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

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1972.tb02051.x

(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 child's best interests. This
was introduced largely to meet the wishes of children's departments in many
large cities, especially those with a big immigrant 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
case'' the dissenting Lord Justice of the three felt good Christian living
and education were more important.


<end quote>

I've seen  a High Court case from 1966 mentioned, unfortunately  complete
inability to cite a court judgment  correctly by the person putting it
forward,  makes it impossible to see what if any relevance that case had.
 
Robin Harritt

http://harritt.eu
 
*