Wow, the United Church once did that? Sad.

Elanorgold - we tend to judge the past by the present.  Things happen - bad things, and sometimes with the best of intentions.  I can't speak on individual cases or particular policies in every 'home' but I imagine that many of the people involved felt that it was for the greater good - that the babies would be better off in stable two-parent homes (remember this was when the husband went out to work and the wife stayed home and raised the children and baked cookies).  They also probably thought that the women, particularly the young girls, would be better off rebuilding their lives without the responsibility and the disgrace of an illegimate child.  And I think it mainly happened to girls who couldn't count on their families for support.  Any unwed mothers I knew in the 1930s or 1940s either had a 'shotgun wedding', or they stayed at home until they gave birth and either they subsequently married and their husbands raised the child as their own, or the grandparents kept the baby and raised it as a little sister or brother to its biological mother.  

Without the social system to help single mothers and their children, if the family didn't help, what real choices did they have?   The majority of those running the maternity homes probably thought that they were doing what was best.   Pity!  

And that is not a helpful comment. As already said, it's never appropriate to judge the past by the present. The world has changed. My sister was adopted through a Roman Catholic orphanage in the 1950's. We know her mother was single and unmarried. Try to understand, as opposed to judging.  

You will also notice that the article doesn't admit to forced adoptions by the United Chruch but says they're working to find out information. I honestly would be surprised if there weren't forced adoptions associated with the United Chruch but as others have said you cannot judge the past by the present and it seems as though they are now trying to do what they can.

I agree, but hopefully we as both a denomination and a society have and will continue to learn from this. May this investigation be one that brings healing for those who need it.

Does anyone know what the names of these homes were?

They are listed in the external web site links in the United Church release.

Forced adoptions sadly, were the norm for the times. The United Church was only one of many organizations that did this. Thankfully, we are smarter about this now. I think.....

I know people today who are opposed to paying welfare to allow single girls to keep their babies.  Without social assistance they don't have much choice.  Even with assistance these girls and their babies face poverty.  

I know people who will point out that there are people desperate to adopt, and who could easily make an insecure girl feel that she would be selfish to keep her baby. 

Is that very much different than forced adoptions?

Are you suggesting that young women with unplanned pregnancies ought to be forced to place their babies for adoption?

I have worked with several women with unplanned pregnancies. They have not always been the stereotypical teenaged girl on welfare. The young women I've met have had families and the means to support themselves if they chose. A woman with an unplanned pregnancy is faced with a very difficult decision. Any choice she makes will change her life profoundly. She might consider abortion initially, then realizes she can't do that. Then she considers parenting the child, or place it for adoption. Lots of tears are shed.

Lest you think I am siding with the mother, I'll also mention now that I have also worked with adopting couples, so I know their struggle too.

Adoption may very well be the best option. It cannot ever be forced on anyone.

this thread reminds me of those SF stories where a character is 'impregnated/infected' by a lifeform that needs a host body to mature and even though the race is dsgusting the character brings it to term

Northwind - read my posts again.  Unless I'm really bad at expressing myself (and I may be), I'm suggesting the opposite.

No one should be forced to give up their baby through adoption. 

They shouldn't be forced by maternity home staff snatching the baby at birth and sticking a pen and paper into a woman's hand while she is groggy from medication.

They shouldn't be forced by economic circumstances that make it impossible for them to provide food and shelter for themselves and their child.

They shouldn't be forced by families or society pounding guilt and shame into them.

And they shouldn't be forced by society telling them that there are loving couples dying to adopt who can give their babies every advantage while they themselves have nothing to offer but love. 

They should be offered choices.  Can they, and the baby's father, support it?  If not, can the mother count on her family for help?  And what can we as society do (better social assistance and support, perhaps)?  What can we as a church do?    And if they do decide without pressure that adoption is the best choice, they need to know the options there as well, and they need legal advice. 

What I meant to imply in my previous posts is this:  many people 40 or 50 years ago may have thought persuading (forcing) the girls to give up their babies was for the greater good; and many people today would use different and more subtile tactics to achieve the same results.   In my opinion it's wrong.

(ps - when I say 'no one should be forced to give up their children', I am talking about unwed mothers at or soon after the birth.  Severe abuse or willful neglect is a whole different matter and may deserve a whole other thread.)

Unfortunately, speaking as an adoptive parent (as well as an adoptive sibling) adoption is far, far far more complicated than this. So is continuing to raise a child as a single parent.

And what of children exposed in utero to drugs and or alcohol?

DKS - I never meant to imply that it was easy.

I don't think this thread is about exposure in utero to drugs and/or alcohol.  Perhaps that too should have a separate thread.

And yet those are primary issues in adoption. As is the whole matter of attachment.

my mom was in a 'maternity group home' ran by the salvation army when pregnant with me. i went from the maturnity group home in my moms belly, to the hospital, and then left there, i was in the hospital for a few months,from what i understand,  i was a sickly baby, premature birth ,...from the hospital i went to  a foster home. i was in the hospital for a while, and then put back in, from what i understand in the records when i wa put back in hospital my mother visited me, maybe she was encouraged to for my health which didnt do weel in the foster home, from what i understand. i dont know.

who knows what she felt or how she was influenced,i dont feel my mom gave me up , i feel  we were seperated, when i finally found her name and her, she had passed away 6 years prior,  the childrens aid blacks out my dads name in their files and his name is not on the original long form birth certificate and childrens aid seems to be the only people alive tha knwos his name.and they wont tell me it. i spoke to my moms mom (grandmother) and others, no one knows his name ( how can they not know!!!!! the name of the man who got their 16 year old daughter preganant who i know was involved some way or another with childrens aid in relation) i dont think there is any more i can do to find out.

cruel?

