Motherof5, Thank you. Not only for the link, but for the witness.

My niece gave birth at 16 and was married to the baby's father shortly after.  Two more children before she was 20.  Divorce a few years later and years of bitter custody battles.  The children suffered, and they were grown before their parents grew up.  Each of the two girls had a baby when they were in their teens - but neither married the child's father. 

Motheroffive

I didn't manage to watch the documentary yet. I also like the Passionate Eye. If the stories told are about the 1960's we can imagine what it was like before that. Here's the story of the butterbox babies at a home for unwed mothers in N.S. in  the 30's and 40's I believe. After the home was closed they found many babies buried in the back yard. It was totally horrendous, outlandish,unbelievable.

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/bhartlen/PAGE1.HTM

If I recall correctly I think the birth control pill was new and wasn't given out freely in the 1960's. Still I was under the impression that conditions had much improved by then. I guess not! Thank God we've come a long way since then.

Canada holds another ugly secret a bit off topic perhaps. Its the story of the homeboys who were sent to Canada from England during the 2nd world war. They were picked up off the street and sometimes their parents weren't even informed they had been sent overseas.  They spent many years trying to trace  their relatives or parents in England. An apology is being demanded from Harper. I don't know if  its been forthcoming.

Kids sold to Can. farmers

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~britishhomechildren/

Home children apology ?

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2228492

mary anne

A very warm welcome to the WonderCafe.

I'll check out the links. Thanks so much for dropping by to share and care with us.

God bless.... and wishing you continued success in the future.

The links are on our website at www.dundasproductions.com

We've also listed all the post adoption links/contact info across the country for people searching.

Hope that helps.

We do still have "maternity homes" - and our United Church still supports at least some of them.  In my area, the Massey Centre is still strongly supported by many UCW groups.

It seems the biggest difference today is on helping the girls to make informed decisions about whether or not to keep their children or release them for adoption.   The range of community supports has improved - but is still seriously lacking.   Their decisions are respected as theirs to make & effort goes into lots of preparation for either eventuality, as far as I can see.  

Now whether their own families, friends & society in general share that respect ... well,  I think that's widely variable.

Australia has a similar history to Canada in regard to church "maternity" homes.

One of the first things done by our current Prime Minister, after his election in 2007, was to have a public apology to our aboriginal children and parents who were taken and placed in government and church homes for "their own good". (The Prime Minister before him had consistently refused to make an apology, stating that the times were different and the then government was not reponsible for the deeds of the past.)

There does seem to be some confusion as to public apologies in general. Our current Prime Minister took the view, and I agree with him, that the first step to healing always involves saying we're sorry. Even if we're not personally responsible, we can be sorry for the pain and dislocation that occurred.

Members of the "stolen generation" were in Canberra to hear his sorry address. Their pain was obvious to see.

Last year he made another sorry address - this time to ALL mothers and children that were separated at birth and adopted out in church and government homes. Once again, it was done to acknowledge the pain and suffering that resulted - often to young unmarried women who were given no real choice in the matter.

On both occasions, I was proud to call myself Australian.

No Gilmore this is not just a women's issue.  Fathers have rights (and responsibilities) too.  I know a young man who, with his mother, are raising his daughter.  The mother was going to give her up for adoption.  The young man wanted her.  The mother and both sets of parents agreed.   His mother, who never had a daughter, delights in carrying for her granddaughter and takes her frequently to see her other grandparents.  The mother, by her own wishes, has very little involvement.

Thanks Motheroffive.  You have confirmed, as I suspected, that you hold the extreme feminist view on this issue.  I hope the father that I spoke of above or the many many other men in similar circumstances do not run across your offensive posts.

I guess your like Stephen Harper and think that only mothers and children matter.

You are just recirculating the most depreciating ideas.  Again, on behaf of the father I know who fought to stay with his girlfriend and DEFINATELY did NOT get a slap on the back and a cigar and his girlfriend/wife (and for all the other fathers and mothers who went through something similar), I am offended by your spew.

Here's an idea:  true understanding between the genders and true gender equality. 

I'm not talking about present laws either.  I'm talking about the past as well.  Both women and men were victims of the actions of other men AND women (those "homes" weren't staffed by men, after all).  By singling out the mothers as the only victims and pretending that the young man was given an award you are half the story.

There are three related and different issues at work here.

The first is a foundation statement of family as basic to the well being of society and must be protected at all costs. This means adoption is a last resort.  Then there is the well being of the child and here adoption may be the preferable option.  Then there is the limit of the state to interfer in a family.  Note I am only outlining the issues and not giving any answer.

Then there are soical mores.  Do we judge the 50' by how we see things now?   It may be that the additudes of today are more humane, but within the 50's construct how was the situation dealt with in a humane way.  Yes it was hidden and there was a social negativity and the result of 'homes' and adoption may have been a humane response to a repressive attitude.  Language like it was a horror can be over used.  Yes there are horror stories but was that the norm? This quote is problematic while there is truth in it, for it is a universalizing statement "Our church was quite involved in this, although the piece does not reference the UCC. The UCC did support a number of "maternity" homes, in which young pregnant women were mistreated, overworked and in many cases, forced or coerced to surrender their children for adoption. This story, the story of the loss of mothers, is seldom told when adoption stories are told. It's time to recognize and acknowledge the role of churches and, more specifically, our church, in the tragedy of separation of family members."   Evidence is demanded and yes we should be outraged but from outrage to change requires more evidence, otherwise it becomes opinion and can be discounted as mere outrage or an over statement of the reality.This is where the hard job of outrage demands critical thinking so the past is not repeated.

