May I ask about adoption laws please?

[HarvBird]

Hello,

May I ask if I'm allowed to make a GENERAL (law-related) enquiry about adoption in recent years (1970s) in relation to my research without mentioning any names/personal details whatsoever? I appreciate that enquiries about adoption within the last 100 years are not normally permitted but am unsure whether this includes non family-specific legal and admin questions.

If such an enquiry IS permissable please can someone also advise whether it should go here or on the Adoption thread? Thank you.

[HarvBird]

Thank you very much.

What I would like to know is whether a person who was adopted in the early 1970s would show up on publicly accessible birth records. As I understand it the surnames of adoptees are often changed to that of the new family when the adoption is made official - would that mean that the child who was named, say, Joe Bloggs at birth and renamed Joe Smith when adopted would subsequently only be found on records as Smith?

I also wondered how the law stood at the same time regarding the surnames of children who were born to separated but not divorced women (or for that matter, I suppose, women whose child was born to another man as a result of an affair or somesuch). Something tells me that such women used to HAVE to put their husband's name down on the birth cert as that of the father, even if the child was another man's. Did that EVER apply or am I imagining it?! And if it did was it still the case in the early 1970s please?

Thank you.

[Guy Etchells]

Two on the face of it very simple questions but unfortunately the answers are not simple.

The public have the right to apply for a certificate of every registered birth, marriage and death from 1837 to today.
This includes the original birth entry of those adopted, which should be marked as adopted.
However some registrars do not issue such certificates.

On adoption the Registrar General should register the adoption in the register of adoptions which states the date of birth (if available) of the adopted child. The child's name and surname and the name and address of the adopter, plus other information.

The child would from adoption show up on all records other than the original birth record under his/her new name (if given a new name).

Children of all children born after marriage of a couple automatically carry the husband's surname unless it can be shown that the husband had no access to the mother during the period of conception.

This does not mean that a child would then carry his/her father's name as if the mother still used her married name the child may carry that name.
If the father and mother registered the birth together the child could carry his/her father's name.
Cheers
Guy

[Peter Goodey]

From 1969, the child's surname has been explicitly entered on the birth certificate.

Before 1969, the surname was inferred from the surnames of the parents. If the father had a different surname from the mother, the child could take either surname. If there was no father named, the child would take the mother's surname which might of course be the same as that of a dead or separated husband.

Something tells me that such women used to HAVE to put their husband's name down on the birth cert as that of the father, even if the child was another man's.

No but it was often convenient to do that way so that the child appeared legitimate. It's not that difficult to come across a birth certificate where there appears to have been a gestation period of several years

On adoption, don't forget that one of the aims of the law is to make it difficult to trace an adopted person's actual birth.

[Zen Rabbit]

I have a birth cert for a child of one of my wife's ancestors. It gives the mothers name and address only and states at the end "adopted" this was in 1949