General Chat

Does anyone know that when a child is adopted and the papers are signed, is the childs father named on the papers? Ie if the mother was separated but legally married to someone and then got pregnant by someone else who disappeared, if their name was not on the birth certificate, would it legally still have to be put on the adoption papers?

Florence in the hebrides

I don't know if it was a legal requirement to name the natural father, but I do know of someone whose adoption papers name the birth father, although he is not named on the birth certificate.
This was Scotland around 1950.

No its not a legal requirement,,,,,,its added to the paperwork as family background only if ithe birthpaent wishes,,,,,,,this has been done in more recent times but pre 1950or it was very rarely added..in uk.

Now days paperwork includes, many added details.

Thanks ladies.
So basically, if a person gets access to their adoption papers, whilst it will have the mothers details, it may well not have any about the birth father?(1960s era)

Florence in the hebrides

Florence,,,,,,circumstances will depend on the fathers name being added to the file paperwork,,he may have agreed to the aoption,then his name will be added in most cases..its not possible to guess unless the file is applied for.

Thanks Kay

Florence in the Hebrides

I'm adopted and have the paperwork from Courts and adoption file. My natural father is named in the adoption file, there is space but no legal requirement. The detail of him are in my file but added as and extra piece of paper. this combined with DNA helped me to find who he was.

Andy

Hello Andrew
Thankyou for that information. I can pass it on to someone I am helping.

Florence in the hebrides

I've probably posted this before.
My dad, who never knew who his dad was, despite asking his mum, was adopted aged 16, merely so he could join the Navy as an officer - apparently you needed a father's name on your birth certificate to do this.
I have a piece of 'official' paper, which says Lt Commander D - who had recently married my gran - agrees to be the adoptive father of my dad - and it's signed by my gran - Lt Commander D's signature isn't on it, in fact, he's is nowhere around.
Gran's address is in Cornwall, Lt Commander D's is in Devon! :-S
The Lt Commander and my gran did eventually live together.
Oh, and dad joined the Fleet Air Arm - as a rating - his choice! :-D :-D :-D

Oh Maggie :-D :-D

One day, I'll try to find out if any adoption agency actually has official papers on this adoption! :-D :-D :-D

Dad was re-registered under his 'new' surname in 1942 - but with my gran - was that really official, or did she bamboozle some poor registrar?

Even birth certificates can have the wrong father................. mothers have been known to bamboozle registers by saying they were married, the husband was the father. That automatically triggered a man's name being put in the father section.

It could be a married woman having a child with another man, or it could be a woman naming someone as her husband (ie giving his surname as her married name) when he might not even know her, let alone having fathered a child!

The only time that I think a man has to be present, or provide a legal letter, is if he is the father but not married to the woman AND he has agreed to accept the child officially.

We've all found examples of this, I think.

so not surprising it happens on adoption certificates!!

This is also one of the reasons I take more notice of the female line in my tree!

I do have one couple in my tree - a widow, Harriet Evans, with two children and a lodger, Frank Douch in one census, living in Gloucester.
Between censuses, not married, they had a daughter, they named Mary Douch Evans.
Locals would have known her paternity - so they moved to Southampton.

Strangely, I have copies of two birth certificates bought from the registry and both pertaining to my grandfather who changed his name when he married for the second time - in church, but bigamously.

Both registered at the same place on the same date. Both with the same Christian and surnames for the child and both giving the same birth date.

The two certificates give two brothers' names as the fathers; they borh give rhe same Christian name for the mother. Both certificates give the mother's surname with the same pronunciation but the spelling of the surname differs slightly. Both show the mother as the informant.

I had to look to the censuses to see which of the brothers my grandfather lived with until my much older cousin gave me a copy of a birth certificate that our grandfather had sent for when he was about to retire and the father named therein was the same father he lived with in the censuses.

Two certificates flummoxed me so, as this was very early on in my family history research and, knowing no better then, I had bought the certificates from that local Registry Office, I contacted the Registrar and asked her about it. She could not shed any light.

This was the grandfather whose dob at registration was given as a month after I knew his birth to be but they were dilatory with registration and went well beyond the six-weeks registration requirement them so they simply added a month to his birth.

Some kind person on Genes then pointed to my grandfather's baptism and it confirmed that my grandfather was, indeed, living with the correct father during the censuses and the date of baptism was before that given on both birth certificates. (When the 1939 Census was released my grandfather had, indeed, given the correct day and month of birth but had knocked a few years off his age (hoping to work a few more years, I expect).

As for the two almost-identical birth certificates. ..... it is anybody's guess! Since the registrar had no explanation, I can only think his birth was registered on market day when everyone had a little drink, including the registrar, and as one entry was on one page and is separated from the second entry by one other, and the registrar knew both brothers I wonder whether he forgot he had already entered the information and simply entered the birth again but with the wrong father's name.

I shall never know but if anyone can think of any different explanation I'd like to hesr it.

Edit: Maggie, this is why I think sovereigns should always descend fro. the mother's line.