Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

Cluedo Monopoly

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

What has this got to do with Russia?

What relevance has that to this?

Deflect is it Maryanne.

She even used the term 'selling unwanted babies'...Many forcibly adopted babies were wanted...by their mothers.

I get it, some people who lives through these times find these stories uncomfortable and would rather they were left in the past (even though some of the victims are very much alive). But tough.

Cluedo Monopoly

Deleted User wrote: »

There’s nothing stopping the women who want to talk about their situations from doing so. That’s not the issue. It’s not unusual for birth mothers to not want any contact with their child. Should that contact be forced on them? No it should not.

Waffle!

We both know that some mothers and some children have been begging for their personal details for decades and have been blocked or refused.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Stop trying to find an excuse. Pathetic. Own your past.

https://twitter.com/BarbaraMcMahon8/status/1320467082128089093

smurgen

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

And we can all trust Tusla to provide personal data to the mothers and the children...

https://twitter.com/BarbaraMcMahon8/status/1320467082128089093/photo/1

Calls for people asking those effected to tell their story is cynical and sick when you see how restricted the files they are given are.

Cluedo Monopoly

smurgen wrote: »

Calls for people asking those effected to tell their story is cynical and sick when you see how restricted the files they are given are.

Sure I know, complete hypocrites. They know the mothers and children have been treated horrendously and want to compound it to suit their own narrative.

TheChizler

smurgen wrote: »

Which part of Article 23? Seems to be solicitors in ata compliance such as Simon McGarr that have inspected this and do not agree. See below

https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1319430803487662081?s=19

These lines are where the 2004 act exceptions for commissions of investigations came from I suspect.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-23-gdpr/

Article 23 GDPR wrote:

the enforcement of civil law claims.
...
the protection of the data subject or the rights and freedoms of others;

There's one in there on investigating criminal offences as well, not sure would that apply.

Section 54 2004 act wrote:

to avoid obstructions to any official or legal inquiry, investigation or process, including any out-of-court redress procedure, proceedings pending or due before a court, tribunal of inquiry or commission of investigation;

Cluedo Monopoly

Petition is here

https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/repeal-the-seal-open-the-archive

smurgen

TheChizler wrote: »

These lines are where the 2004 act exceptions for commissions of investigations came from I suspect.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-23-gdpr/


There's one in there on investigating criminal offences as well, not sure would that apply.

And the section after that?

2. In particular, any legislative measure referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain specific provisions at least, where relevant, as to:
the purposes of the processing or categories of processing;
the categories of personal data;
the scope of the restrictions introduced;
the safeguards to prevent abuse or unlawful access or transfer;
the specification of the controller or categories of controllers;
the storage periods and the applicable safeguards taking into account the nature, scope and purposes of the processing or categories of processing;
the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects; and
the right of data subjects to be informed about the restriction, unless that may be prejudicial to the purpose of the restriction.

TheChizler

smurgen wrote: »

And the section after that?

2. In particular, any legislative measure referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain specific provisions at least, where relevant, as to:
the purposes of the processing or categories of processing;
the categories of personal data;
the scope of the restrictions introduced;
the safeguards to prevent abuse or unlawful access or transfer;
the specification of the controller or categories of controllers;
the storage periods and the applicable safeguards taking into account the nature, scope and purposes of the processing or categories of processing;
the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects; and
the right of data subjects to be informed about the restriction, unless that may be prejudicial to the purpose of the restriction.

Sure any law would have to include those qualifying points but I'm just trying to figure out which bits of GDPR actually allow the exemptions claimed.

mrslancaster

Donald Trump wrote: »

With all due respect, you don't know the full details of what happened in any specific case anymore than I would (which is zero). There may be some details left out in what you have been told.



If someone willingly gives their baby up for adoption and the new parents adopt that child and bring it up as their own, it would not be fair if the biological parent later changes their mind and arrives on the doorstep for the child's eight birthday wanting to tell them they are adopted.



