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

Adoption query

  • 18-09-2018 3:46pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭


    Hi All,

    I am currently working away on a family tree, and it seems there is a chance that one of my grandmothers (on my mother's side) may have been adopted.

    I contact the HSE (Births, Marriages, and Deaths) for a copy of her birth cert and they have no record of it.

    I am a member of findmypast.ie and I could find no record of her on the website, even though I am certain of the year she was born, her parents' names, where she was born, her marriage date, etc.

    There does not appear to be any record of her, until she got married in 1936.

    I am just wondering if you could help with the following:

    1. Is it possible not to have a birth cert? My mother believes it is. Having spoken to her older sisters, she suspects that my grandmother's actual biological mother was in fact her aunt, who became pregnant "out of wedlock". The aunt then unofficial gave my grandmother to her sister and her husband, to raise.

    2. Would there not have been some suspicion when my grandmother entered school or got married, if she did not have a birth cert?

    3. How likely is it to confirm her biological parents?

    4. Is there any other advice anyone can give to investigate this further? I have already reached out to the General office in Roscommon. They told me there was no official adoption in place until 1952, and they hold no records of adoption pre-1932. I find this staggering, to be honest! There must be thousands of people therefore, without any official documents of their birth??

    Thanks in advance,

    M.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭Vetch


    It is possible not to have a birth cert. My grandfather was born in the 1920s and his birth is not registered civilly. There are no unusual circumstances about his parentage. Birth certs probably weren't looked for for school but I'd expect her baptism should have been sought if she got married in a Catholic church. I'd try and get her baptism record and see what that says.


  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Meursault


    Vetch wrote: »
    It is possible not to have a birth cert. My grandfather was born in the 1920s and his birth is not registered civilly. There are no unusual circumstances about his parentage. Birth certs probably weren't looked for for school but I'd expect her baptism should have been sought if she got married in a Catholic church. I'd try and get her baptism record and see what that says.

    Thanks Vetch. I am working on the baptism details, so hopefully that will shed some light.


  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭p15574


    Meursault wrote: »
    Thanks Vetch. I am working on the baptism details, so hopefully that will shed some light.

    Re the birth cert, I haven't been able to find one for my granny either, even though they exist for her older siblings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Meursault


    p15574 wrote: »
    Re the birth cert, I haven't been able to find one for my granny either, even though they exist for her older siblings.

    Its bizarre, isn't it? Apparently my grandmother wasn't really aware that she had no birth cert until she went looking for a copy, to get a passport, when she was in her 60s. My mum was able to sort something out, using her confirmation details!

    Different times, I guess.


  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭p15574


    Meursault wrote: »
    Having spoken to her older sisters, she suspects that my grandmother's actual biological mother was in fact her aunt, who became pregnant "out of wedlock". The aunt then unofficial gave my grandmother to her sister and her husband, to raise.

    I wonder if this is pertinent to my case also? My granny was born between the 1901 & 1911 censuses and by the 1911, her father was gone. I can't find any death record for him either so, much as I'd hate to 'cast aspersions' on my great-granny, I wonder if perhaps my granny was born > 9 months after my great-grandfather left the scene - and perhaps the arrival of the new child was kept quiet? Like in your case? If I could only find that death record!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Turnipman


    My dad's (b 1918) birth cert wasn't applied for for months after his birth, by which time both his parents and the midwife had forgotten what his date of birth was; so they guessed!

    I suppose it wasn't all that important until the welfare state started paying child benefit!


  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Meursault


    p15574 wrote: »
    I wonder if this is pertinent to my case also? My granny was born between the 1901 & 1911 censuses and by the 1911, her father was gone. I can't find any death record for him either so, much as I'd hate to 'cast aspersions' on my great-granny, I wonder if perhaps my granny was born > 9 months after my great-grandfather left the scene - and perhaps the arrival of the new child was kept quiet? Like in your case? If I could only find that death record!

    It could well be. If you know the area she was born, then maybe you could track down where she was baptised?

    By the sounds of it, there were two options back then if you got pregnant and you weren't married. Either someone in the family - example an older sister, who was already married - took the baby in some form of unofficial adoption within the family, and the real mother was sent on a boat to the UK, or wherever, or else the more depressing option which probably meant both baby and mother ended up in some institution such as the Magdelane Laundery?

    I assume you would be aware at this stage if a direct grandparent/great grandparent of yours ended up in one of these awful places? Chances are, only someone very close to the family would "take on the burden" of a child that wasn't theirs?

    From what my mum now admits to, that sounds like what happened in my own grandmother's case, because there was a young grand aunt of her's that was sent off to the UK around the time my grandmother was born.


