Anne Rogers of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, writes in response to Christine Hayes' letter (22 June) about forced adoptions in the 1960s, arguing that adoption can be the best outcome for some children even when it goes against birth parents' wishes. Rogers, who was adopted as a baby in 1948, says she feels no shame about her adoption, as it allowed her to grow up in a loving family without societal prejudices. She states, 'I am sure I am not alone in this experience.'
Adoption remains a viable option today
Rogers acknowledges that adoption today can still be considered 'forced' as it often goes against birth parents' wishes, and the state continues to lack sufficient support. However, she urges readers not to condemn this method of giving children from troubled starts a chance at a happy upbringing. 'Let us not condemn this method of giving children from troubled starts a chance of a happy upbringing,' she writes.
Financial pressures drove many single mothers
Cat Bracey of Bristol adds that the primary reason most single mothers gave up their babies for adoption in the 1960s and 1970s was the inability to support them financially. She notes that there were few nurseries for children under three, making it impossible to work without family help. Bracey recalls that her social worker never mentioned National Assistance could support single parents after the six-week Maternity Allowance period. She was fortunate to learn about this support from someone who had worked in a National Assistance office, allowing her to keep her baby, who is now approaching her 60th birthday.
Churches also culpable
Graham Whitaker of Brighton agrees with Hayes' sentiments but adds that the Anglican and Catholic churches created the moral climate that enabled parents of teenage mothers to give away their grandchildren rather than face local church hypocrisy. 'I would add to her list of those culpable the Anglican and Catholic churches, which created the moral climate that enabled parents of teenage mothers to give away their grandchildren rather than face the hypocrisy of their local church,' he writes.
