When he established his magazine The Bell in October 1940, Seán Ó Faoláin declared its mission: “It is our job to have a flair, a nose, a hound’s smell for the real thing . . . We have to go about nosing for bits of individual veracity, hidden in the dustheaps of convention, imitation, timidity, traditionalism, wishful thinking.”
Delivering on this aim involved probing sensitive subjects rarely part of public discourse. In 1941, an article simply titled Illegitimate punctured disingenuous piety. It looked squarely at the abandonment of children born outside marriage and their mothers and the failure to develop secular social work, in the absence of which Ireland remained in “the Dark Ages”. In relation to adoption, the author (writing under the initials MPRH) noted “the fact that no adoption Act has been passed here gives rise to many abuses. It is no tall story to tell of the export of Irish children in the name of lonely souls elsewhere. At present, the position both of parent and adopting parent is far from satisfactory . . . advertising plays its part in this commerce, and where a sum of money changes hands, an entirely unsuitable environment may be chosen for the unwanted child.”
Although limited legal adoption was legislated for in 1952, the exports continued, as did illegal registration of births, but as pointed out in the recent report by the Government’s Special Rapporteur on Child Protection Conor O’Mahony, Irish authorities in the 1950s and 1960s “consciously turned a blind eye”. This was despite the sheer brazenness of what was happening, as outlined publicly in The Bell in such detail as early as 1941.
Identity dilemma
In 1996, Maggie Butler, who was born in Dublin in 1951and adopted as a baby by an American family, eventually returning to Ireland from Maine in 1993, described the essence of her identity dilemma: “You were cut off from your name, from your country and from your history.” Butler was unusual at that stage in speaking out about her experiences and quest for the truth.
It was established clearly the birth mother's right to privacy outweighed the rights of the child. This is now to be rectified
The same year, almost 2,000 files relating to adoption of Irish children abroad, mainly to the US between 1948 and 1974, were discovered by archivist Catríona Crowe in the National Archives. Most of the information in these files related to the prospective adoptive parents. As Crowe highlighted, “The only document on each file directly relating to the relevant child was the consent form signed by the child’s mother, granting permission to have the child adopted and promising never to attempt to see her or him again.”
It was established clearly in subsequent years that the birth mother’s right to privacy outweighed the rights of the child. This is now to be rectified; earlier this year, Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman announced that birth and information-tracing legislation giving adopted people access to their birth certificates and early-life information would finally address “failures of the State”. O’Gorman described this as “a real step in addressing and redressing that failure of the State”.
The commission's report downplays the idea of "forced" adoption as a serious issue in the homes
Are there other steps? Conor O’Mahony has argued that an inquiry is needed to prevent the illegal adoption issue remaining an “open sore”. Sampling of archival records suggests up to 20,000 people may have been affected by illegal birth registrations. There is little political appetite to confront the scale of this; the priority is to pass the legislation and offer an apology and token compensation for those whose illegal adoptions were facilitated by just one organisation involved: St Patrick’s Guild.
Examining records
O’Mahony’s call for an inquiry is partly a consequence of what he described as the “ad hoc, piecemeal and delayed” reaction to the issue. The terms of reference of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes did not include examining the records of the adoption societies. The commission’s report includes useful information and background relating to adoption, but also downplays the idea of “forced” adoption as a serious issue in the homes, a contention that has been vigorously contested (“The commission found very little evidence that children were forcibly taken from their mothers; it accepts that the mothers did not have much choice but that is not the same as ‘forced’ adoption”. Really?) What has not transpired on the scale needed is an examination of the records of all the adoption societies.
As Crowe has pointed out, “the Government has the opportunity to create a new, survivor-centred model” for an inquiry into adoption “for those who have waited far too long”. O’Mahony has suggested an alternative to a commission of investigation should be looked at: a non-statutory truth commission. This idea needs to be taken seriously; the commission of investigation model has proven to be too lengthy, legalistic and hampered by excess caution.
Inevitably, eyes will roll at the idea of yet another investigation into the treatment of vulnerable women and children, but those sceptical should consider the depth of pain running through the simple question of “Who am I?”