Biological parent wants to contact child. Adoptive parents don't want to tell child they are adopted. Child is caught in the middle and potentially about to have their world as they know it upended. Even later on when the child is grown up. The adoptive parents might not want to tell them they aren't its "real" parents

If people gave testimonies to the commission & were told the information would be kept confidential, that is one thing & most people understand that.

The more fundamental issue IMO is the right of individuals to their own personal information.
Afaik every citizen enjoys the right of access to personal data under GDPR but it appears that adoptees & mothers who were forced to relinquish their babies are treated differently. They cannot access their own information, adoptees cannot get their birth certs.

You & I can get copies of our birth cert without any problem but you seem to think that adoptees have no right to know who they are, their heritage, no information about medical issues etc.

granted, not everyone in the situation wants the information. Some mothers want to forget it & put it behind them, some adoptees are not interested in knowing about biological parents.

However there are so many stories already told by those affected that they simply cannot get their information & that can't be right. It seems to me to be discrimination under the 'family status's ground in our Equality legislation as well as clearly against GDPR.

Adoption happens to children who have no say in the matter. Surely as adults they have a right to know their own personal story or do some still think they don't deserve to be treated equally to every other citizen.

Donald Trump

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Waffle!

We both know that some mothers and some children have been begging for their personal details for decades and have been blocked or refused.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Stop trying to find an excuse. Pathetic. Own your past.

https://twitter.com/BarbaraMcMahon8/status/1320467082128089093

They key word is some.


If all want it, then there is no issue. If none want it, then there is no issue. When some do and some don't then you are going to hurt one of those sections over the other.


That is the conundrum.




Coldly telling a victim to own their own past is also not very nice. There are probably women out there who went through horrific experience after a rape or an abuse and you want them now to take some responsibility for them coping with it via the only option available to them at the time? You might potentially destroy their lives now again by digging up that secret.....but in your opinion they should "own it".

Incel In The Membrane

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Michael D the sell out could have done something else if he felt it was the right thing to do.

He could have resigned without signing it

Did you really think he was going to give up his salary?

TheChizler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The President is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation not a rubber stamp and should refuse to sign legislation which doesn't protect the nation even if it means resigning their post as a consequence.

And what would you expect the next president to do? Resign in turn? Do we just keep electing an endless stream of presidents whose entire manifesto is to resign once they get into office?

Cluedo Monopoly

Donald Trump wrote: »

They key word is some.


If all want it, then there is no issue. If none want it, then there is no issue. When some do and some don't then you are going to hurt one of those sections over the other.


That is the conundrum.




Coldly telling a victim to own their own past is also not very nice. There are probably women out there who went through horrific experience after a rape or an abuse and you want them now to take some responsibility for them coping with it via the only option available to them at the time? You might potentially destroy their lives now again by digging up that secret.....but in your opinion they should "own it".

The own it comment was to the poster I was replying to. You might have seen her reference to Russia. The rest of your post is just starting the obvious.

The mothers have the right to know what happened their children and whether they are alive or dead. The contact is optional.

But many are begging for their data for decades and are blocked. You condone that??

Donald Trump

mrslancaster wrote: »

If people gave testimonies to the commission & were told the information would be kept confidential, that is one thing & most people understand that.

The more fundamental issue IMO is the right of individuals to their own personal information.
Afaik every citizen enjoys the right of access to personal data under GDPR but it appears that adoptees & mothers who were forced to relinquish their babies are treated differently. They cannot access their own information, adoptees cannot get their birth certs.

You & I can get copies of our birth cert without any problem but you seem to think that adoptees have no right to know who they are, their heritage, no information about medical issues etc.

granted, not everyone in the situation wants the information. Some mothers want to forget it & put it behind them, some adoptees are not interested in knowing about biological parents.

However there are so many stories already told by those affected that they simply cannot get their information & that can't be right. It seems to me to be discrimination under the 'family status's ground in our Equality legislation as well as clearly against GDPR.

Adoption happens to children who have no say in the matter. Surely as adults they have a right to know their own personal story or do some still think they don't deserve to be treated equally to every other citizen.