  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭p15574


    Meursault wrote: »
    It could well be. If you know the area she was born, then maybe you could track down where she was baptised?

    By the sounds of it, there were two options back then if you got pregnant and you weren't married. Either someone in the family - example an older sister, who was already married - took the baby in some form of unofficial adoption within the family, and the real mother was sent on a boat to the UK, or wherever, or else the more depressing option which probably meant both baby and mother ended up in some institution such as the Magdelane Laundery?

    I assume you would be aware at this stage if a direct grandparent/great grandparent of yours ended up in one of these awful places? Chances are, only someone very close to the family would "take on the burden" of a child that wasn't theirs?

    From what my mum now admits to, that sounds like what happened in my own grandmother's case, because there was a young grand aunt of her's that was sent off to the UK around the time my grandmother was born.

    I've tried to find the baptism, with no luck, and no response to an email to the parish priest - I plan to try in person at the church sometime, but I've only been in the area twice in the last 35 years or so! Sometime. In this case, she was born into a family with older siblings already hence why she wasn't passed on to someone else. Unless!...she was born to someone else and my "great granny" took her in...I had never considered that possibility before. Either way, it might explain my mother's recent DNA results having a much lower level of "Irishness" than I expected!

    Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack your thread, I was just pointing out similarities in case they were helpful to you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Meursault


    p15574 wrote: »
    I've tried to find the baptism, with no luck, and no response to an email to the parish priest - I plan to try in person at the church sometime, but I've only been in the area twice in the last 35 years or so! Sometime. In this case, she was born into a family with older siblings already hence why she wasn't passed on to someone else. Unless!...she was born to someone else and my "great granny" took her in...I had never considered that possibility before. Either way, it might explain my mother's recent DNA results having a much lower level of "Irishness" than I expected!

    Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack your thread, I was just pointing out similarities in case they were helpful to you.

    Not at all. This is very interesting. Its a hot topic at the moment I'd say, especially considering the numbers doing DNA testing and family trees. This DNA testing is going to throw up a lot of shocks for people!

    I'd say another good source of information would be to chat to your eldest relatives. Its amazing how much they remember when you get them going on the topic. Its also a really nice way to re-connect with them. I know in my own case, once I started on the family tree, there wasn't much information from my parents and other relatives, but as i discovered details on some of the genealogy websites, it kind of jogged the memories of my family.

    Also, if your grandparent was married, confirmed, held a passport at some stage, they must have had some documentation to prove they were who they said they were. It may not be a State birth cert but it might nevertheless throw up some clues.

    Anyway, the best of luck. Let me know if you have any luck.


  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭DamoRed


    The same lack of birth cert has almost confirmed what I'd been told about my father's family.

    A few months back, I had a chat with a cousin who is 22 years older than me and with a good memory of the family unit back then. He surprised me when he told me that his mother and her 3 female siblings were not natural children to our grandparents, but 'taken in'. The story is clouded in some doubt, in that 'as far as he knew' my father and an older brother were their own natural children. However, at the time, I wondered whether this cousin was just telling me what he thought I wanted to hear.

    With my father's and mother's date of birth, I went to the GRO last week and did a general search. Within minutes, my mother's record was found, but no sign of my father's. Even trying different quarters and years either side of his assumed date of birth. This created the rising suspicion that my father was also taken in and raised by my 'Nan'. Not having any details about the other brother, I didn't wish to waste time to attempt to look for him, as I had plenty more to search for already.

    There is no doubt about the girls in the family, only for the details of their origin. A couple of weeks ago, I spoke with an elderly lady nearby, who knew the family. She confirmed that all 4 girls in that family were 'taken in' but they were of different parentage. However, they all went by the same surname, which was not the family name. I'm struggling to understand how this can be. if they're all children of different families, and taken into another family, how can they all be known as the same surname that's different to the fostering/adoptive family?


    She named one family and specifically, the mother of one of the 4 girls. She was very certain of this because she was related to them on her mother's side. I've found that named woman's birth cert, b1900, who would have been about 18-19 when she had a child of her own that was subsequently raised by my Nan. The curiosity is, as mentioned above, that this surname is that which all the 'adopted' children were known as, as distinct from my Nan's name.

    The search continues. Most likely with a return visit to the lady in question to clarify and verify some things and hopefully pick up further info she may have remembered since.


    Similarly, I don't want to hijack your thread, but it's the only other thread here that relates to the same problems - the lack of records of those who were adopted pre 1932.

    I look forward to news of any progress you make and keep you posted on any progress of my own.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Meursault


    That's really interesting DamoRed.

