"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0310131857.36e7c055@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:<ulCib.769$bD.2975@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0310111010.1ad0ef15@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message Sorry Helen. I'm not prepared to argue with you. They were not my views on either theory. They were those of the entire adoption profession back then. They named them, not me. That may be the case in some people's minds, but for the most part it related to the birth mothers, not to the children. They were the theories of bygone years, Helen. Just theories. They were devised as part of the infant adoption propaganda. We are talking about temrinology. not actual fact. The clean slate was about the child. The clean break was about the mother. The *countless thousands* of little children who ended up in
institutional care might justifiably ask just how the 'clean slate' theory could
possibly have applied to them. They were rendered nonentities, alright, but in
their case, the slates were *smashed*, rather than wiped clean. The clean slate theory had nothing whatsoever to do with older child adoptions. It was solely about the introduction of AT BIRTH adoptions which were introduced into the US in 1943 during WW2.

Had it anything to do with the wives of servicemen getting rid of the
evidence of marital infidelity before their husbands came back from war?
What would have been the future for those babies, I wonder, if adoption
hadn't been available?

Until then infants relinquished for adoption were not place until they were around 6 months of age.

Where were they in the meantime? In Ireland the final consent could not be
obtained until the child was six months' of age, although the baby might
have been placed soon after birth. It was the law. The woman could rescind
her consent right up to the moment that the adoption order was granted! She
could ask to be notified of the time and date of the making of the order, so
that she could change her mind. Are you not *shocked* to discover that not
very many did so?

The reason for the delay was due to the fact that back then the child's mental and physical health could not be determined at birth. To prevent children being returned placement was delayed to ensure that the child was "fit" for adoption.

Hmm. Yet you say that babies were placed at birth. What you are saying now
rather knocks that on the head, doesn't it?
Even well after at birth adoptions were introduced any child who was considered to be developmentally "at risk" (threatened imperfection due to heritage) the adoption was "deferred" until its health and development (adoptability) could be assured.

Yes, our 2.5 year old wasn't actually 'available for adoption' because they
couldn't at the time properly assess the degree of damage done as a result
of her illness in infancy. They had to be able to inform adoptive parents,
so that they could decide if they would be able to cope. There is nothing
wrong with that.

Down Syndrome children are adopted in Ireland by parents who know exactly
what is involved. It was - and is still - up to the adoptive parents to take
special needs children. Do you not recall that many children born to
*married couples* ended up being 'given back' - left in insitutions -
because the parents couldn't deal with their children's disability, and the
supports weren't in place to enable them to do so?
Infant at birth adoptions was sold to the public as a 'cure" for infertility.

Well no salesman ever came to our door, Di.
To do that it meant PAPs had to be helped to believe the newborn would be just as if born to them without the bother of enduring a labour.

Your spite is showing.
Enter clean slate theory. Since debunked.

Funny that I had to learn about this, at such a late stage of my life. What
have I *missed*?

Helen Di Helen Di > > > > Di > > > > > > > > rode nature debate and was the belief that if a child is placed
with > > born without a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I DO think that > > > > >those who concieve under these circumstances have special
issues to be > > > > >addressed, and those issues should be addressed in detail. > > > > > > > > 'Compartmentalize' is the word that comes to my mind when I
read your > > > > words.. > > > > > > > > > But, those cases > > > > >account for such a small minority of the unplanned
pregnancies in > this > country, > > > > >I don't think we should suspend debate about the majority,
simply > because > those > > > > >cases exist. > > > > > > > > How easily you say this.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jackie

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:13:39 +0100, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:

Di wrote. Enter clean slate theory. Since debunked.Funny that I had to learn about this, at such a late stage of my life. Whathave I *missed*?


From Wake Up Little Susie.. Rickie Solinger
Page 152


...........Most relevant here is that by moving the governing
imperative from the body (biology) to the mind (psychology), all of
the fixed relationships previously defining illegitimacy became
mutable, indeterminate, even deniable.

Psychological explanations transformed the white unwed mother from a
genetically tainted unfortunate into a maladjusted female who could be
cured. The biological stain of illegitimacy had been permanent, but
the neuroses of illegitimacy could be removed with help from a
caseworker. The white out-of-wedlock child, therefore, was no longer a
flawed by-product of innate immorality and low intelligence. *14
The child's innocence was restored and its adoptability established.


*14.... See Viviana A. Zelizer, 'Pricing the Priceless Child: The
Changing Social Value of Children' (New York: Basic books, 1985) for
an interesting discussion of related issues..