You are forgetting about the distressed and distraught young girl who finds out she is X months pregnant and in her mind this is the end of her world and there is no point in living if anyone ever finds out.


Do you want to have a safe outlet for her to go and have the baby and potentially give it up for adoption and know that her anonymity will be preserved?

Donald Trump

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

The own it comment was to the poster I was replying to. You might have seen her reference to Russia. The rest of your post is just starting the obvious.

The mothers have the right to know what happened their children and whether they are alive or dead. The contact is optional.

But many are begging for their data for decades and are blocked. You condone that??

What about the rights of adoptive parents who took on a child and brought it up as their own under the promise and assumption that the biological parent was not going to be able to turn up on their doorstep to tell the child that the adoptive parents are not the child's real parents?


Biological mother decides 10 years later that she wants the child back now and camps outside the house shouting and screaming for her child back?


Obviously that's only a minority of cases. But it might happen. What do you do in that scenario? Hand back the 10 year old to a life it doesn't know?


If I was looking to adopt a child, the ability of the biological parents to track the child and me down at any point might be enough for me to decide not to do it. Leave the kid in an orphanage if that is the case maybe!

Cluedo Monopoly

Donald Trump wrote: »

What about the rights of adoptive parents who took on a child and brought it up as their own under the promise and assumption that the biological parent was not going to be able to turn up on their doorstep to tell the child that the adoptive parents are not the child's real parents?


Biological mother decides 10 years later that she wants the child back now and camps outside the house shouting and screaming for her child back?

Obviously that's only a minority of cases. But it might happen. What do you do in that scenario? Hand back the 10 year old to a life it doesn't know?

If I was looking to adopt a child, the ability of the biological parents to track the child and me down at any point might be enough for me to decide not to do it. Leave the kid in an orphanage if that is the case maybe!

Oh please stop being such a drama queen with your whataboutery.

10 year olds? The Tuam mother and baby home for example closed in 1961!
Many of these women are already dead.

We are talking about forced adoptions. Forced adoptions. Just think about that for a minute. The children were abducted and sold for profit. They were taken away when the mother was not looking. Imagine the anguish for just few seconds before you start waffling about scenarios you saw on TV.

Some of the mothers just want to know if their children or alive. Some just want to know where their babies are buried because many died in the homes too. Some do not want to know any of the details because the pain is too much. Some want to contact their own child before they die. You would deny them that right.

Cluedo Monopoly

I bet some of you will not read this but I think everyone should.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0503/1047282-10-ways-institutional-abuse-details-are-still-being-kept-secret/

10 ways in which institutional abuse information is still kept secret

The State’s ever-expanding censorship of testamentary and archival evidence is unlikely to fully survive future litigation. Putting survivors through the intense stress and delays of litigating for access to basic information will be yet another incalculable failure on all of our part.

Donald Trump

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Oh please stop being such a drama queen with your whataboutery.

10 year olds? The Tuam mother and baby home for example closed in 1961!
Many of these women are already dead.

We are talking about forced adoptions. Forced adoptions. Just think about that for a minute. The children were abducted and sold for profit. They were taken away when the mother was not looking. Imagine the anguish for just few seconds before you start waffling about scenarios you saw on TV.

Some of the mothers just want to know if their children or alive. Some just want to know where their babies are buried because many died in the homes too. Some do not want to know any of the details because the pain is too much. Some want to contact their own child before they die. You would deny them that right.

Drama queen and whataboutery is right.


Point still holds. If the adoptive parents brought up that child as their own and that child still believes they are its parents, you have no right to break that secret.


Do you not understand that if you break those rules now for people adopted 40 years ago then you cannot turn around and try to convince people today "oh, uh, yeah, but we probably won't do it to you!"


If the child died in infancy then fair enough- they should tell the mother if she goes back looking for information.

Cluedo Monopoly

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

I bet some of you will not read this but I think everyone should.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0503/1047282-10-ways-institutional-abuse-details-are-still-being-kept-secret/

That’s ONE persons opinion.

