Genealogy Chat

See below:-

Update to story below

Sorry if it is annoying to bring an old thread back, but I have found some new info and thought it better to refer to this thread rather than repeat the story.

I have now found that the lady who supposedly abducted him later married and had children. I have also found the address and phone number of one of her children.

I have also found her death registered in 1996.

What do we do now? The person I have found was born 11 years after Mike. Would he know about what happened before. Would it be wrong to write or phone and drag up the past.

Can anyone give me some advice please

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
His story from what he has been told.

He was born in Bristol in 1946 and shortly after birth was abducted from the hospital.
He was found 2 weeks later at an address in Clutton, a village near Bristol, and the person who abducted him was called Cook.
He remembers being told by his mother that he was adopted but is their real son. As he was only about 8 or 9 at the time, it didnt really register.

The problems started when he needed his birth certificate to obtain a passport. He gave the GRO all the information he had and they subsequently sent him a certificate. He didnt really read it, just sent it off to the passport office. It turned out to be an adoption certificate which I came across a while ago.

I looked in the Dec quarter of 1946 and came across a birth entry for a Michael Cook registered in the area where he was found. I obtained the certificate and the date of birth was his exactly, the place of birth was stated as Clutton, no father listed and the word adopted written at the side. The informant was a Mr Cook, babys grandfather.

My interpretation of events are that after being abducted, his birth was registered in the name of the person who abducted him. I can only assume that she had given birth to a child in Clutton, so had the necessary forms to register a birth. The baby then died, so she went to Bristol and abducted Mike, then used the previous forms to register the birth.

After he was found and returned to his real parents, his birth had already been registered and could not be registered again, so his parents had to go through an adoption process to make him legally theirs.

As the name, place and date of birth on the certificate I have found match with what is known, I feel sure I have the right certificate, but not sure of the actual events or reasons surrounding them.
Mike is certain that the name Michael was his mothers choice.
Did Miss Cook use this name when registering his birth purely by chance, or would it have been written on his cot or his hospital armband if it were known.

Can anyone think of any other interpretation of what could have happened. We cant find any hospital records as Mike thinks they may have tried to cover up an abduction taking place.

If the mother had her son and was not married but later did marry, her husband may have decided to formerly adopt the child. So although he was adopted by his birth mother, his adopted father may not have been his biological father. I can't think why she would have registration forms. They are held by the registrar, I believe. Do you think this story has been concocted to hide illegitimacy? Newspapers would perhaps have reported an abduction. Update How soon after birth was he registered? How would the adductor know his correct date of birth?

I dont think so somehow. Mikes mother was 43 when he was born and she had been married for over 20 years. I have the marriage certificate. I will certainly have a look at newspapers for the period. Thanks for that.

Hi Carol, Mike should be able to get his adoption records, they should give you the name of his birth mother.

If the birth certificate had 'adopted' written on it, Mr Cook wouldn't have used any previous baby's records. I don't know anything about the adoption process, but surely the registrar would have wanted to see paperwork about the adoption. From what I remember about the registration of my own children, the parents have no documentation about the baby until they register the birth, although the hospital had already informed the registrar because they checked my name off a list. Surely, if Mr Cook had wanted to use existing documentation about a baby which had died, he would have tried to make out the baby was his real grandchild. Hang on a minute though! Mr Cook DID claim the baby was his real grandchild! Curious! It sounds as though either Mr Cook's daughter or son was the baby's real parent, but for some reason couldn't or didn't want to register the baby in his/her own name, but later changed his/her mind. Do you know anything about 'Mr Cook' or the people your partner believed to be his birth parents? Are you absolutely sure that both his parents really were his parents. My ex-husband's father was brought up by his grandparents, because their daughter had an affair with a married man and the birth was hushed up. The man's name does not appear on the certificate, so he has no way of finding out who he was. My ex knows nothing of his father's mother...presumably she was sent off somewhere and had nothing to do with the family after she 'disgraced' them. I have a feeling she could have been married herself. I agree with the above posters and your best bet would be to try the adoption agencies if a formal adoption took place.

had read throughand want to putdown my thought. slightly different angle... My have been Husabnds illegitimate son (by another woman ) which wife, having discovered existed, forgave her husband and adopted what was he husbands son, (maybe better off than the mother?) Ring your local Social services. legally they should only speak to him, not you. Start the ball rolling with requesting his file. Personally I wouldnt go into the details with them initially, just get the file finding process started and see what evolves. best of luck to him Jess x