In article <gZ8jb.1107$bD.3704@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in messagenews:c599139c.0310131857.36e7c055@posting.g oogle.com... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in messagenews:<ulCib.769$bD.2975@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0310111010.1ad0ef15@posting.google.c om... > "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message > Sorry Helen. I'm not prepared to argue with you. They were not my > views on either theory. They were those of the entire adoption > profession back then. They named them, not me. That may be the case in some people's minds, but for the most part it related to the birth mothers, not to the children. They were the theories of bygone years, Helen. Just theories. They were devised as part of the infant adoption propaganda. We are talking about temrinology. not actual fact. The clean slate was about the child. The clean break was about the mother. The *countless thousands* of little children who ended up ininstitutional care might justifiably ask just how the 'clean slate' theory couldpossibly have applied to them. They were rendered nonentities, alright, but intheir case, the slates were *smashed*, rather than wiped clean. The clean slate theory had nothing whatsoever to do with older child adoptions. It was solely about the introduction of AT BIRTH adoptions which were introduced into the US in 1943 during WW2.Had it anything to do with the wives of servicemen getting rid of theevidence of marital infidelity before their husbands came back from war?What would have been the future for those babies, I wonder, if adoptionhadn't been available?

That's exactly what happened to a woman I know. She was the product of an
affair her mother had while her mother's husband was off fighting in WWII.
Apparently she was actually kept for a month after her birth - then I guess her
mom's husband couldn't take having her around and she was relinquished.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<gZ8jb.1107$bD.3704@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0310131857.36e7c055@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<ulCib.769$bD.2975@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0310111010.1ad0ef15@posting.google.c om... > "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message > Sorry Helen. I'm not prepared to argue with you. They were not my > views on either theory. They were those of the entire adoption > profession back then. They named them, not me. That may be the case in some people's minds, but for the most part it related to the birth mothers, not to the children. They were the theories of bygone years, Helen. Just theories. They were devised as part of the infant adoption propaganda. We are talking about temrinology. not actual fact. The clean slate was about the child. The clean break was about the mother. The *countless thousands* of little children who ended up in institutional care might justifiably ask just how the 'clean slate' theory could possibly have applied to them. They were rendered nonentities, alright, but in their case, the slates were *smashed*, rather than wiped clean. The clean slate theory had nothing whatsoever to do with older child adoptions. It was solely about the introduction of AT BIRTH adoptions which were introduced into the US in 1943 during WW2. Had it anything to do with the wives of servicemen getting rid of the evidence of marital infidelity before their husbands came back from war?

It wasn't always as nasty as you want to believe, Helen. While what
you say is
certainly true in some instances, the primary reason was the belief
that these men shipping out may not come back alive and some women saw
it as part of the war effort to provide some love and comfort to those
men in
what might have been their last days on earth. The men who would have
otherwise married their "in the family way" girlfriends were away at
war for years and so marriage prior to birth was usually out of the
question.
What would have been the future for those babies, I wonder, if adoption hadn't been available?

Typically, the majority who weren't absorbed into their extended
family, went
into orphanages in the 40's, with some being adopted and others
returning to their parents at wars end when the father returned from
war, married the mother and they removed the child from the orphanage
once they had a place to live. That's the way it worked in those
days. However, the primary reason at birth adoptions evolved, was due
to the fathers who would otherwise be available to
marry the child's mother, was away at war.

Children In Need
Donald McLean
Chapter 4, Page 52 1956
Prefaced and endorsed by the Honorable R J Heffron, Deputy Premier and
Minister for Education in NSW

"The vast majority of adopting parents prefer to take a child from
birth.
When professional agencies have strictly adhered to later placements,
in
parts of America, a black-market in newly born babies has sometimes
developed. Placement from birth was forced on many American agencies
under war-time stress, and the departure from the former practice was
successful."

And

World Health Organisation Recommendations
According to a report by John Bowlby, M.A., M.D. based on his 5 years
study ofmaternally deprived children in british orphanages during the
war,
and on behalf of the World Health Organization as a contribution to
the United Nations program for the welfare of maternally deprived and
homeless children, in 1951:


"If a community is to remove this source of deprived children, it
will have to be more realistic in its handling of the problem, both
by providing economic and psychological assistance to the unmarried
mother to enable her to keep her child, and by providing skilled
services
to arrange for the adoption of those children who cannot be so cared
for."

