Family Historian User Group

I'm wondering how to record a GRO birth record for someone who was adopted by their step-father (I'm assuming the annotation was because of the adoption).

This is what is shown on the index image:
There's similar annotations on his sisters' entries.

He is known by new surname, so I have that as the primary name and his original as an alternate name, but obviously the GRO index is in the original name. I can't find anything in the GRO indexes when I search using his new name.

I'm not sure whether to put the reference in the citation as "825 0465/S" or to have two separate citations (the second could be dated to when the adoption occurred if I find that out)?

Any thoughts?

An 'S' in an annotation usually refers to the September quarter - presumably the next following. If you go to FreeBMD and search with no names but just the district and reference 4a 465 (or 0465) in the next September, does anything useful come up?

On the face of it, it looks more like a re-registration (with father added?) rather than an adoption. Adoptions are usually noted explicitly, and any subsequent entries would be in the adoption register rather than the normal births index.

I’d check the official GRO website, for both entries, may make more sense.
I had a similar problem recently when a birth on FreeBMD was registered in 1858, when their birth/Baptism year was in 1855. When I checked GRO website for correct year/Quarter, the entry pointed me to the later entry.

E.g. 1855 GRO entry said see 1858/S, indicating it was registered/corrected 3 years later ( I don’t know the reason why )

Gowermick wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 17:54

I’d check the official GRO website, for both entries, may make more sense.

Except that you can't search the GRO site without a surname. I suggested FreeBMD because you can use just the date and reference (and district if you wish) so as to see what names come up.

At FreeBMD you can of course follow the links to see an image of the old GRO printed/handwritten index for any entry, or go straight to the images, but the GRO's own online index isn't always identical to that.

arthurk wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 19:58

Except that you can't search the GRO site without a surname. I suggested FreeBMD because you can use just the date and reference (and district if you wish) so as to see what names come up.

At FreeBMD you can of course follow the links to see an image of the old GRO printed/handwritten index for any entry, or go straight to the images, but the GRO's own online index isn't always identical to that.

But you’ve found the surname using Freebmd!
There’s nothing to stop you using both, they are not mutually exclusive!
When I have trouble finding a specific entry due to spelling variations or I’m not too sure of the date, I use Freebmd to find it, then GRO to find the extra details I’m after i.e. first names in full or to check that mothers maiden name is correct.

Freebmd is useful for ‘fuzzy’ searching, then I use that information to search GRO. It doesn’t always work, but two heads are better than one.

Gowermick wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 20:35

But you’ve found the surname using Freebmd!

But from the original post I got the impression that a registration in the new name hadn't been found, and that a search in another quarter hadn't been tried:

jelv wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 16:57

He is known by new surname, so I have that as the primary name and his original as an alternate name, but obviously the GRO index is in the original name. I can't find anything in the GRO indexes when I search using his new name.

I suggest we wait for clarification and/or a response to our suggestions.

I've tried FreeBMD using the new surname, date range from his actual birth to 20 years later and no mother's surname - that didn't find him.

4a 465 only across the same date range drew a blank as well.

In that case, I think the best chance of finding out what happened is to order a copy of the certificate. It may be that if you use the original reference the GRO will convert it to an application under the new one, but it might be worth asking their advice first. It would, of course, be the later registration that would include any explanation etc, and the problem is that you haven't been able to find that in the index.

Alternatively, local registrars are usually very helpful, and although the GRO reference means nothing to them, they will very likely have a similar annotation and second entry in their own index.

Lastly, another thought just came to me. When I've seen notes like this in an index before, they've usually had a year. So rather than reading it as 4a 0465/S could it be 4a 04 from 65/S, ie Sep qtr 1965?

Re the question of citations. So far (if I'm understanding it correctly) you appear only to have seen one index entry. That means one citation - it only becomes two citations when you've seen a second document.

As for what you put, I'd have something like
4 a x825x [lined out] 0465/S

I'd actually put this in the text from source, as any reference of that form is for the certificate that you haven't yet seen, but I know people do put those items into the reference.

The words "lined out" are intended to appear in that text, with the square brackets.

Would 4 a 825 0465/S using the Strikeout S Rich Text format be a better representation?

tatewise wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2023 14:34

Would 4 a 825 0465/S using the Strikeout S Rich Text format be a better representation?

Indeed it would - I don't always have a Rich Text hat on, I'm afraid. My version would be for use if Strikeout wasn't available.

As for what the annotations mean, I've been scrambling through various notes that I've saved, and one note appears to suggest that the /S refers to an annotation by the Superintendent Registrar. Whether the 465 is an annotation number for that SR's annotations (eg the 465th annotation that they have made) I'm not sure - I might be getting confused with a similar numbering scheme in Scotland.

General advice seems to be that the only way to be certain what's going on is to get both copies (if there is a later version) - however, advice is that the GRO tend to automatically issue the later certificate unless you are emphatic that you want the original. But whether this is a reissue due to an amendment of names (for instance) or a cancellation or an annotation noting an adoption, I've no idea. (I didn't think that adoptions would have resulted in the old page number being scrubbed out - and remember adoptions would only appear after a certain date that I don't remember right now)

I agree with Adrian's last point. My father formally adopted my half-sister after marrying my mother (her father was an American serviceman who ran a mile after the birth in 1945), and I also know of a case where a baby was given up for adoption after being born to a single woman in the 1950s. Neither original GRO Birth Index entry (FreeBMD image) has been amended, and I was able to obtain a copy of the original birth certificate in the latter case using these details.

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2023 13:26

Re the question of citations. So far (if I'm understanding it correctly) you appear only to have seen one index entry. That means one citation - it only becomes two citations when you've seen a second document.