    I know of a separate case in my own extended family. My own godfather was adopted by my father's cousins' family. Rather than take the family name he kept his own family name, even though this would have been in the 1960s, and adoption would have been a formal procedure by then. It was a sad story actually, because he was sent to Artane as a child. It was from there that he was adopted. My dad told me that he never spoke about it, so god only knows what he witnessed or what he was subjected to in there.

    Anyway, presumably because he was old enough to realise that he was being adopted, he kept his own biological family name. Perhaps its the same in your case? Maybe the eldest of the three girls was aware of her own family name and kept it, and then the younger ones just used the same name, knowing that they were in the same set of circumstances, without actually knowing their own details?

    There are so many cases such as these, that are coming to light now. They were exceptionally hard times back then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,310 ✭✭✭jasonb


    I know we've swapped a couple of messages already in my thread Meursault, but just to add, my Grandad is marked in the 1901 Census as the 'Adopted Son' of the head of the household, and he's 18 in that Census and has kept his birthname and not taken on the name of the family he lived with. In the 1911 Census he's with the same family (though in a different house on the same street) and he's listed as Boarder. I've no idea yet how he got from his birth family to his adopted family, or how 'official' or not that adoption was.

    That's all assuming that the guy in the Census is my Grandad of course! :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Meursault


    jasonb wrote: »
    I know we've swapped a couple of messages already in my thread Meursault, but just to add, my Grandad is marked in the 1901 Census as the 'Adopted Son' of the head of the household, and he's 18 in that Census and has kept his birthname and not taken on the name of the family he lived with. In the 1911 Census he's with the same family (though in a different house on the same street) and he's listed as Boarder. I've no idea yet how he got from his birth family to his adopted family, or how 'official' or not that adoption was.

    That's all assuming that the guy in the Census is my Grandad of course! :)

    Jaysus, you have me worried now about the accuracy of the census! I wonder was there an indifferent attitude to all this back then, like they had more important stuff to worry about, than filling in these forms properly!? Add to the equation also that this might have been seen as "British interference" in Ireland. Given that all census returns prior to 1901 were basically destroyed, i assume they weren't taken all that seriously, which is a real pity for those of us who are interested in this stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭DamoRed


    My brother-in-law tells me that in both his parents' families, in rural Mayo, the inclination on seeing someone coming to the door on official looking business, would be to hide and not answer, on the assumption they were looking for something that wasn't theirs, and thus no census records would exist in their case, even if no records were ever destroyed.


    Another curiosity is, if the boys were also 'adopted', why would they be given the family name when the girls were not? Or if they were originally called by any other surname, at what point, and in what circumstances did they officially take the family name?


  • Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭kildarejohn


    Meursault wrote: »
    Jaysus, you have me worried now about the accuracy of the census! I wonder was there an indifferent attitude to all this back then, .

    I have come across a case where a child (illegitimate) was recorded as "grand daughter" of the head of household in 1901, and "niece" of the same person in 1911. I suspect this had more to do with it being a different Enumerator than any change of attitude between 1901 and 1911. If the Enumerator knew the family, then he probably already knew the status of the child, if the Enumerator was a stranger then the family would tell him what seemed more acceptable.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,609 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    MOD HAT ON

    There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread. I'm posting on mobile atm so can't give as full a response as I'd like or do links easily.
    That said:
    - Please read our sticky on tracing your ancestors, since both of you are new to genealogy.
    - Please use the search function, there are many threads on not being able to find civil births and on adoption (also see the adoption forum)
    - Very few people lied on the census to cause hassle - it's much more likely to be genuine ignorance. They did however take it seriously because people, being less well educated, were more likely to obey authority figures like the RIC constanstable doubling as census enumerator.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,310 ✭✭✭jasonb


    Sorry, didn’t mean to cause any hassle!


  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Meursault


    pinkypinky wrote: »
    MOD HAT ON

    There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread. I'm posting on mobile atm so can't give as full a response as I'd like or do links easily.
    That said:
    - Please read our sticky on tracing your ancestors, since both of you are new to genealogy.
    - Please use the search function, there are many threads on not being able to find civil births and on adoption (also see the adoption forum)
    - Very few people lied on the census to cause hassle - it's much more likely to be genuine ignorance. They did however take it seriously because people, being less well educated, were more likely to obey authority figures like the RIC constanstable doubling as census enumerator.