Until then infants relinquished for adoption were not place until they were around 6 months of age. Where were they in the meantime?

In orphanages, just like every other child of the poor. All
Commonwealth countries were very "institution happy" in those years.

In Ireland the final consent could not be obtained until the child was six months' of age, although the baby might have been placed soon after birth.

Which era are you referring to? In Ireland the majority of children
languished in institutions until they were some years old unless sold
to Americans.


It was the law. The woman could rescind her consent right up to the moment that the adoption order was granted! She could ask to be notified of the time and date of the making of the order, so that she could change her mind. Are you not *shocked* to discover that not very many did so?

Not surprised at all. The same occurred here. The point you are
missing is that unmarried mothers were not routinely told they could
revoke their consent once signed. You should read the book I
recommended to Jackie. And the inquiry report. Even the professionals
agreed they did not advise the mothers routinely of their rights. One
of the problems the inquiry committee had with the consent taking
procedure is how the evidence showed that while the PAPs were being
routinely told the placement was not secure until the adoptions order
was made (under the Child Welfare Act 1939, or until the reduced 30
day revocation period has expired (under the Adoption of Children Act
1965) The adoption workers had not deemed fit to routinely tell the
mothers themselves of that right.

The reason for the delay was due to the fact that back then the child's mental and physical health could not be determined at birth. To prevent children being returned placement was delayed to ensure that the child was "fit" for adoption. Hmm. Yet you say that babies were placed at birth. What you are saying now rather knocks that on the head, doesn't it?

Changes in legislation Helen. You do realise that amendments to the
practices and procedures occurred over time I assume.
Even well after at birth adoptions were introduced any child who was considered to be developmentally "at risk" (threatened imperfection due to heritage) the adoption was "deferred" until its health and development (adoptability) could be assured. Yes, our 2.5 year old wasn't actually 'available for adoption' because they couldn't at the time properly assess the degree of damage done as a result of her illness in infancy. They had to be able to inform adoptive parents, so that they could decide if they would be able to cope. There is nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps in your time that was the reason for such a delay. In earler
years it was to prevent too many returns.
Down Syndrome children are adopted in Ireland by parents who know exactly what is involved. It was - and is still - up to the adoptive parents to take special needs children. Do you not recall that many children born to *married couples* ended up being 'given back' - left in insitutions - because the parents couldn't deal with their children's disability, and the supports weren't in place to enable them to do so?

I think you will find it was the medical profession who deemed the
child adoptable or not. And it was the medical profession who advised
married children to place the child in institutional care. The Medical
profession was teaching eugenics/social, racial and mental hygiene
well into the 1970's.
Infant at birth adoptions was sold to the public as a 'cure" for infertility. Well no salesman ever came to our door, Di.
The history of adoption is not specifically about YOU, Helen. Why are
you so defensive of it that you need to dispute indisputable
historical facts that can be found in any and all documents during the
promotion of infant adoptions?


To do that it meant PAPs had to be helped to believe the newborn would be just as if born to them without the bother of enduring a labour. Your spite is showing.
Your ignorance is showing, Helen. For God sake read up on the history
before you go disputing those of us who have. If I can find a mountain
of it in social work and medical libraries it shouldn't be too hard
for you to do the same.


Enter clean slate theory. Since debunked. Funny that I had to learn about this, at such a late stage of my life. What have I *missed*?

Obviously a lot. If you got your head out of the promotional
literature aimed at the general public and read some of the internal
Departmental material you might know a bit more of its evolution and
propaganda. And the terminology they used.

Di
Helen Di Helen > > Di > > > > > > Di > > > > > > > > > > > > rode nature debate and was the belief that if a child is placed with > > > born without a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I DO think that > > > > > >those who concieve under these circumstances have special issues to be > > > > > >addressed, and those issues should be addressed in detail. > > > > > > > > > > 'Compartmentalize' is the word that comes to my mind when I read your > > > > > words.. > > > > > > > > > > > But, those cases > > > > > >account for such a small minority of the unplanned pregnancies in > > this > > country, > > > > > >I don't think we should suspend debate about the majority, simply > > because > > those > > > > > >cases exist. > > > > > > > > > > How easily you say this.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jackie