Cluedo Monopoly

Donald Trump wrote: »

Drama queen and whataboutery is right.

Point still holds. If the adoptive parents brought up that child as their own and that child still believes they are its parents, you have no right to break that secret.

If the child died in infancy then fair enough- they should tell the mother if she goes back looking for information.

Forced adoptions. They were forced. Abducted. How about you let the old mother and/or the middle-aged child decide what they want to do? There are also children begging to know who their mothers are and they are also being blocked. How inhumane can you be?

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0503/1047282-10-ways-institutional-abuse-details-are-still-being-kept-secret/

Why don't you decide which ones you will allow??

- Some of the mothers just want to know if their children are alive or dead.
- Some just want to know where their babies are buried because many died in the homes too.
- Some mothers want to contact their own child before they die
- Some children want to contact their own mother before they die.

Cluedo Monopoly

Deleted User wrote: »

That’s ONE persons opinion.

She is talking about facts and acts. Where is she wrong?
I thought you hid away after the Russian whataboutery.
Some of the attitudes around here are truly appalling.
I am beginning to see why Ireland was so warped for many decades.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0503/1047282-10-ways-institutional-abuse-details-are-still-being-kept-secret/

skooterblue2

A mother never stops thinking about her child. An adopted child never stops wondering about her mother.
There is always that longing to know.
There should always be that mechanism for the two parties to meet if both parties wanted to. I know this because a former girlfriend was adopted. She passed away afterwards never knowing her mother.

This Tusla agency is no better than the Nuns that went before them, they are still the keepers of state secrets.

mrslancaster

@ Donald trump, Any parent who lies to their children that they are their biological child is wrong imo. Truthfullnes and trust is vital but I'm sure there are many who have lied to children since adoption was brought in during the 1950's.

Like many others I suspect, the first time I really understood what happened decades ago was seeing the film Philomena & I was truly shocked. Same with the Tuam baby scandal, so shocking.

Of course there are still many who think they know best & access to data should be on a "doff your cap" basis & the goodwill of a particular social worker rather than a basic right.

It's funny but many also thought the world as we knew it in ireland would come to a sorry end if divorce was legalised but guess what, it didn't happen. Same with abortion & gay marriage.

Adults in this country who happen to be adopted or a mother of an adopted child should have the right to their own records the same as everyone else. Anything else is discriminatory and in the 21st century it is a disgrace.

(No connection to Tusla but tbf they are operating under the legislation brought in by successive governments)

TheChizler

mrslancaster wrote: »

Adults in this country who happen to be adopted or a mother of an adopted child should have the right to their own records the same as everyone else. Anything else is discriminatory and in the 21st century it is a disgrace.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that in principle, the problem comes when giving one person their personal information inherently exposes someone else's personal information. And here there is a massive overlap considering the subject matter.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

A mother never stops thinking about her child. An adopted child never stops wondering about her mother.
There is always that longing to know.
There should always be that mechanism for the two parties to meet if both parties wanted to. I know this because a former girlfriend was adopted. She passed away afterwards never knowing her mother.

This Tusla agency is no better than the Nuns that went before them, they are still the keepers of state secrets.

When a mother gives up a baby for adoption, she can leave instructions as to whether or not she can be contacted. Unless she changes her mind at a later stage and has left a no contact instruction, then she cannot be contacted.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

When a mother gives up a baby for adoption, she can leave instructions as to whether or not she can be contacted. Unless she changes her mind at a later stage and has left a no contact instruction, then she cannot be contacted.

Yes but wont this legislation close that mechanism? Isnt that what people kept open?

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Yes but wont this legislation close that mechanism? Isnt that what people kept open?

It’s my understanding that what’s involved is the testimony given to the commission. Testimony given with the understanding that it wouldn’t be made public.
Requests to trace mother or child by the other hasn’t changed. Information to a third party isn’t allowed.

mrslancaster

how have so many other countries managed to give adults once they reach 18 their adoption files without major problems? It seems to work fine for our nearest neighbours. We seem to think this particular cohort of irish adults are not to be trusted to act in a responsible manner & our politicians continue to treat them as lesser citizens.

