The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) contacted Researching Reform about a roundtable it is holding on 27 April for its inquiry into the forced adoption of children of unmarried women between 1949 and 1976.
The communication follows a post we wrote about the event, which the committee saw.
A spokesperson for the committee said:
“Thank you for your interest in the JCHR’s inquiry into the adoption of children of unmarried mothers between 1959-76, and for publicising the roundtable event that the Committee is holding on 27 April 2022 in Westminster on the Researching Reform website.
We welcome expressions of interest to attend that event from anyone involved in the adoption process during those decades, and in particular the birth parents and adopted people.
The scope of the inquiry is, however, limited to the adoption of the children of unmarried mothers during that period, and it is the lived experiences of those touched by those adoptions specifically on which the roundtable will be focusing, rather than more recent adoptions.“
Researching Reform wrote back to the committee and invited them to explain why the inquiry had been restricted to women who had experienced forced adoption during that period.
This was the committee’s answer:
“The reason for the timeframe of the current inquiry relates to the regulatory and legislative changes made to adoption practices by two pieces of legislation – the Adoption of Children Act 1949, introduced after World War II and which changed the adoption landscape and the Adoption Act 1976, which introduced much tighter regulation and introduced many of the recommendations that had been made in 1972 by the Houghton Committee on Adoption.
That said, the Committee has tried to be as flexible as possible in accepting written evidence from unmarried women who had babies a little before or after that time, and whose babies were then adopted, the grown children themselves, or anyone else touched by those particular adoption processes.“
We did not ask the committee whether they had been flooded with requests to attend the event by families affected by recent forced adoptions, though we are aware that events publicised on the site relating to forced adoption often garner attention.
Researching Reform understands that many families in Britain will be disappointed by this response, but we will be unveiling a project shortly which we hope will help.
Researching Reform 
It is so very very easy to express regret for sins committed by others in the distant past and so difficult to admit that those same sins are still being committed by those in positions of authority in the present !
BY 1976 it had become no longer shameful for a woman to have to have a child when unmarried so the number of adoptions rapidly decreased and the highly profitable adoption industry was in trouble.
This problem was resolved in 1989 when the Children Act allowed forced adoption of children even when parents fought in court to keep them ! Numbers ballooned and the industry was saved at the expense of thousands of unfortunate victim families.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes this is the reply email I recieved too,they are ignoring the fact that this forced adoption is still happening to innocent families.
Its no different, still corrupt and still damaging our children.
What do they expect?Us to come back in 20+ years time when the damage is already done to adoptees?
I need somebody to see the lies and coverups the so called professionals caused to steal my grandchildren.
I won’t be alive to wait for an opology in 20+ years…sorry is a useless word when it’s too late for our children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
😘 Well said. (Gentle hugs) Xx
LikeLike
The poem first they came reminds us of the failure to realise the risk of turning a blind eye to bad things happening (or have happened) to others is that I do nothing because it is not happening to me. Is corrupt. Individual responsibility holds us each accountable for failing to protect that minority from abuse of their Personal Rights which are protected by law. There should be equality under the law. The HRA was enacted to protect the Human Rights of all Citizens. What is missing is that we must admit we did wrong in the past, and then take steps to ensure these mistakes are not repeated. Fair and thorough Investigations are needed to know all the reasons behind the discrimination so that we are competent to ensure that the same thing is not repeated.
LikeLike
I respond to all the above really (I’m an Adoptee engaged in input with this JCHR..)
This is a hideous “Human Rights” long game played out by politicians and the over-idealised : ” ideology of “family-life” comes into it at the expense of preserving genuine family life in a more costly way…. Follow the money trail ….!!! The financial supports for family life is paradoxically higher now for Adopters .. Lots of birth parents could be helped by parent-empathy training and therapies that Adopters seem to get now. How disgusting.
Some of us as Adoptees really do want to revoke (legally end) our adoptions but the “Church Of Adoption” as framed by High Court judgments and priestly attitudes etc make it almost impossible since the costs are stupidly high and the deep invasion of lawyers into one’s life and the State yet again is like accepting abuses all over again …
Many of : “We the adoptees” are actually abused by adoption and adopters. I have stats showing that .
This is why I am asking the JCHR to recommend Law Reform so some of us as Adult Adoptees can walk away (a Revocation Clause) from court fictions that stick to us on paperwork through life. My DNA and birth identity define me fundamentally and others too .. We should never have to feel that part of us lies inside a form of social death under the ideas of “rescue” or “Care” …That’s absurd .
It’s clear to me we have an Article 8 (Human Rights) case for “Living comfortably as our own definition of Self ” …But this is a long game .. Played out inside politicians eyes and other card game players shuffling away with stacked decks …
Do we Adoptees have a powerful blow to strike at the heart of Adoption if we gain the right to Revoke it’s fictions on our identities ? You bet we do ! Which is precisely why it will be resisted under the ethos of “preserving child care and adoptee family life” for some time….. It’s cheaper to push kids off in to Adoption and hail it as rescue ..
LikeLike
“The reason for the timeframe of the current inquiry relates to the regulatory and legislative changes made to adoption practices by two pieces of legislation – the Adoption of Children Act 1949, introduced after World War II and which changed the adoption landscape and the Adoption Act 1976, which introduced much tighter regulation and introduced many of the recommendations that had been made in 1972 by the Houghton Committee on Adoption.
That said, the Committee has tried to be as flexible as possible in accepting written evidence from unmarried women who had babies a little before or after that time, and whose babies were then adopted, the grown children themselves, or anyone else touched by those particular adoption processes.”
My youngest child out of 4 children and only one of them to be force allegedly adopted, was done under the AA 1976. Where secret family court had a record allegedly, where what I received was redacted with serial number 05/05 which is madness as I was allowed to know where the alleged adopter/s lived, who is not family or a friend I knew either.
Where the place I can no longer name, one of them did not have a record of said alleged adoption, refunded me my money for said certificate but then since sent me what I can only describe therefore as a fake, forged one anyway going on the written evidence I’ve seen so far which certainly leads me to believe that, yet I was told around 2004 when adoption was only still intended, me been misled adoption had already taken place with no professional there to properly tell me what was going on, because my Solicitor’s firm I used dropped me like a hot potato when their work wasn’t done with me yet, that the Council responsible would have got 20 thousand pounds for my son re his what I now know was his alleged adoption and I was told social workers don’t get a bonus.
As we know, Councils were getting bonuses and adoption targets are still been used with a target quota to reach to take children which means families, children and parents are therefore still been targeted too.
I was a recently divorced, unmarried mother too at the time the force alleged adoption took place in 2006.Then again, my Council had 2 different adoption years on record 4 years apart for same said unnamed child which caused problems regards taking my Complaint higher, but it’s all come to light since, years later.
A child could not be adopted under AA 1976, if work was not done with the family properly either, something else which my family was been failed on happening at the time, which is nothing short of fraud, Judge’s words not mine, then of course it changes the final hearing to an approved one or an approved judgement in the meantime when such huge mistakes like this comes to light. Only, I don’t always believe they are mistakes in instances where a parent/s was set up with the evidence to prove how that got ignored too.
Parents need to check the records for what is held on other databases for things like evidence submitted to Family Court, either by themselves or whoever is representing them, because you can be informed in writing your evidence is in but if it’s not heard in Court it’s not in Court and that’s one way how parents are been misled and deceived at the time.
Your Solicitor could send a letter to your Council and the Court, where it could be intended to end up in your barrister’s hands to fight your corner for example. But try asking your Solicitor and barrister in the Court’s waiting area if your evidence you got set up is in Court and see the cagey response you might get met with. This is one way to know all is not good, when you smell a rat like this. Also court clerk/s refusing to forward your evidence onto the Judge, are not there for legal advice or to play Judge and Jury, but that’s exactly what is the sort of thing that’s going on. Then it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly who was responsible for what, and no one is properly been held to account and that’s even when the Judge’s have seen the evidence of wrongdoing go on right under their very own nose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a serious deficit of representation of matters like this in the Labour Party who shy clear of really tackling the violations of current Forced Adoption practices as well as aiding we adult Adoptees to get Revocation Rights eased via a County Court process.
It’s ridiculous that we need to prove maladministrative process at High Court to get our rights to live as our chosen selves back .. The Tories are well aware of the Adoption Human Rights sludge in the system but are not acting either to clean it up via Law Reform ..
The parties thus are both wedded to too much social engineering of “Care” via creating fictions for kids to live inside..
The 1976 Adoption Act was a bit of joke too from Adoptees angles because many Social Services Dept’s never got their act together till much later into the 1990’s and often over-patrolled the Adoptees files giving poor information from those files when you needed access to understand why your life was broken apart.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your not wrong stating families will be very disappointed by this response as the (JCHR) dont give any clear reason as to whats the difference between forced adoptions from the 50s 60s and 70s to forced adoptions now. there really is no difference what so ever.
LikeLike