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0310160556.37cca728@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:<gZ8jb.1107$bD.3704@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0310131857.36e7c055@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<ulCib.769$bD.2975@news.indigo.ie>... > "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message > news:c599139c.0310111010.1ad0ef15@posting.google.c om... > > "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message > > Sorry Helen. I'm not prepared to argue with you. They were not my > > views on either theory. They were those of the entire adoption > > profession back then. They named them, not me. > > That may be the case in some people's minds, but for the most part
it > related to the birth mothers, not to the children. They were the theories of bygone years, Helen. Just theories. They were devised as part of the infant adoption propaganda. We are talking about temrinology. not actual fact. The clean slate was about the child. The clean break was about the mother. > > The *countless thousands* of little children who ended up in institutional > care might justifiably ask just how the 'clean slate' theory could possibly > have applied to them. They were rendered nonentities, alright, but
in their > case, the slates were *smashed*, rather than wiped clean. > The clean slate theory had nothing whatsoever to do with older child adoptions. It was solely about the introduction of AT BIRTH adoptions which were introduced into the US in 1943 during WW2. Had it anything to do with the wives of servicemen getting rid of the evidence of marital infidelity before their husbands came back from war? It wasn't always as nasty as you want to believe, Helen. While what you say is certainly true in some instances, the primary reason was the belief that these men shipping out may not come back alive and some women saw it as part of the war effort to provide some love and comfort to those men in what might have been their last days on earth. The men who would have otherwise married their "in the family way" girlfriends were away at war for years and so marriage prior to birth was usually out of the question.

You misunderstood me. I was referring to the pregnancies and deliveries that
occurred *before* DH came home.
What would have been the future for those babies, I wonder, if adoption hadn't been available? Typically, the majority who weren't absorbed into their extended family, went into orphanages in the 40's, with some being adopted and others returning to their parents at wars end when the father returned from war, married the mother and they removed the child from the orphanage once they had a place to live.

As I say, I was speaking about those children whose daddy was not hubby,
therefore they had to be got out of the way rather quickly.

That's the way it worked in those days. However, the primary reason at birth adoptions evolved, was due to the fathers who would otherwise be available to marry the child's mother, was away at war.

Or who stayed behind and fathered a child with an absent soldier's
adulterous wife.

