A Natural Father's Rights in Adoption of his Illegitimate Child in the 50s and 60s UK

` (This applies to England and Wales only Scotland had better laws from 1930) A Natural Father's Rights in Adoption of his Illegitimate Child in the 50s and 60s I've read some real nonsense on the subject of a father's rights in the adoption of an illegitimate child in the 1950's and 60s, it is a subject of some importance to me personally. I hope perhaps this throws a brighter light on the subject than you may have seen elsewhere. John Parker, M.P.'s account of his private members bill for the Legitimacy Act 1959 can be downloaded as a PDF from [url=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1972.tb02051.x]Article, John Parkers account of his fight for the Bill[/url] (well worth a read just to see how very different attitudes were at that time) Some people seem to believe that this meant that consents had to be sought from all fathers of illegitimate children in England & Wales and that fathers of illegitimate children had an automatic right to contest an adoption of their child. That appears to be neither the intent of the Bill nor the usual reeding of the Act. There was certainly never a duty on Moral Welfare Officers to explain to the father of an illegitimate child, his rights. It is very doubtful that an MWO would have known what a father's rights were. Parker's account of the relevant section of the Bill and its intent. <quote> The second most important clause in my original Bill enabled the courts to give the custody of and right of access to an illegitimate child to his natural father if they felt this to be in the childs best interests. This was introduced largely to meet the wishes of childrenҒs departments in many large cities, especially those with a big population . It was quite common for a white woman living with a coloured man to desert her half-caste child. In many such cases the natural father desired the custody of his child, especially if he decided to return to his country of origin. One of the other clauses aimed at making the position easier for a woman to claim an affiliation order if she was single at the time she made the claim and when the child was born; another clause attempted to restrict the publicity which the Press can give to affiliation proceedings. Clause 5 of the Bill attempted to amend the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act of 1938 to give certain of its benefits to illegitimate children. <end quote> Interesting for me to read that before that Act, affiliation proceedings could be reported in full in the press. I'm going to have to spend some more time at the British Library Newspaper Reading Rooms in Colindale or on the top floor at Romford public library. Parker mentions in the article "Bastards Anonymous" and expresses regret there was not such a group. I still think even today us bastards here in England and Wales still need our own pressure group. The earliest Act that I can find (which doesn't mean there wasn't an earlier one) is the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 (see section 14 Application of Act to illegitimate children) By the way people who were legitimised by being adopted by their own natural parents before the Legitimacy Act 1959 can under Schedule 3(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 have that adoption order revoked. About the only people in the UK who can get an Adoption Order revoked. Anyway getting back to the 1959 Act <quote: from Hansard for the Commonwealth of Australia 15 March 2001 discussing English Law, from a debate by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, discussing Child Migration from Great Britain to Australia> The adoption act (1958) for the first time recognised that the presumed fathers view of his child's future and needs, be heeded to. The Legitimacy Act (1959) gave the unmarried father the right to custody and access, but not in strengthening his position in adoption cases: he was still unable to approve or veto the adoption of his natural child. Lord Denning (1964) rules that fatherhood was not an overriding consideration. On appeal blood tie caseђ the dissenting Lord Justice of the three felt good Christian living and education were more important. <end quote> Basquill from Trackers International ( a bogus 'research foundation') quotes in her otherwise quite unreliable "Fact Sheet number 7" (a misnomer if ever there was one) a High Court case from 1966 unfortunately Basquill's complete inability to cite a court judgment correctly makes it impossible to see what if any relevance that case had. Great shame that a supposed "International Research Foundation" run by "experts" and "consultant researchers" could not do a little better than that. Robin Harritt [url=http://harritt.eu]harritt.eu[/url]