Yes it is a social relationship and in the 50's most fathers were absent and in fact wanted nothing to do with the situation.  That still is the dominate view.  However when there is an active role and attitude of the father, then that is a case by case situation.  No one size fits all. Yes the woman is the chief person in the situation.   This is like being pro choice but not anything goes in decision making.

There is there is the need for empirical research. If you watched last nights program on marijuana who would have noticed that two things were at work - stories of three people to give it a human face - and that the researchers worked in groups ( not alone which in my reading of Robinson is the case) and there ideas were tested by peer research - very objective without interest either pro or con.

I have a history degree and I watch Madmen, so I think I understand the mindsets of the 50's and 60's AS WELL AS  the stereotypes we have placed on the 50's and 60's.

I just think it is funny that you would rather fight than concede that a young man was ever injured in these types circumstances.  Does it shatter your paradigm completely, to acknowledge this possbility?

You know, one can be a feminist and still acknowledge that a man or two has been wronged from time to time.

Actually Gilmore, I disagree with your statement above, which I bolded.  I read Mof5's posts quite differently than you do.  Absolutes are rarely the way to engage in meaningful discussion.

Gilmore ... just wondering ... were you a dad who lost a child to adoption?  You seem to have a bit of an axe to grind ... so it's got me wondering.

Moff - In no way did she say the father got off scot free - carolla  is correct - what the quote said to me ""societal condemnation made [the mothers] the recipient of criticism while young men having sex were congratulated (overtly or covertly)." is  a description of the attitudes of the 50's.  There is much research on this and from my own high school experience the guy was seen as a 'stud'.  That is not sufficient but moff was making a generalization of the time - and your reference to Madmen reinforces her point -  she is speaking of social attitudes not of how the male may or may not have felt.

I'm having trouble writing because my experiences upset me to the point of anxiety attacks from thinking back..

I wish i could say that all these adoption stories are in the distant past.

Not true by a long shot. They are happening now, and the new victims are those with psychological difficulties.

I am close to two cases of children taken away from mothers unwillingly. The villian is the Family and Children's services in Ontario.and a horribly overloaded Family court system. I use both the FACS and the CAS in writing as they are the same people by my observation - I can't tell the difference.

The first is Timmy. WhenTimmy was six, he was siezed by the FACS while in school and placed in foster care.Timmy's mother was diagnosed as schizophrenic based on a 15-minute interview with a psychiatrist (who later faced child molestation charges) and heavily medicated with Haldol (banned in the U.S.). Timmy's grandmother who was the actual caregiver had a breakdown of her own because her doctor changed her meds away from a cheap generic drug (chlorpromazine) that was working perfectly well.

Once Timmy was in the clutches of the CAS, a court date was set up.  The FACS introduced a document that was riddled with mistakes, overstatements, outright lies, and gossip, including stuff that a psychiatrist's office manager overheard and passed on to the CAS without permission of doctor or patient. A "Children's advocate" was appointed by the CAS to supposedly protect Timmy's rights - but he would never disagree with those who hired them, nor did he review any counter argument. The only thing thelawyer for mother and grandmother was allowed to say is that they "dispute the entire statement by the CAS" (legal aid family lawyers handle cases in bulk, representing several families in a single hearing day and properly servicing none of them).There was never less than twenty cases on the judge's docket on any court day I attended. Thus, as soon as the disagreement was mentioned, the case was always remanded, either at the request of the CAS or by the judge herself. This went on for over a year, and Timmy was invariably put in the care and oversight of the CAS. There was never an accusation or question of actual abuse - only the implication of possible neglect.

Mind games by the CAS were nonstop, and Timmy was basically held hostage with curtailmant of visitation rights. Dealing with them was pure hell.  His Grandmother was released from hospital after 3 month, but the games continued for over a year until word got out that he was abused by a foster parent. Timmy was sent home then - provided that nothing actually went to court (Granny actually found a competent lawyer). The judge never, ever reviewed our side.

The other case was a native girl I knew. She had experienced much psychiatric difficulties when young (Haldol again) not the least was Traumatic Stress Disorder.

At 19, she met a young man while in Homewood. They moved in together, she got pregnant, and things looked very well for her.

The baby, a lovely girl, was siezed out of her arms while still in hospital. The mind games began and the mother , understandably, didn't handle it well. The father was scared off. The grief stricken mother deteriorated from the pressure and about 2 years later the baby (blonde, blue eyes) was ordered to be put up for adoption.

The next time she got pregnant, she was thrown into London Psychiatric Hospital till the baby was born and siezed in the maternity room. She was then thrown out onto the streets of Cambridge. She still managed to make the 100km trek every Thursday for visitations (despite a court agreement that he be moved to Cambridge, it never happened). Baby Jordan was also adopted away. Mother never found out where. She's a crackhead now.

Don't tell me the system is even remotely fair now.