Engineering Redemption: Adoption Policy in the 1960s
Carol Major
June 08
In the March issue of Meanjin, Carol Major takes a raw and personal look back at the closed adoption contracts that were so common for single mothers throughout the 1960s, as well as the role of the church and state in engineering consent. A brief extract is below, and you can read the full essay on our editions page.
In 1969, the year men were sent to the moon and naked teenagers frolicked at Woodstock, I was secreted away in an Anglican home for unwed mothers in Toronto, Canada. The residence was part of a gothic mansion to which a modern extension had been added to meet the growing demand. It seemed fitting that my arrival should take place in the dead of winter. It was already dark by mid afternoon.
My mother was not allowed to accompany me to my allocated room, a rule created to protect the identities of the other residents. For the next four months I would take part in domestic duties and attend a compulsory church service each day. Study hours took place in the evenings; family members were allowed to visit on Sunday afternoons. I kept my loneliness at bay by imagining I was a character in a Dickens novel. Although the modern world of cars and the subway line was close by, I felt as if a glass wall had been erected. I could see through it but I could not cross that line.
I gave birth in the spring at a city hospital and there I said good bye to my infant son. Later I went to an office where I signed a closed adoption contract agreeing never to seek contact with my child again.
Closed adoption contracts and the involvement of church organisations in providing accommodation for expectant single women were not unique to Canada. By the 1950s and 1960s many Western countries, including Australia, had similar policies. They meant that young women, such as me, could return to school or a previous occupation with our secret kept and our reputations intact. In turn our infants were handed over to adopting couples. Birth certificates were changed and filing cabinets locked.
This approach was considered expedient and humane—a win-win for everyone concerned. Earlier in the century it was not uncommon for single mothers to be literally cast out in the street. Pregnancy was a sin that showed and it seemed fitting that these women should suffer along the road to redemption. Of course, given there was little hope of finding suitable employment or a respectable partner, their children suffered too. Nevertheless, it was largely believed that the struggle would improve the moral character of all involved. Few wanted to interfere with the hand of God.
Our Friends
- Overland
- Alien Onion
- Ampersand Duck
- Andrew McDonald
- A Pair of Ragged Claws
- Arts Victoria
- Australia Council for the Arts
- Ben Eltham
- Bookshow blog
- CAL
- City of Tongues
- Crikey
- darkly wise, rudely great
- David Astle
- Elmo Keep Does Stuff
- The Ember
- Fly the Falcon blog
- Going Down Swinging
- Griffith Review
- Hackpacker
- Harvest
- HEAT
- Island
- Killings blog
- Literary Minded
- Lorraine Crescent
- Lynden Barber
- Mandy Ord
- Marcus Westbury
- Matilda
- Meanland
- Melbourne University Publishing
- Mel Campbell
- The Monthly
- Musings of an Inappropriate Woman
- Oslo Davis
- Paul Callaghan
- Read, Think, Write
- Sleepers Publishing
- Sorrow at Sills Bend
- SPLOG
- Tom Cho
- Virgule
- Wet Ink
- Wheeler Centre
Comments
18 Apr 11 at 13:45
Could you please email me a copy of the adoption policy back in the 1960’s? I have found a copy of the legislation, I just need a copy of the policy.
...25 Aug 11 at 6:20
Dear Jess,
Policies relating to the legislation would have been created by individual organisations to govern the treatment of unwed mothers. For instance, in Australia some hospitals had a policy that the files of unwed mothers have BFA “Baby for Adoption” marked on the patient’s file at entry, even if that mother had not yet signed the adoption form. This singled her out for particular treatment.
...