(ps, i was born in 73 , from  a Roman Catholic family, maybe the Church saved my life and prevented the notion of a abortion to be influenced on my mother, and of course, the salvation army is Christian, maybe the Church saved my life, or maybe my mother would never have had a abortion regardless of their influence, i dont know)

i think there is many ways to 'force a adoption' on someone, even if they smile when signing the papers.

this thread makes me sad, i cant read anymore.

About forty years ago, in Thunder Bay where I was living, if girls got pregnant, whatever denomination they were, they were shipped to a place called St. Annes in Winnipeg Manitoba. I never knew there were United Churches involved and still don't. Supposedly the Childrens Aid had an express train to that place, and I knew of one girl that actually went.

I am glad to see that this is a denomination that can face its past and try to do something about it.

In my opinion, that takes a lot of humility and courage.

Sincere regards

Rita

I am not sure how "The United Church once did that? Sad."  is not helpful.

For me, if someone said "Canada had slavery until the 1830's? Sad."
I would understand they may not be aware Canada did. Slavery may have been, for them, an American thing. They may have no clue. Slavery was and is sad IMO

It would be helpful, IMO because it opens dialogue. I mean we can be content leaving the past in the past, but letting people of the present live in ignorance is not such a good thing.

For me, it is only judging the past with the present if someone says "those Canadian slave owners were cruel bastards" or "they were evil" or "the racists pigs" or something...

Stating a fact is just stating a fact. Facts are not always flattering.

The United Church was involved. So were many other denominations. So too were the irreligious and the culture at large.

Premarital sex was a taboo. No better proof of having had sex than being pregnant. Unwed mothers and children born out of wedlock were pariahs. They often had no means of support. Religious and irreligious parents were blamed. The culture of the times believed bad children were the result of bad parenting. If there was good parenting such things would not happen. The culture often said you did not encourage bad behaviour, you disowned. After the child was born if they kept it, the culture of the times, also said the women were not marriage material and no good parents would welcome such an addition to their family... etc....

So, some homes that began with the intent of keeping mother and child together changed in light of that and felt separation was best...

Again, a sign of the times.

It was hidden, because that is what that time's culture by and large did. They hid domestic violence, incest, alcholism, mental illness, homosexuality.....

They also "sent people away". It is what the culture of the times did. They sent away the deaf, the blind... they sent away those with birth defects or reduced mental function.There were homes for the feeble minded. It horrifies our modern senses, but it was the norm for the times.

The UCC was not alone in operating maternity homes.

That the UCC can hear the stories and be "concerned" and find the stories "disturbing" is something I am proud of.

It in no way means all stories are concerning or disturbing.

That we can discuss what "consent" and "forced" meant then versus what "consent" and "forced" means now is important in not judging those who ran the home or went through the doors. It is very important to those who "gave up" their child or felt "given up".

Learning lessons from a past is a sign of a better possibility for the future.

It is right to look at history and facts.We do not have to move it to the present or use a present day yardstick to measure it by. It is not judging people by the present. It simply is what it is.

We overcome ignorance with knowledge not by trying to hide things or push it away.... or saying it is not helpful.

Thank you, UCC for being so willing to do the right thing, to learn and teach that you are willing to be vulnerable and look at such things and self...

I echo you RitaTG, that it shows humility and courage.

http://www.originscanada.org/homes-for-unwed-mothers/

I missed this thread. Interestinglly, because it parallels the discussion on abortion. I commented on the abortion debate thread about adoption. I was in no way suggesting forced adoption...rather, optional adoption. I just want to clarify that before I comment any further that I am against any sort of forced option.

I also didn't know this happened nor that the United Church might have been involved...but cultural attitudes were much different in times past. Unmarried mothers, generally, were not well repected by society...and although we know now that was wrong it was so pervasive that people did not even realize it was wrong...it was just the rules of being a "decent citizen" is probably what they thought. So, agencies that practiced something such as forced adoption...probably believed, however erroneously, that they were doing a good thing.

It is not even long, long ago.

You got pregnant- you got married or you went away to tend a sick relative or something.

I was born in the mid 1960's and know how my mom was perceived. She was a "divorcee" and that meant loose morals, a bad wife, or something equally terrible... and women who valued their family stayed with alcoholics who were good providers for the children.  

I remember also being called a bastard and not from someone angry. Once my step-grandmother was explaining that her son was living with a woman with children, one legitimate and the other not. Being the one called illegitimate, I asked what "illegitimate" meant and she said "dear, it means you are a bastard child". I never asked about it again and I knew it meant something bad.
The other times were at school. It was fairly simple, you see,. when the names needed explained. My mother the "divorcee" was "living in sin/shacking up" with someone and my brother and her shared a last name and I did not share that name because I was a "bastard" or "illegitimate".

That was the dark ages of the 1970's.

SG, I remember meeting a woman who was a single mother with two young children. I think her husband had left her or something. She was honourable, and had started out the right way. According to the norms of the day. She was a very nice lady, and the kids were well behaved......she seemed to be a good mom. I remember when she left the home where I was visiting, my friend's mother said something like "poor girl, she'll never get a man with two children". Thankfully, times have changed.

One thing to remember in all this too, is the United Church, and other churches thought they were being helpful by "promoting" adoption. Thankfully times have changed and we do things better now. I think anyway.