption has always been p*ss poor in this country since the foundation of the state. On the otherhand many of these babies were adopted by wealthy Americans and probably lived long and prosperous lives. Being adopted in 1930s, 40s or 50s Ireland by a wealthy American was surely like a golden ticket and a route out of the impoverished backward Ireland of the time. The alternative was either staying in backwards Ireland or if in more recent years being aborted.
No-one in Ireland gave a damn about these babies, particularly not the government or state of the time. They were abandoned, they were dispensable and as I said if it was more recent times they would have been aborted.
This and some others...
Seriously cannot believe this thread turned into a Love Both propoganda drivel
All those years with your billboards outside the GPO and elsewhere you never bothered doing anything.0 -
CrabRevolution wrote: »You seem to want to service the 2nd group who want to know and f**k the 1st who don't? By telling 100% of those involved, you're guaranteeing to make at least some of them miserable.
Can't we satisfy both groups by saying "Anyone who wants more info on their origins can call 011234567"? That way those who live in blissful ignorance can stay in ignorance, and those who want answers can have them.
What is your issue with suiting everyone's needs down to the ground?
It's the Irish love of misery: cannot miss a chance to tell someone bad news that will make them feel crappy.
I reckon there are thousands more whose births were falsely registered ('shure it's only government paperwork, stick it to the man, he doesn't need the truth), and so who will never even be able to be told.
The widespread DNA testing and public databases that are now becoming available will have lots of liars sh*tting themselves as they realise what their kids can find out.0 -
CrabRevolution wrote: »Has anyone said they don't deserve to know? I certainly think they deserve to know.
They deserve not to have what can be a very personal and emotional aspect of their lives dealt with in such an insensitive and hamfisted way that you seem to desire. If anything you're suggesting taking the choice of whether they know or not away from them.
It is a fact that at least several of the adoptees involved are unaware that they're adopted, have never had suspicions, never had a lack of identity or being or belonging. They're 100% content with their lives, their relationships and memories of their parents. It is almost a certainty that some of these people will be put through immense distress and suffering if we do as you suggest and at this late stage of their lives inform them that they were adopted.
Sure, there are another group of adoptees out there who may have had suspicions or have been told the truth or have connected the dots, and who want answers and to face up to their past.
You seem to want to service the 2nd group who want to know and f**k the 1st who don't? By telling 100% of those involved, you're guaranteeing to make at least some of them miserable.
Can't we satisfy both groups by saying "Anyone who wants more info on their origins can call 011234567"? That way those who live in blissful ignorance can stay in ignorance, and those who want answers can have them.
What is your issue with suiting everyone's needs down to the ground?
That's a big assumption, who gets to decide what they want to know or not know?
As a hypothetical example, a social worker going through the nuns files out in the adoption agencies offices discovers that John Smith was taken from his mother in circumstances like this and had his birth certificate forged to show his adoptive parents as his biological parents leaving no way for either John or his biological family to carry out a trace. John's adoptive parents are sworn to secrecy by the nuns and the local bishop, this was fairly normal practice at the time and they stick to their promise and never breath a word to John about his origins leaving him totally in the dark.
He goes on to have a normal life gets married, has kids, his adoptive parents both pass away and is now in his 50's
The files that the social worker has discovered reveal that John's biological parents went on to marry and have 3 more kids giving John 3 siblings. They all signed up to the adoption register in the hope of contacting John, both to complete the family and pass on information about the family illness that he might be an asymptomatic carrier of, risking passing this on to his children or grandchildren , cystic fibrosis for example.
So now this information is in the states possession, John has no way of knowing that this information exists therefore is never going to ask for it,so who decides and by what cryteria whether or not John gets this information.
For me I would absolutely want to know and I get that others might see things differently. How would John and his families rights be best served?0 -
But what if John's biological parents don't want John or anyone else to know?
Some mothers don't want to contact the children they gave up or for anyone to know about them.
