|
#1
14-10-14, 19:13
|
||||
|
||||
Quick question re adoption and the register
V quick question.
Think I know the answer but need confirmation. If you're adopted there'll be an endorsement on the register - yes? And if you believe that someone was adopted and there is no endorsement in the register, in 1968, what does this mean?
__________________
"Keep your dreams as clean as silver" John Stewart 1939 - 2008 
|
|
#2
14-10-14, 19:20
|
||||
|
||||
|
When you say "register", you do mean the actual register, or a copy certificate taken from it, don't you, AN, not the index?
|
|
#3
14-10-14, 21:34
|
|||
|
|||
|
There will be an endorsement on the COPY CERTIFICATE and thus the actual register, nowhere else.
Adoption is a confidential matter and is not indicated in the BMD indexes, contrary to popular urban myth. OC
|
|
#4
15-10-14, 06:05
|
||||
|
||||
|
I thought we decided that after 1968 the original birth entry for an adopted person would have a page ref in the GRO indexes of four figures and then an S - eg 1234/S.
If the rules changed for 1969 onwards then a 1968 entry should look like a normal record.
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#5
15-10-14, 20:38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks people - I meant the indexes of course.
Thanks for clearing this up.
__________________
"Keep your dreams as clean as silver" John Stewart 1939 - 2008
|
|
#6
15-10-14, 20:47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Merry
Ah, maybe we did decide that, but it still bothers me a lot - I wonder if it is/was an administrative wossname. I really struggle with the idea that adoption is not only flagged up on public indices, but that, in effect, it links birth certs to adoption certs which is surely against any law in the land. OC
|
|
#7
17-10-14, 16:14
|
||||
|
||||
|
I remembered about a girl I worked with in the 1970's having a baby adopted. I've looked up this birth, she did name him, it is 323s.
This was in 1972.
__________________
Marg
|
|
#8
19-10-14, 07:16
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've just looked at four people who were later adopted born between 1968 and 1972. Three of us have original number crossed out followed by a written number ending in /S and the fourth has two entries with different numbers, the second ending in s.
|
|
#9
19-10-14, 09:55
|
|||
|
|||
|
This seems so wrong to me. Anyone who knew about this could trace an adopted person fairly easily without going through the required lawful processes.
OC
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