That makes sense.

tatewise wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2023 14:34

Would 4 a 825 0465/S using the Strikeout S Rich Text format be a better representation?

Thanks, that's what I'm going with.

jelv wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2023 20:09

tatewise wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2023 14:34

Would 4 a 825 0465/S using the Strikeout S Rich Text format be a better representation?

Thanks, that's what I'm going with.

I think that is the right option - as it most closely replicates the actual entry in the index. However, I think that you need to research this "correction" in more depth. It is extremely unlikely that it refers to an adoption, which is a legal process which is a totally different event to a birth and, is not recorded in the birth indexes - which is why you can't find it there.

The records of the two events are kept completely separate and, for privacy and confidentiality, there are no links in the birth indexes to adoption events.

arthurk wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 20:42

Gowermick wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 20:35

But you’ve found the surname using Freebmd!

But from the original post I got the impression that a registration in the new name hadn't been found, and that a search in another quarter hadn't been tried:

I suggest we wait for clarification and/or a response to our suggestions.

This might be a bit left field to solve your problem but I've just resolved a problem where I could find the person's birth registration on fmp, ancestry, MyH and freebmd and could get to the image scan to confirm the details. But GRO drew a blank every time I tried to order the certificate from them.

GRO was excellent once I submitted the scan of the index page I could see. Within 24hrs I got feedback that what was written as 'Bermondsey' in the index was actually 'Bedminster' at GRO. I even got a refund of the admin fees that had been deducted.

I'll still need the actual birth cert to confirm I've got the correct person but its a hiccup I've never experienced before.

The records of the two events are kept completely separate and, for privacy and confidentiality, there are no links in the birth indexes to adoption events.

Presumably when programmes such as Long Lost Families pull their rabbit out the hat with “our intermediaries have located the adoption record”, they are referring to approved social workers who have privileged access to the records not granted to lowly TV researchers?

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2023 14:24

Presumably when programmes such as Long Lost Families pull their rabbit out the hat with “our intermediaries have located the adoption record”, they are referring to approved social workers who have privileged access to the records not granted to lowly TV researchers?

That is right, and for good reason! The adopted child could have great resentment towards the mother who gave them away, so there is a duty of care to ensure that there is no ulterior motive, and that the birth mother is not put in undue danger. This is not just Social Services decision it requires the authorisation of a magistrate (Justice of the Peace) to obtain access to adoption records.

The Adoption Act of 1926 defined, for the first time, the legal process for adoption and made it a legal requirement that the identities of the birth parents should not be revealed to the adoptive parents, and vice versa. Also it was made it a criminal offence for the birth parents to subsequently try to find or contact the adopted child.

The Act also gave the adopted child the right of access to their adoption records (e.g. to try to trace their birth parents), but only with the permission of the Court.

NOTE - The Adoption Act was last amended in 2002, I do not know if this changed the requirement for a magistrate's approval, but there would still be a duty of care.

Little.auk wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023 10:42

and made it a legal requirement that the identities of the birth parents should not be revealed to the adoptive parents, and vice versa.

Yet, in the mid-70s it was still possible for a 'private' adoption to be arranged via family connections and rubber stamped by the relevant authorities... The birth mother may not have known who the adoptive parents were, but her sister and brother-in-law did; and the adoptive parents knew who the birth mother was.

Yes, these safeguards have been there for good reason, but DNA matching has changed the game on that one. I lean towards the more liberal view that everybody has an absolute right to know their birth family, but it is not without consequences.

Perhaps there is another analogous issue coming down the tracks for the future - no amount of legal process or reassignment surgery changes a single molecule of DNA, so it is likely that sex and gender will become increasingly decoupled...

arthurk wrote: ↑

19 Jan 2023 10:57

Lastly, another thought just came to me. When I've seen notes like this in an index before, they've usually had a year. So rather than reading it as 4a 0465/S could it be 4a 04 from 65/S, ie Sep qtr 1965?

Just wondering if anything came from this suggestion? (And in case 04 means something else, since you have a name you could search in that quarter without the reference anyway.)

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023 10:54

Yet, in the mid-70s it was still possible for a 'private' adoption to be arranged via family connections and rubber stamped by the relevant authorities... The birth mother may not have known who the adoptive parents were, but her sister and brother-in-law did; and the adoptive parents knew who the birth mother was.

That is a "special case" - but it still has to go through the legal process, where the issue of anonymity would be assessed.

I have a case in my family where a female relative and her partner had a child, they then split up and the mother married someone else. Using false names - we had mother maiden surname Smith, child surname Jones, husband surname Brown. In this case the husband legally adopted the child, with the full knowledge and consent of all parties!

According to FreeBMD the S suffix ("/S") denotes a supplementary registration. superseding the original registration.

For the S to denote the September quarter, it should precede the page number, (e.g. S/245) and it that case would refer to a late entry.

See item 40 on this page for a more detailed explanation of supplementary registrations. An explanation of late entries is linked in one of the answers a few sections above:

https://www.freebmd.org.uk/search-faq.h ... plementary

Thanks for that clarification - it explains a lot, but I'm still puzzled as to why jelv can't find the new name in the index. I suspect ordering the certificate may be the best way to work it out.

You can try checking UKBMD this gives more details and are transcripts from local registration offices. When it comes to marriages this states location of marriage like name of church or register office. Obtaining a certicate via the code provided is a copy of the original certificate and comes from the Registration office but is in black and white. It is after all an exact copy of the certificate.
GRO certificates are extracts from the original hence are in black and white
Victor