    No problem pinky, it was just idle speculation. Its a discussion board afterall. I take your points on board though. I'll take a look at the previous threads on the same topic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7 murf96


    Hi Jasonb
    Sorry it's taken me a while to reply to your original query. I had a bit of trouble with the signup process - it's obviously not idiot-

    proof!
    First of all I investigated who were the neighbours of John Byrne in the 1901 census. This can be quickly ascertained by looking at

    the Enumerators report (Form B1). Lo and behold living next door was James Byrne and his family. This looked promising,

    seemingly too much of a coincidence.
    So then I searched for a marriage for James and Mary A Byrne and found that James Byrne married Mary Anne Hart at

    Blanchardstown on 13 Jul 1888. This seemed like a setback since the 1901 Census indicated that John was born circa 1882.
    So I started looking for births of their children. First I found Bridget, born 16 Dec 1886 (actually registered on 7 Jan 1887) This was

    two years before their marriage date, but they were both named on the birth registration. Next I found Bartholemew, born on 13 Jul

    1888, ie on the same day as their marriage. So Bart gets into wedlock by the skin of his teeth!! (maybe that's the wrong turn of phrase

    since he probably didn't have any teeth at that stage)
    Anyway that prompts the question, was there a John before Bridget?
    Sure enough, we find John, born 22 Jan 1884, at 65 Kirivan Street Cottages. His father James at that time was a police constable.
    Once again both James and Mary Anne appear on the birth registration.
    The adoption of John by the McAntees may have been an unofficial arrangement which was convenient for both families.

    Regardless, at 26 years of age he was still living nextdoor to his birth parents.
    Cheers murf


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,310 ✭✭✭jasonb


    murf96 wrote: »
    Hi Jasonb
    Sorry it's taken me a while to reply to your original query. I had a bit of trouble with the signup process - it's obviously not idiot-

    proof!
    First of all I investigated who were the neighbours of John Byrne in the 1901 census. This can be quickly ascertained by looking at

    the Enumerators report (Form B1). Lo and behold living next door was James Byrne and his family. This looked promising,

    seemingly too much of a coincidence.
    So then I searched for a marriage for James and Mary A Byrne and found that James Byrne married Mary Anne Hart at

    Blanchardstown on 13 Jul 1888. This seemed like a setback since the 1901 Census indicated that John was born circa 1882.
    So I started looking for births of their children. First I found Bridget, born 16 Dec 1886 (actually registered on 7 Jan 1887) This was

    two years before their marriage date, but they were both named on the birth registration. Next I found Bartholemew, born on 13 Jul

    1888, ie on the same day as their marriage. So Bart gets into wedlock by the skin of his teeth!! (maybe that's the wrong turn of phrase

    since he probably didn't have any teeth at that stage)
    Anyway that prompts the question, was there a John before Bridget?
    Sure enough, we find John, born 22 Jan 1884, at 65 Kirivan Street Cottages. His father James at that time was a police constable.
    Once again both James and Mary Anne appear on the birth registration.
    The adoption of John by the McAntees may have been an unofficial arrangement which was convenient for both families.

    Regardless, at 26 years of age he was still living nextdoor to his birth parents.
    Cheers murf

    Hi murf…

    Thanks for your reply. And sorry Meursault for hijacking your thread!

    I appreciate you taking the time to look into this, and I also spotted the Byrnes living next door and got my hopes up! However, on both Marriage Certs for my Grandad his father's name is listed, and it's not James. Of course, I'm assuming he used his real father's name on the cert, but who's to know really? Also, the same Byrne Family are still there in the 1911 census, along with 7 of their children, and that census says they had 12 kids and 7 are still alive, which would suggest that their son John, born in 1884, had died.

    Thanks again for looking into it though...

    Mods, would it be possible to move these two posts to my own thread so as not to complicate Meursaults? Thanks...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Meursault


    jasonb wrote: »
    Hi murf…

    Thanks for your reply. And sorry Meursault for hijacking your thread!

    I appreciate you taking the time to look into this, and I also spotted the Byrnes living next door and got my hopes up! However, on both Marriage Certs for my Grandad his father's name is listed, and it's not James. Of course, I'm assuming he used his real father's name on the cert, but who's to know really? Also, the same Byrne Family are still there in the 1911 census, along with 7 of their children, and that census says they had 12 kids and 7 are still alive, which would suggest that their son John, born in 1884, had died.

    Thanks again for looking into it though...

    Mods, would it be possible to move these two posts to my own thread so as not to complicate Meursaults? Thanks...

    Not at all JasonB! This is very interesting.

    @ Murf - feel free to do the same investigating for me! :)


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,088 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    Kirwan St. cottages.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7 murf96


    Meursault wrote: »
    Not at all JasonB! This is very interesting.

    @ Murf - feel free to do the same investigating for me! :)

    No worries Meursault, and sorry you made me realise that I also got caught up in the crossover between threads. I'll watch out for that


Advertisement