It is a no win scenario - it is great if they biological parents and children want to reconnect and that should be facilitated if possible but the grey area is where one or the other doesn't want contact. It is not always going to be happy endings and some people are going to be very badly hurt.0 -
Advertisement
-
Auguste Comte wrote: »That's a big assumption, who gets to decide what they want to know or not know?
As a hypothetical example, a social worker going through the nuns files out in the adoption agencies offices discovers that John Smith was taken from his mother in circumstances like this and had his birth certificate forged to show his adoptive parents as his biological parents leaving no way for either John or his biological family to carry out a trace. John's adoptive parents are sworn to secrecy by the nuns and the local bishop, this was fairly normal practice at the time and they stick to their promise and never breath a word to John about his origins leaving him totally in the dark.
He goes on to have a normal life gets married, has kids, his adoptive parents both pass away and is now in his 50's
The files that the social worker has discovered reveal that John's biological parents went on to marry and have 3 more kids giving John 3 siblings. They all signed up to the adoption register in the hope of contacting John, both to complete the family and pass on information about the family illness that he might be an asymptomatic carrier of, risking passing this on to his children or grandchildren , cystic fibrosis for example.
So now this information is in the states possession, John has no way of knowing that this information exists therefore is never going to ask for it,so who decides and by what cryteria whether or not John gets this information.
For me I would absolutely want to know and I get that others might see things differently. How would John and his families rights be best served?
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm arguing. Nobody is arguing whether they should or shouldn't have access to this info. What's up for debate is who decides whether they are made known.
It's not helped by the fact there's no half way or soft solution to it. If you're cold contacted by an adoption agency saying "we may have information about your origins if you want to see it", it's pretty clear you're one of the adoptees. They mightn't have flat out said it, but it's clear that's what they're implying as they wouldn't have called you otherwise.
In my ideal system, the (potentially unaware) adoptee gets to make the decision by contacting the adoption board looking for info. In your ideal system it's the adoption board who make the decision for them and just send the info out.
Your scenario with John is pretty cherry picked and rosy, assuming everything going right and everyone being happy.
What happens if John suddenly feels out of place in his family and second guessing events in his past he might attribute to being adopted? He could easily have 1000 unanswerable questions for his now dead parents, and similar for his biological parents.
Will he start seeing his brothers/sisters/cousins who he previously thought were blood relatives in a different light? He was happier before they threw this bombshell at him, and resents ever being told. As far as he's concerned nobody has benefited.
You can't deny that it'd be a major shock to some people's lives to be told unprepared and without even inquiring that they're actually adopted.0 -
CrabRevolution wrote: »I think you're misinterpreting what I'm arguing. Nobody is arguing whether they should or shouldn't have access to this info. What's up for debate is who decides whether they are made known.
It's not helped by the fact there's no half way or soft solution to it. If you're cold contacted by an adoption agency saying "we may have information about your origins if you want to see it", it's pretty clear you're one of the adoptees. They mightn't have flat out said it, but it's clear that's what they're implying as they wouldn't have called you otherwise.
In my ideal system, the (potentially unaware) adoptee gets to make the decision by contacting the adoption board looking for info. In your ideal system it's the adoption board who make the decision for them and just send the info out.
Your scenario with John is pretty cherry picked and rosy, assuming everything going right and everyone being happy.
What happens if John suddenly feels out of place in his family and second guessing events in his past he might attribute to being adopted? He could easily have 1000 unanswerable questions for his now dead parents, and similar for his biological parents.
Will he start seeing his brothers/sisters/cousins who he previously thought were blood relatives in a different light? He was happier before they threw this bombshell at him, and resents ever being told. As far as he's concerned nobody has benefited.
You can't deny that it'd be a major shock to some people's lives to be told unprepared and without even inquiring that they're actually adopted.
Yes I completely take your point, it's a mess with no definitive one size fits all answer. Adoptees have very few rights to any information here anyway and the "what you don't know won't hurt you" thing grinds my gears, but that's just me.