Helen


Children In Need Donald McLean Chapter 4, Page 52 1956 Prefaced and endorsed by the Honorable R J Heffron, Deputy Premier and Minister for Education in NSW "The vast majority of adopting parents prefer to take a child from birth. When professional agencies have strictly adhered to later placements, in parts of America, a black-market in newly born babies has sometimes developed. Placement from birth was forced on many American agencies under war-time stress, and the departure from the former practice was successful." And World Health Organisation Recommendations According to a report by John Bowlby, M.A., M.D. based on his 5 years study ofmaternally deprived children in british orphanages during the war, and on behalf of the World Health Organization as a contribution to the United Nations program for the welfare of maternally deprived and homeless children, in 1951: "If a community is to remove this source of deprived children, it will have to be more realistic in its handling of the problem, both by providing economic and psychological assistance to the unmarried mother to enable her to keep her child, and by providing skilled services to arrange for the adoption of those children who cannot be so cared for." Until then infants relinquished for adoption were not place until they were around 6 months of age. Where were they in the meantime? In orphanages, just like every other child of the poor. All Commonwealth countries were very "institution happy" in those years. In Ireland the final consent could not be obtained until the child was six months' of age, although the baby might have been placed soon after birth. Which era are you referring to? In Ireland the majority of children languished in institutions until they were some years old unless sold to Americans. It was the law. The woman could rescind her consent right up to the moment that the adoption order was granted!
She could ask to be notified of the time and date of the making of the
order, so that she could change her mind. Are you not *shocked* to discover that
not very many did so? Not surprised at all. The same occurred here. The point you are missing is that unmarried mothers were not routinely told they could revoke their consent once signed. You should read the book I recommended to Jackie. And the inquiry report. Even the professionals agreed they did not advise the mothers routinely of their rights. One of the problems the inquiry committee had with the consent taking procedure is how the evidence showed that while the PAPs were being routinely told the placement was not secure until the adoptions order was made (under the Child Welfare Act 1939, or until the reduced 30 day revocation period has expired (under the Adoption of Children Act 1965) The adoption workers had not deemed fit to routinely tell the mothers themselves of that right. The reason for the delay was due to the fact that back then the child's mental and physical health could not be determined at birth. To prevent children being returned placement was delayed to ensure that the child was "fit" for adoption. Hmm. Yet you say that babies were placed at birth. What you are saying
now rather knocks that on the head, doesn't it? Changes in legislation Helen. You do realise that amendments to the practices and procedures occurred over time I assume. Even well after at birth adoptions were introduced any child who was considered to be developmentally "at risk" (threatened imperfection due to heritage) the adoption was "deferred" until its health and development (adoptability) could be assured. Yes, our 2.5 year old wasn't actually 'available for adoption' because
they couldn't at the time properly assess the degree of damage done as a
result of her illness in infancy. They had to be able to inform adoptive
parents, so that they could decide if they would be able to cope. There is
nothing wrong with that. Perhaps in your time that was the reason for such a delay. In earler years it was to prevent too many returns. Down Syndrome children are adopted in Ireland by parents who know
exactly what is involved. It was - and is still - up to the adoptive parents to
take special needs children. Do you not recall that many children born to *married couples* ended up being 'given back' - left in insitutions - because the parents couldn't deal with their children's disability, and
the supports weren't in place to enable them to do so? I think you will find it was the medical profession who deemed the child adoptable or not. And it was the medical profession who advised married children to place the child in institutional care. The Medical profession was teaching eugenics/social, racial and mental hygiene well into the 1970's. Infant at birth adoptions was sold to the public as a 'cure" for infertility. Well no salesman ever came to our door, Di. The history of adoption is not specifically about YOU, Helen. Why are you so defensive of it that you need to dispute indisputable historical facts that can be found in any and all documents during the promotion of infant adoptions? To do that it meant PAPs had to be helped to believe the newborn would be just as if born to them without the bother of enduring a labour. Your spite is showing. Your ignorance is showing, Helen. For God sake read up on the history before you go disputing those of us who have. If I can find a mountain of it in social work and medical libraries it shouldn't be too hard for you to do the same. Enter clean slate theory. Since debunked. Funny that I had to learn about this, at such a late stage of my life.
What have I *missed*? Obviously a lot. If you got your head out of the promotional literature aimed at the general public and read some of the internal Departmental material you might know a bit more of its evolution and propaganda. And the terminology they used. Di Helen Di > Helen > > > > > Di > > > > > > > > Di > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rode nature debate and was the belief that if a child is
placed with > > > > born without a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I DO think that > > > > > > >those who concieve under these circumstances have special issues > to > be > > > > > > >addressed, and those issues should be addressed in
detail. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Compartmentalize' is the word that comes to my mind when
I read your > > > > > > words.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, those cases > > > > > > >account for such a small minority of the unplanned pregnancies in > > > this > > > country, > > > > > > >I don't think we should suspend debate about the
majority, simply > > > because > > > those > > > > > > >cases exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > How easily you say this.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jackie

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<z6Gjb.1368$bD.5170@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
snip It wasn't always as nasty as you want to believe, Helen. While what you say is certainly true in some instances, the primary reason was the belief that these men shipping out may not come back alive and some women saw it as part of the war effort to provide some love and comfort to those men in what might have been their last days on earth. The men who would have otherwise married their "in the family way" girlfriends were away at war for years and so marriage prior to birth was usually out of the question. You misunderstood me. I was referring to the pregnancies and deliveries that occurred *before* DH came home.

No I didn't. They occurred too, but they did not necessarily make up
the bulk of adoptions during wartime. What would have been the future for those babies, I wonder, if adoption hadn't been available? Typically, the majority who weren't absorbed into their extended family, went into orphanages in the 40's, with some being adopted and others returning to their parents at wars end when the father returned from war, married the mother and they removed the child from the orphanage once they had a place to live. As I say, I was speaking about those children whose daddy was not hubby, therefore they had to be got out of the way rather quickly.
okay.
That's the way it worked in those days. However, the primary reason at birth adoptions evolved, was due to the fathers who would otherwise be available to marry the child's mother, was away at war. Or who stayed behind and fathered a child with an absent soldier's adulterous wife.
Many of whom were other women's husbands whose marriages were saved by
virtue of speedy adoption. Marital farce.