VillageIdiot71

Deleted User wrote: »

When a mother gives up a baby for adoption, she can leave instructions as to whether or not she can be contacted. Unless she changes her mind at a later stage and has left a no contact instruction, then she cannot be contacted.

In fairness, this issue probably highlights that this is just not a sustainable arrangement. Might have seemed to be in the past.

But the idea you can hide from someone the fact that you are their parent - probably good as a plot in a Dickens novel, but not for real life.

Cluedo Monopoly

People seem to think the mother and baby homes were some kind of friendly adoption service. These were forced adoptions for cash. Hopefully the commission will investigate this completely.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-report-4286541-Oct2018/

It draws on witness statements extracted from conversations with 164 people who were separated from their family members through Ireland’s forced adoption system and related historical abuses.

[My son] was wrenched from my breast by one of the nuns while I was feeding him and taken away for adoption… At no time did I give my consent to my son’s adoption.

My [adoptive] parents’ drinking was not a secret and I do not believe that if a proper vetting process had been followed they would have been allowed to adopt me.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30909291.html

A United Nations special rapporteur has said there is an urgent need for a comprehensive examination of forced and illegal adoptions here and warned the State’s investigation into mother and baby homes “is not broad enough to uncover the full scale of illegal adoptions”.

Maud de Boer-Buquicchio found significant issues with the “limited scope” of the commission of investigation into mother and baby homes.

Ms de Boer-Buquicchio, the special rapporteur on the sale and exploitation of children, has also claimed there is “a culture of silence” in Ireland around issues of childhood sexual abuse and exploitation.

mrslancaster

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

.... How about you let the old mother and/or the middle-aged child decide what they want to do? There are also children begging to know who their mothers are and they are also being blocked. How inhumane can you be?......

Couldn't agree more, treat people like adults. After all those who were adopted in the 50/60/70's are mature adults now in their 40's, 50's and 60's. Many have their own children who are also denied the knowledge of their ancestry & heritage as well as medical information.
Also, many of the mothers from those decades are dead and if that is the case, why would the information be withheld still? Afaik, the GDPR legislation does not apply to the dead (i 'm open to correction on this).

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

When a mother gives up a baby for adoption, she can leave instructions as to whether or not she can be contacted. Unless she changes her mind at a later stage and has left a no contact instruction, then she cannot be contacted.

Proof that this was policy in the mother & baby homes? I strongly doubt the RCC would allow the mothers any latitude whatsoever.

It *may* be policy today. That's not relevant to the discussion of the mother & baby homes and the states seeming collusion with the proprietors (RCC)

walshb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

A mother never stops thinking about her child. An adopted child never stops wondering about her mother.
There is always that longing to know.
There should always be that mechanism for the two parties to meet if both parties wanted to. I know this because a former girlfriend was adopted. She passed away afterwards never knowing her mother.

This Tusla agency is no better than the Nuns that went before them, they are still the keepers of state secrets.

In a perfect world this may be true..

There are plenty mothers who couldn’t give two fooks about the children they either have, or gave up.

Not all women are that maternal..

We are a very complex creature.

Also, plenty adopted children never want to know the people that gave them away..

mrslancaster

Just listening to the documentary on rte1 about a ban garda who was seriously disciplined in 1985 because she became pregnant. She was charged for giving birth & had to give her son up for adoption. Listening to her story makes me feel so sad that women were treated so badly & became so traumatised at the treatment they received in this country in the past. It took until 2019 until drew Harris apologised on behalf of AGS. It's time to change the outdated laws & start treating those affected with dignity.

walshb

mrslancaster wrote: »

Just listening to the documentary on rte1 about a ban garda who was seriously disciplined in 1985 because she became pregnant. She was charged for giving birth & had to give her son up for adoption. Listening to her story makes me feel so sad that women were treated so badly & became so traumatised at the treatment they received in this country in the past. It took until 2019 until drew Harris apologised on behalf of AGS. It's time to change the outdated laws & start treating those affected with dignity.

