Did They Forbid You from Seeing Your Baby?

During "The Baby Scoop Era" of 1955 to 1985, even until 1988, this was common practice in Canadian hospitals, for unwed mothers to be denied the chance to see or hold their babies. It was done in the United States as well, and it was not done to married mothers, only those who had been pegged by the hospital or a social worker as being suitable (i.e. vulnerable enough) to harvest for adoption.

This practice was illegal. It was abduction!

The New South Wales parliamentary inquiry examines this practice in its Final Report, pp. 97-104, regarding this practice:

Access to the baby at and after delivery

7.30 Many women providing evidence to this inquiry were prevented from having access to their babies during and after labour. As explained above, the marking of a woman’s chart ‘baby for adoption’ was intended as a guide to hospital staff on her treatment, including restricting access to the baby.

Was the denial of access to the baby unethical or unlawful?

7.59 Refusing a mother’s access to the baby was common practice until the late 1970s. The practice was intended to prevent maternal bonding and make the relinquishment easier. In the 1950s and early 1960s, there is little evidence that this practice was challenged. By the mid 1960s individual practitioners and the AASW took a stand against the practice.

The Committee believes that by this time there was enough informed criticism to warrant a more rigorous examination of the suitability of the practice by adoption professionals. By the mid 1970s, the NSW Standing Committee on Adoption also strongly and publicly opposed the practice. By this time, it would clearly have been highly unethical to deny access. ...

7.60 The Committee believes professionals failed to act quickly enough to halt what was already recognised as a damaging and inappropriate practice. As discussed above, the Committee is particularly concerned about the failure of the Hospitals Commission and Health Commission to prevent the practice and considers that more could have been done to ensure hospital practices reflected the patient’s needs.

7.61 Mothers argued that the practice denied their legal rights as guardian of the child. As explained above, the Health Commission stated that the mother was the legal guardian of the child until the signing of the consent form. Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her from having access to the child prior to the consent “would not have been authorised”.

7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully.

7.63 Whatever the rationale for the practice, the Committee believes that in all cases women should have been consulted about this issue prior to the birth and that a woman should not have been denied access to her child if she requested it. Therefore, failure to grant access constituted an unlawful and unethical action.

Please Join Origins Canada and help us request an inquiry into such illegal and unethical practices in YOUR province!