The only thing is why would someone who didn't know that they were adopted contact the adoption board?0 -
CrabRevolution wrote: »I think you're misinterpreting what I'm arguing. Nobody is arguing whether they should or shouldn't have access to this info. What's up for debate is who decides whether they are made known.
It's not helped by the fact there's no half way or soft solution to it. If you're cold contacted by an adoption agency saying "we may have information about your origins if you want to see it", it's pretty clear you're one of the adoptees. They mightn't have flat out said it, but it's clear that's what they're implying as they wouldn't have called you otherwise.
In my ideal system, the (potentially unaware) adoptee gets to make the decision by contacting the adoption board looking for info. In your ideal system it's the adoption board who make the decision for them and just send the info out.
Your scenario with John is pretty cherry picked and rosy, assuming everything going right and everyone being happy.
What happens if John suddenly feels out of place in his family and second guessing events in his past he might attribute to being adopted? He could easily have 1000 unanswerable questions for his now dead parents, and similar for his biological parents.
Will he start seeing his brothers/sisters/cousins who he previously thought were blood relatives in a different light? He was happier before they threw this bombshell at him, and resents ever being told. As far as he's concerned nobody has benefited.
You can't deny that it'd be a major shock to some people's lives to be told unprepared and without even inquiring that they're actually adopted.
But you see in your "ideal system" how would the adopted person know to contact the "adoption board" to make an enquiry if they themselves do not know they were in fact adopted which is the problem here0 -
A question - Should the birth cert always carry the name of the birth parent?0
-
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.
It would be a big deal if you were adopted by millionaires and you lost your inheritance rights.0 -
But you see in your "ideal system" how would the adopted person know to contact the "adoption board" to make an enquiry if they themselves do not know they were in fact adopted which is the problem here
They wouldn't. If they have no problem with their current situation and documentation or inkling that something is amiss with the identity they have established for themselves over the last 50-70 years, why would they need to?
What possible good could come from such a person being told they are adopted?
And what are the chances of significant stress and emotional turmoil?"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
A question - Should the birth cert always carry the name of the birth parent?
If you are legally adopted, you have 2 birth certs.
The first has your birth mothers name, address, occupation and date and place the birth took place on it. Her parents names and occupation also, just like any other birth cert. You might even have the birth fathers name, if you were extraordinarily lucky.
You will never see this cert unless you track it down with a little detective work and a dash of luck.
The second birth cert, which a companies you through life has your date and place of birth, with the name your adoptive parents give you, plus of course their names, addresses etc.
On this cert will be printed " entry from the Adopted people's register "
So anyone legally adopted will know the fact as soon as they need a copy if their cert for any reason, even if their parents didn't tell them as small children.
,(it is the accepted and common practice to let children know as soon as they can comprehend the situation)
Edit, there is a very good adoption/tracing birth parents thread here on Boards.
Society&Culture
Families
Adoption.0 -
My Dad grew up in an industrial,school,and never knew his parents.
Because he had no one to speak up for him, he had a tough life. orphans were bullied by those in for crimes.
Because no papers were signed, he could not be adopted, so grew up in the Artane Home and all the scary stuff that kids should not have to experience.
They had a horrible li life.
It had a knock on effect on our family
We believe his mother was traced but did not want to know him, but can’t be sure.
Adoption would have been fantastic for him and his life and ours would have been so much better.
You’d have to winder how many more scandals from the not to distant past have yet to come out, terrible stuff.
.0 -
They wouldn't. If they have no problem with their current situation and documentation or inkling that something is amiss with the identity they have established for themselves over the last 50-70 years, why would they need to?
What possible good could come from such a person being told they are adopted?
And what are the chances of significant stress and emotional turmoil?
Precisely. They would not because they are ignorant to a most personal fact and basic human right to know where we come from and therefore they will be informed.
You see the State was implicit over many years in secretive and illegal adoptions. Every person has a right to know their true identity and not live a lie and the State now has a duty to ensure that nobody continues to live a life built upon a lie however painful that revelation may be and allow these people access to their own birth records.
A persons basic human right to know their true identity absolutely trumps any other considerations of upset/trauma etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement