Single and adopted a child 1950's?

[richardstree]

If a child of one parent was adopted by that parent's new marriage partner then the mother/father also had to adopt their own child in partnership with their new mate. Otherwise the non-blood parent becomes the sole parent and the blood parent loses custody. That is how it was in NSW in the 1950/60's. It still makes sense but I don't know how it works now.

That makes sense as well.

Sorry, surely you haven't solved it until you've obtained the adoption certificate as mentioned in my earlier message.

Well we thought we had solved it in our own minds, without obtaining the original adoption cert, which we wont be able to as the person is still living, was adopted before 1975. Of course, we could ask the people concerned but after all these years, if they wanted us to know they would have mentioned it long ago.

[carolchipp]

Well we thought we had solved it in our own minds, without obtaining the original adoption cert, which we wont be able to as the person is still living, was adopted before 1975. Of course, we could ask the people concerned but after all these years, if they wanted us to know they would have mentioned it long ago.

Although, as Peter rightly says, without proof it isn't solved - given what you have said about the names and the mother's subsequent marriage, you are probably correct.
We have a family member, same era, exactly the same circumstances, and therefore this person has an adoption cert instead of a birth cert. I think at that time, recent though it is, such matters weren't talked about and certainly in the case of our relation the facts were known only to immediate family members of that generation, to the extent that the person-concerned's sibling weren't told either. And I agree, since they didn't choose to make it public knowledge, you can hardly ask.
Carol

[Peter Goodey]

without obtaining the original adoption cert, which we wont be able to as the person is still living

I've never heard of such a restriction. It's the same as getting a birth certificate.

[richardstree]

I've never heard of such a restriction. It's the same as getting a birth certificate.

I do think after looking at the form "application for access to birth records" it is probably pointed towards the actual person that was adopted to get in touch and have the meeting (not a curious, however well meaning relative) to ask questions.

This could leave the person who was adopted and the family that adopted open to many questions and unnecessary embarrassment.

[HopeToFind]

I think I might know the answer to this question as this occurred in my own family to a child born in England. Here is what happened (NOTE: All the names below are not their real names !)

1. Miss Anna Adams married Mr. BAINS in 1930
This couple received a final decree of divorce in January 1952.
2. Anna (Adams) Bains gave birth to a daughter in September 1952. (The father of this child, Mr. CHURCH, was still married to his first wife at the time of the birth.)
3. A Birth Certificate was issued for the child giving the child's name as Mary Bains, listing the mother's maiden name as follows: Adams OR Bains ! It listed the father as C. Church and the child's surname as BAINS ! (The child was given this surname because it was still the mother's legal surname.)
4. In 1955, after Mr. Church had obtained his divorce, he married Anna (Adams) Bains.
5. After their marriage, an adoption certificate was issued in which both Anna and her new husband "adopted" their own biological child, Mary Bains, and her surname then became CHURCH.

When I asked the mother of this child why it was done this way she replied, "We had to do it that way so that she could have her real father's last name."

[Kerrywood]

Hi HopeToFind, thank you for posting useful additional information, and welcome to the forums.

Anyone joining this thread please remember that discussion of personal details of adoption after 1900 are not permitted on this forum -- please see this Sticky.

[Jane Elderfield]

If a child of one parent was adopted by that parent's new marriage partner then the mother/father also had to adopt their own child in partnership with their new mate. Otherwise the non-blood parent becomes the sole parent and the blood parent loses custody. That is how it was in NSW in the 1950/60's. It still makes sense but I don't know how it works now.

Yes, same in Canada in the 1940's. Birth mother had to sign away all rights as a birth mother, then (along with her husband) adopt child and become adoptive mother. Seems bizarre, but it satisfied the law.

--Jane E