Children's Homes

[Muggins in Sussex]

I have a feeling I may have asked this before :confused: - but if I did, I cannot find the thread :confused: - so aplogies if I am repeating myself - maybe I just thought it and didn't post it! :d

If a newborn baby was put in a Children's Home in about 1919, and the baby was subsequently "adopted", would it have been possible for the adoptive parents to re-register the birth giving the baby their own surname?

[kiterunner]

No, they wouldn't have been able to.

[Muggins in Sussex]

Thanks, Kite :) - that eliminates one of my theories - although I now realise it wasn't a credible theory in the first place - sorry :(:(

[Merry]

Couldn't they legally adopt the child after 1927/9 (whenever, I've forgotten the year official adoption was set up)? Then there would be an adoption cert as well as the original. (I realise that isn't quite what you asked)

[Olde Crone]

Anything is POSSIBLE. Whether it is likely is something else.

Why would they register the child's birth as their own, fraudulently? I mean, to what end?

OC

[Mary from Italy]

If it was actually the wife's child, it could have been re-registered after she married the father.

[Muggins in Sussex]

Couldn't they legally adopt the child after 1927/9 (whenever, I've forgotten the year official adoption was set up)? Then there would be an adoption cert as well as the original. (I realise that isn't quite what you asked)

I hadn't thought of that, Merry - thanks :)
Anything is POSSIBLE. Whether it is likely is something else.

Why would they register the child's birth as their own, fraudulently? I mean, to what end?

OC


I've no idea, OC - but I always have had the feeling that the answer to my problem is very close to home

If it was actually the wife's child, it could have been re-registered after she married the father.

Hadn't thought of that, Mary - thanks - new possibilities open :)