They were the rules in AGS at the time..

She was a grown adult at the time. She was not forced to give her child away..

Donald Trump

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Forced adoptions. They were forced. Abducted. How about you let the old mother and/or the middle-aged child decide what they want to do? There are also children begging to know who their mothers are and they are also being blocked. How inhumane can you be?

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0503/1047282-10-ways-institutional-abuse-details-are-still-being-kept-secret/

Why don't you decide which ones you will allow??

- Some of the mothers just want to know if their children are alive or dead.
- Some just want to know where their babies are buried because many died in the homes too.
- Some mothers want to contact their own child before they die
- Some children want to contact their own mother before they die.

Every single one of them was forced? Really? Hmm. I did not know that. Surely all those mothers would be able to come forward now? A few have of course but the rest of them haven't..............it's almost as if it's not actually true...........



Does this right about being able to find out about kids extend to the alleged fathers? Maybe some deadbeat father decides to get the name and address of his kid that was sent for adoption when the child was 10. Then he can land on the doorstep and ask for money not to tell the kid he is its real father.



Maybe we should just make adoptions illegal. I know I wouldn't adopt a child if its parent could unilaterally decide to track me down and land on my doorstep in a few years.


Better to have no adoption and to rotate all the kids between random foster homes and make it clear to the children as soon as they can understand speech, that they have no mammy and daddy. Or more correctly, that their real mammy and daddy didn't want them. But their temporary foster parents love them very much.....for the next 6 months....as long as the state is paying them enough to do so.

walshb

Where is the concern and consideration for all the adoptive parents in this? The ones who wanted these babies and cared for and reared them?

Donald Trump

walshb wrote: »

Where is the concern and consideration for all the adoptive parents in this? The ones who wanted these babies and cared for and reared them?

Potential parents just won't adopt if they can't trust the system. It would be the kids that would suffer.

Cluedo Monopoly

Donald Trump wrote: »

Every single one of them was forced? Really? Hmm. I did not know that. Surely all those mothers would be able to come forward now? A few have of course but the rest of them haven't..............it's almost as if it's not actually true...........

Does this right about being able to find out about kids extend to the alleged fathers? Maybe some deadbeat father decides to get the name and address of his kid that was sent for adoption when the child was 10. Then he can land on the doorstep and ask for money not to tell the kid he is its real father.

Maybe we should just make adoptions illegal. I know I wouldn't adopt a child if its parent could unilaterally decide to track me down and land on my doorstep in a few years.

Better to have no adoption and to rotate all the kids between random foster homes and make it clear to the children as soon as they can understand speech, that they have no mammy and daddy. Or more correctly, that their real mammy and daddy didn't want them. But their temporary foster parents love them very much.....for the next 6 months....as long as the state is paying them enough to do so.

Zero answers to my question. Just more generalities about adoption. I dont recall saying all the adoption were forced/illegal. A lot were. The commission might get those numbers for you soon.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115063390&postcount=340

Let me simplify for you.

Why don't you decide which scenarios you will allow in relation to ladies who were in the mother and baby homes??

- Some of the mothers just want to know if their forcibly adopted children are alive or dead.
- Some just want to know where their babies are buried because many died in the homes too.
- Some mothers want to contact their own forcibly adopted child before they die
- Some forcibly adopted children want to contact their own mother before they die.


https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-report-4286541-Oct2018/

Cluedo Monopoly

walshb wrote: »

Where is the concern and consideration for all the adoptive parents in this? The ones who wanted these babies and cared for and reared them?

You really don't need to be scared about 'fallen women' anymore. Most of them are dead or very old. All they want is their personal data.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/world/europe/ireland-illegal-adoptions-apology.html

Government officials said they would commission an independent inquiry into a broad sample of adoptions arranged by a variety of other societies and institutions, to see if a similar pattern exists there. Mr. Finlay, chief executive of the Irish branch of the child protection society Barnardos, estimated that as many as 150,000 Irish adoptions might need to be investigated if the abuse was found to have been more widespread.