Di
Helen Children In Need Donald McLean Chapter 4, Page 52 1956 Prefaced and endorsed by the Honorable R J Heffron, Deputy Premier and Minister for Education in NSW "The vast majority of adopting parents prefer to take a child from birth. When professional agencies have strictly adhered to later placements, in parts of America, a black-market in newly born babies has sometimes developed. Placement from birth was forced on many American agencies under war-time stress, and the departure from the former practice was successful." And World Health Organisation Recommendations According to a report by John Bowlby, M.A., M.D. based on his 5 years study ofmaternally deprived children in british orphanages during the war, and on behalf of the World Health Organization as a contribution to the United Nations program for the welfare of maternally deprived and homeless children, in 1951: "If a community is to remove this source of deprived children, it will have to be more realistic in its handling of the problem, both by providing economic and psychological assistance to the unmarried mother to enable her to keep her child, and by providing skilled services to arrange for the adoption of those children who cannot be so cared for." Until then > infants relinquished for adoption were not place until they were > around 6 months of age. Where were they in the meantime? In orphanages, just like every other child of the poor. All Commonwealth countries were very "institution happy" in those years. In Ireland the final consent could not be obtained until the child was six months' of age, although the baby might have been placed soon after birth. Which era are you referring to? In Ireland the majority of children languished in institutions until they were some years old unless sold to Americans. It was the law. The woman could rescind her consent right up to the moment that the adoption order was granted! She could ask to be notified of the time and date of the making of the order, so that she could change her mind. Are you not *shocked* to discover that not very many did so? Not surprised at all. The same occurred here. The point you are missing is that unmarried mothers were not routinely told they could revoke their consent once signed. You should read the book I recommended to Jackie. And the inquiry report. Even the professionals agreed they did not advise the mothers routinely of their rights. One of the problems the inquiry committee had with the consent taking procedure is how the evidence showed that while the PAPs were being routinely told the placement was not secure until the adoptions order was made (under the Child Welfare Act 1939, or until the reduced 30 day revocation period has expired (under the Adoption of Children Act 1965) The adoption workers had not deemed fit to routinely tell the mothers themselves of that right. The reason for the delay was due to the fact > that back then the child's mental and physical health could not be > determined at birth. To prevent children being > returned placement was delayed to ensure that the child was "fit" for > adoption. Hmm. Yet you say that babies were placed at birth. What you are saying now rather knocks that on the head, doesn't it? Changes in legislation Helen. You do realise that amendments to the practices and procedures occurred over time I assume. > Even well after at birth adoptions were introduced any child who was > considered to be developmentally "at risk" (threatened imperfection > due to heritage) the adoption was "deferred" until its health and > development (adoptability) could be assured. Yes, our 2.5 year old wasn't actually 'available for adoption' because they couldn't at the time properly assess the degree of damage done as a result of her illness in infancy. They had to be able to inform adoptive parents, so that they could decide if they would be able to cope. There is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps in your time that was the reason for such a delay. In earler years it was to prevent too many returns. Down Syndrome children are adopted in Ireland by parents who know exactly what is involved. It was - and is still - up to the adoptive parents to take special needs children. Do you not recall that many children born to *married couples* ended up being 'given back' - left in insitutions - because the parents couldn't deal with their children's disability, and the supports weren't in place to enable them to do so? I think you will find it was the medical profession who deemed the child adoptable or not. And it was the medical profession who advised married children to place the child in institutional care. The Medical profession was teaching eugenics/social, racial and mental hygiene well into the 1970's. > > Infant at birth adoptions was sold to the public as a 'cure" for > infertility. Well no salesman ever came to our door, Di. The history of adoption is not specifically about YOU, Helen. Why are you so defensive of it that you need to dispute indisputable historical facts that can be found in any and all documents during the promotion of infant adoptions? > To do that it meant PAPs had to be helped to believe the newborn would > be just as if born to them without the bother of enduring a labour. Your spite is showing. Your ignorance is showing, Helen. For God sake read up on the history before you go disputing those of us who have. If I can find a mountain of it in social work and medical libraries it shouldn't be too hard for you to do the same. > Enter clean slate theory. Since debunked. Funny that I had to learn about this, at such a late stage of my life. What have I *missed*? Obviously a lot. If you got your head out of the promotional literature aimed at the general public and read some of the internal Departmental material you might know a bit more of its evolution and propaganda. And the terminology they used. Di Helen > > Di > > > > > > > > > Helen > > > > > > > > Di > > > > > > > > > > Di > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rode nature debate and was the belief that if a child is placed with > > > > > born without a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I DO think that > > > > > > > >those who concieve under these circumstances have special issues > > to > > be > > > > > > > >addressed, and those issues should be addressed in detail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Compartmentalize' is the word that comes to my mind when I read your > > > > > > > words.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, those cases > > > > > > > >account for such a small minority of the unplanned pregnancies in > > > > this > > > > country, > > > > > > > >I don't think we should suspend debate about the majority, simply > > > > because > > > > those > > > > > > > >cases exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How easily you say this.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jackie