Hi Diane I know that this is more recent than some of the cases of informal adoption that I've come across, but the 'took him as her own' phrase and the Superintendent's note puzzle me. If it was simply a straightforward case of illegitimacy why would any note be made? Although 1942 is far more recent than cases I've encountered I know that not everyone would necessarily regard the legal requirement for registration in the same way. I wondered whether there is possibility that a daughter/sister/friend of Mary's may have concealed a pregnancy and Mary may have raised him and believed that registering him 'as her own' was the best way to do that legally. Another possibility (which has happened in my family - although the registration process was followed properly) is that the birth mother of a child dies shortly after the birth and the child is raised by someone else - already widowed - without being aware of their story. I've come across a few cases where children have apparently been born quite a while after the death of a husband. While some may have been the result of a new relationship, I think that it's important to remember that because of current moral attitudes and our familiarity as family historians with things such as bastardy orders, we can jump to conclusions that are simply wrong and would be distressing for the individuals concerned. This was 1942 after all. To answer your other question, yes Mary would have been able to adopt him even though she was widowed - and particularly if she was already raising him. I'm a little confused about the birth certificate and the reference to adoption in your original posting to the list however. If you know that there was a formal legal adoption it sounds as if the birth certificate you have may not be the original birth registration. I hope I haven't confused things further, but if the person(s) concerned are still living it may be that one of the charities supporting adopters and adoptees would be the best source of information. Sara -----Original Message----- From: Caroline Bradford [mailto:caroline.bradford@btinternet.com] Sent: 19 November 2012 08:22 To: 'rootsweb essex' Subject: Re: [Ess] Adoption in West Ham Hi Diane > A childs Birth Cert. gives only the natural father' name or no father > (for various reasons) is given, or father (deceased). This is not *strictly* true. The law assumed (and still does) that if a married woman gave birth then her husband was the father. Even if a registrar had his suspicions, the husband's name would go on the certificate. But I don't think this is particularly relevant to the case in question as the mother was almost certainly a widow, not a married woman. Thomas H NURSE married Mary KNIGHT in Q1 1927 and there were three children apparently born to the couple between 1929 and 1932. It looks highly likely that Thomas died in Q4 1936. I think the "adoption" issue is a red herring. As others have pointed out, Mary would not have needed to adopt John if she was his natural mother. The most likely scenario is that Mary became pregnant by a man who was unwilling or unable to marry her and concocted a story about John being adopted to cover her shame (though I doubt many would have been fooled at the time!). Hope this helps > > > Mary took him as her own a month after he was born. The question is: > > there is no Father on the birth certificate. I know that Mary WAS > > married to a Thomas Nurse, wouldn't he have been down on the > > certificate even though he wasn't the birth father please? If > > Thomas had died, would she have been able to adopt John even though > > she didn't have a husband in 1942 please? > >