The falsely recorded adoptions identified so far were among about 13,500 arranged between 1946 and 1969 by the St. Patrick’s Guild, an adoption society run by the Sisters of Charity.

Donald Trump

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Zero answers to my question. Just more generalities about adoption. I dont recall saying all the adoption were forced/illegal. A lot were. The commission might get those numbers for you soon.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115063390&postcount=340

Let me simplify for you.

Why don't you decide which scenarios you will allow in relation to ladies who were in the mother and baby homes??

- Some of the mothers just want to know if their forcibly adopted children are alive or dead.
- Some just want to know where their babies are buried because many died in the homes too.
- Some mothers want to contact their own forcibly adopted child before they die
- Some forcibly adopted children want to contact their own mother before they die.


https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-report-4286541-Oct2018/

You propose some scenarios and state that I should choose what ones I allow. But all your scenarios involve people wanting things. Nobody can stop another person wanting things. So the answer is that I'll allow all of those scenarios where someone wants something. Just because they want it doesn't mean they should get it though.



Your post is full of weasel words that mean nothing and cannot be proven. If a mother wanted to give up a child for adoption and 20 years later the child rocks up and demands her details and the authorities say "no" then how does that child know or determine whether or not they were "forcibly adopted". They don't and cannot. Weasel words used to make a topic emotive for an audience that cannot understand logic and don't give a crap about some poor woman who had to go through an awful trauma a few decades ago and managed to put it behind her.

James Brown

walshb wrote: »

Where is the concern and consideration for all the adoptive parents in this? The ones who wanted these babies and cared for and reared them?

In what regard? They would likely be aware they adopted their child.
Are you suggesting they won't want their child to have a choice as to whether or not they track down their biological parent/s?

Like the mothers had them taken from them? If you'd a bike stolen off you would you be all, what about the poor fella bought it off the thief in good faith?
The issue for me is the state/church taking babies and selling them off. Christianity doesn't come into it. Nasty rat bastard people looking to maintain a grip on society using religion IMO. Not to say there were not some women felt the child might be better off adopted, but no issues there I'd imagine.
FF/FG are simply trying to distance themselves from their legacies.

Donald Trump

Bowie wrote: »

In what regard? They would likely be aware they adopted their child.
Are you suggesting they won't want their child to have a choice as to whether or not they track down their biological parent/s?

Like the mothers had them taken from them?

The mothers were likely in a bad situation when they went into the homes. In many cases it was probably done secretly and they kept that secret. Moving on and trying to forget about it might have been their only option for dealing with whatever caused it.


And if you break that privacy now, you know that it is worth nothing in the future. You cannot hold out any promise to any girl in a desperate situation that if she comes for help that she can retain her privacy. The only way for her to have privacy would be not to go for official help.....she would have to give birth at home on her own and maybe drop the baby off in a bag somewhere. A bit dramatic but those things do happen because some women feel they cannot tell people. They will have no option if you remove that privacy.


If the woman wants the kids to contact her, she can fill out that request. And the child can do likewise. If both do it, then contact will be made. That is the fairest way that protects everyone.

Donald Trump

Bowie wrote: »

Like the mothers had them taken from them? If you'd a bike stolen off you would you be all, what about the poor fella bought it off the thief in good faith?
The issue for me is the state/church taking babies and selling them off. Christianity doesn't come into it. Nasty rat bastard people looking to maintain a grip on society using religion IMO. Not to say there were not some women felt the child might be better off adopted, but no issues there I'd imagine.
FF/FG are simply trying to distance themselves from their legacies.

It's not nice to be salivating at uncovering people's misfortune just because it can be conveniently used as a stick to beat the targets of your own particular agenda. They were and are people. Not just handy soundbytes to be used to score points against Church/FF/FG/whoever.

