>"part of a group of children rescued off the streets and sent abroad, or part >of a family encouraged to emigrate by the agents who worked in England then". > >My question is: Would his background details have been given to his >adoption/foster parents in Australia 'if' he were a British Home Child The 'Home child'designation is usually one given to emigrants to Canada, where it means something specific/ We don't see here quite the same concentration for Australia. However, a lot will depend on the date and circumstances. In the ?1920s, Kingsley Fairbridge arrnaged semi-official emigration of British children, and they were, I think, well documented. Catholic organisations did the same, at intervals, and I think deliberately cut off information, so the parents could not 'upset' the children, so finding about about them would be difficult. Barnardos organised a lot of emigration and do keep excellent records to this day (with photos etc). Other orphanages were not so careful. Sundry small groups arranged emigration ad hoc - for instance, in Bucks, a local schoolmaster in the late 1870s thought there would be great opportunities in Queensland, went over to check, decided yes, and collected c 200 people in families (who most did well). These are well documented, because he was a conscientious man. Some parishes or later Unions encouraged emigration, and offered incentives to those who listened to the agents who were over here. Some kept a list, which survives, some just annotated the individual workhouse records, some didn't bother. Gone was gone. The 'rogue' cases, such as I outlined, where a family emigrated as a whole, intending to settle, but perhaps was stricken by fever, which might leave one small child an orphan, are only likely to be recorded on a shipping list as a group, with no formal note about the child's disposal. The local newspaperin OZ (or the ship's log/doctor's journal if the parents died at sea) is about the best bet. News would not be very likely to be sent back, unless the child /family had close kin on the voyage (and if so, why didn't they take him?) If an uncle should have done so, and didn't, he is unlikely to have spread the news. >birth details have been kept secret from the Australian 'parents'? I think it was Catholic policy - and rather later (1930s/40s) this attitude spread, expecially where a child was adopted. The clean break policy made things very difficult for kin trying to trace. We know his >adopted parents later gave him a f ew details of his birh family ...would they >have been able to do this if he were a British Home Child? Maybe - but it is possible they looked after the parents at the last, or at least knew about them from observation locally, so maybe the local paper is the way to go? As they DID know some details, it musty mean some contact. > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society