Babies in the Workhouse

[Muggins in Sussex]

Would a workhouse in 1919 have had the facilities to care for a newborn baby without its parents being admitted there - eg if the baby had been abandonned? Or would the baby have gone to some other sort of institution?

And if a baby was in a workhouse at that time is it feasible that a worker for the local Poor Relief could arrange for the baby to be taken in by a member of his/her own family?

Thanks

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Have recently read a history of my local workhouse and around that time it's babies were fostered out, and then placed in one of two small homes for 2-5 year olds.Once 5 yrs old, they went back to live at the main workhouse.

I suppose it would have been possible for childless couples to approach the workhouse with a view to permanently taking on an abondoned baby??

I have knowledge of one illegitimate orphan placed in the care of the workhouse until he was 3. Maternal grandma was still producing her own children and just couldn't take him on at first. (He belonged to her eldest daughter, who died shortly after the birth.)

I think the rules would vary from board to board, and I don't think they were ever empowered to FORCE the extended family to take on a child. However, I think they would be very happy to place a child with willing relatives - there were no facilities for legal adoptions at that time.

Jay

[Muggins in Sussex]

Thanks Janet - that is very helpful.

It's probably another of my crackpot ideas! But I have a couple who seem to have "aquired" a baby in 1919 when he/she was under six months old - (probably the baby was of mixed race) - and the brother of the mother who took the baby in was worked for the local(ish) Poor Relief Board - but I suspect I am putting two and two together and making five!

[Chrissie Smiff]

Do I sense another long adoption thread coming on :D:D

Looking forward to seeing you again on Thursday by the way

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Joan, Anything is possible, until it can be proved otherwise!
There is very little about human happenings that is "new," it's just that it makes the papers now and so people THINK it's a new trend.

I know of a local case of surrogacy that happened over 55 years ago. Wife wanted a child but was scared of childbirth, so unmarried sister (who'd already had at least one illegitimate child) obliged. The child never came home with mother, and was taken to another county by the married couple. His birth was registered with the husband's surname and the wife and sister's maiden surname - although I suspect the sisters' forenames were swapped.
Everyone in the village was told the married couple had adopted the child (wife's nephew.) There is no post adoption re-registration, and as the years have passed, the boy is the spitting image of the husband. I am sure the unmarried sister did indeed oblige.

Jay

[Muggins in Sussex]

Do I sense another long adoption thread coming on :D:D

Looking forward to seeing you again on Thursday by the way

LOL Chrissie - yes - but not yet! Look forward to seeing you again, too

Joan, Anything is possible, until it can be proved otherwise!
There is very little about human happenings that is "new," it's just that it makes the papers now and so people THINK it's a new trend.

I know of a local case of surrogacy that happened over 55 years ago. Wife wanted a child but was scared of childbirth, so unmarried sister (who'd already had at least one illegitimate child) obliged. The child never came home with mother, and was taken to another county by the married couple. His birth was registered with the husband's surname and the wife and sister's maiden surname - although I suspect the sisters' forenames were swapped.
Everyone in the village was told the married couple had adopted the child (wife's nephew.) There is no post adoption re-registration, and as the years have passed, the boy is the spitting image of the husband. I am sure the unmarried sister did indeed oblige.

Jay

Thanks Jay - maybe my theory is not as far-fetched as I thought

[Olde Crone Holden]

I agree that anything is possible.

I don't think it too far-fetched that a relative of someone who worked in the workhouse would be able to foster and informally adopt a baby. There was no legislation and as long as the fostering couple looked reasonably ok, they would be able to take the baby.

An inside job sounds very possible to me.

OC