James Brown

Donald Trump wrote: »

The mothers were likely in a bad situation when they went into the homes. In many cases it was probably done secretly and they kept that secret. Moving on and trying to forget about it might have been their only option for dealing with whatever caused it.


And if you break that privacy now, you know that it is worth nothing in the future. You cannot hold out any promise to any girl in a desperate situation that if she comes for help that she can retain her privacy. The only way for her to have privacy would be not to go for official help.....she would have to give birth at home on her own and maybe drop the baby off in a bag somewhere. A bit dramatic but those things do happen because some women feel they cannot tell people. They will have no option if you remove that privacy.


If the woman wants the kids to contact her, she can fill out that request. And the child can do likewise. If both do it, then contact will be made. That is the fairest way that protects everyone.

I'm sure that was the case in a number of situations.

We can actually work to please everyone. If a person is told the birth mother doesn't want to know it could end there. If the birth mother is told the child has the opportunity to track you should he or she wish to, it could end there.
Where the child was stolen and sold, the organisations, if not the people can be brought to task. There are numerous ways of dealing with individual cases.

James Brown

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's not nice to be salivating at uncovering people's misfortune just because it can be conveniently used as a stick to beat the targets of your own particular agenda. They were and are people. Not just handy soundbytes to be used to score points against Church/FF/FG/whoever.

Yes, that's how the mothers of stolen babies could be dismissed. I can see that. Unlikely the public will buy it though.
A generic soundbite of a dismissal won't work here we've had generations of this shyte.
Try tackling the topic.

Donald Trump

Bowie wrote: »

I'm sure that was the case in a number of situations.

We can actually work to please everyone. If a person is told the birth mother doesn't want to know it could end there. If the birth mother is told the child has the opportunity to track you should he or she wish to, it could end there.
Where the child was stolen and sold, the organisations, if not the people can be brought to task. There are numerous ways of dealing with individual cases.

How do you propose contacting a mother who gave their child up for adoption 30 years ago?


I mean the logistics. Arrive on the doorstep of her family home? Send her a letter without knowing whether maybe or not someone else opens her mail for her because her eyesight isn't the best? find out her house number and leave a message on the answering machine and hope that she will pick it up?


Imagine the worry of the woman who is carrying that secret and doesn't want to be waiting around waiting for some randomer to bring old feelings and panic to the surface.


What do you want to do for the now 18 year old child who was adopted 18 years ago but was never told they were adopted? Have someone ring them out of the blue and say "Howaya, is that Jim? Yeah, your parents are not your parents at all. You are adopted and your real ma wants to contact you"

Donald Trump

Bowie wrote: »

Yes, that's how the mothers of stolen babies could be dismissed. I can see that. Unlikely the public will buy it though.
A generic soundbite of a dismissal won't work here we've had generations of this shyte.
Try tackling the topic.

What topic is this you want to talk about? Transgressions of FF/FG?



Whatever your political persuasion, it is likely that that party was also around at the time of these homes. They weren't a secret.

katiek102010

Deleted User wrote: »

Ireland isn’t alone in “selling” unwanted babies. Russia was doing it until recently.

What part of forced adoption do you think means unwanted babies.

These women were imprisoned against their will. I know of a case where the nuns and priest set the guards after a girls parents as they wanted to lock her up. They came back over and over trying to even take the baby after r it was born. The priest even banned the family from the local shops and schools over it.

Women who were raped were treated like criminals instead of victims.

In the 90's these nuns came into schools and threatened girls with all sorts under the pretex of biology, we were told our periods were because we were unclean and sinful.

I have an aunt who was beaten so bad in primary school she was left with brain damage. The guards did absolutely nothing when my grandparents complained. My aunt was shipped as a 7 year old from the hospital to a laundry. My grandparents had no say in the matter. It wasn't until the 1980's we could even get a solicitor to look at the case and the family got regular access. My aunts crime was that she got sick in the class.

There are a number of victim support groups online they say they never gave evidence under the guarantee of anonymity.

Is it the victims or abusers that want confidentiality?