Just another thought...... Did Mike have any siblings? Just thinking as possibly a kind of arrangement for the couple to have a child. Could be that his father had a relationship with a local girl so that they could have a child. Best thing to do is get that adoption file! Pippa

Just a nit-picky point here...babies did not have identity tags in the 40s and 50s. It was only after a number of mix-ups came to light in the 1960s that Hospitals decided to use them. Personally, if this was my dilemma, I would go straight for the 'adoption' file. As the circumstances (if they are true) are so unusual and involve only a legal formality and not a true adoption, Social Services would be giving away no secrets if they were to confirm to your husband that he was adopted by his true birth parents. And while I was waiting, I'd have a good look in the newspapers, although as has been said, the Hospital probably did its best to cover this up. Olde Crone (who never ceases to be amazed at the stories we read on here!)

I didn't have an ID tag when I was born in 1964!! They had just been invented, though, so mum asked if she could have one when she was leaving the hospital. She then wrote my details on it herself!! Rather defeats the object! (Sorry to be a bit off topic - Hope you get to the bottom of this dilemma......) Merry

I can't really add anything other than I think it's a good idea to check out newspaper records for the time. If he was abducted then it would have been reported. Margaret

And of course, there would almost certainly have been a Court Case. Olde Crone

Just a thought, If she had abducted the baby, Why would she go to the bother of registering the birth and possibly drawing suspicion to herself? Pat

Clutton is quite a small village. I wonder if it is worth looking for a baptism at the local church. I worked at Bristol maternity hospital and an abduction would be very unusual. I think it is more likely that he went home with his real mother before being given to his adoptive parents. I have found the Cook family in Somerset in Clutton in my old favourite Somerset Coalfield connections but only 19th century.

Had Mike's parents any other children? To be honest I have my doubts about the story that he has been told. Firstly if he was born to an unmarried mother by the name of Cook this would explain his entry in Dec 1946 and the fact that his grandfather had registered the birth (this would be very unlikely if someone abducted a baby I do not think they would get their father to register the birth. More than likely he was born in Clutton to a single mother by the name of Cook (there are still some families in this area with this name on the elecotoral roll) and at a later date he was adopted. Perhaps he kept his first name, and for whatever reason (sure it was with the best intentions his adoptive family chose to tell him this story to re-assure him he was theirs). You say his parents had been married for 20 years and his mother was in her forties when they had Mike, this is why I ask if they had other children, they would seem at the time an ideal couple to adopt. Of course I may be wrong, in this case full details would appear in his adoption file, also their would be something in the local newspaper about this abduction. But you have asked for peoples opinions on this matter and to be honest I think the fact he was adopted seems the most likely answer. Hope you find the answers to the questions your looking for. Good Luck. Sheila

Pat A woman who abducts a baby is usually suffering from Post Natal Depression. She would have registered the baby (or rather, her father did) for the simple reason that rationing was still in force in 1946 and without registration, she could not have got a ration book for the child (maybe her father insisted?). Also, in her mind anyway, she was the mother of this child. A relatively recent abduction case (well, 20 years ago, LOL) was only solved when the abductee attempted to register the child at the age of five months, because she could not get any benefits for the child without producing a birth certificate. As there had been nationwide publicity about this abduction, the Registrar was suspicious and alerted the Police. This story has the ring of truth for me - it would be such an unnecessarily elaborate lie otherwise and the story so far, fits the facts. Abductions from Maternity Units are relatively rare NOW - but back in the 1940s,hospitals just werent 'aware'. I was quite startled recently when visiting the Unit where my two youngest were born, in the late 70s and 80s, to find that the Main Door was locked, intercom access and CCTV camera in operation and the same on the Maternity Ward. It certainly wasnt like that in the 70s and 80s, you could come and go as you pleased, day and night and it would have been the easiest thing in the world to abduct a baby. Olde Crone.

Thank you all for your input. We will definately try and get hold of his adoption file and check the newspapers. Incidentally, Mike is an only child and he definately the son of the person he knew as mother as he is the spitting image of her. I first met Mike 40 years ago, and it was the first thing I noticed. Thank you all once again.

Sorry to appear insensitive, but would DNA testing settle this issue once and for all. And whatever happened to the woman who had allegedly abducted him? Brenda

Hi Carol, If he was abducted, surely the police would have been informed. Have you checked with them, the case records should still be in existence. They, together with the adoption file should hold most of the answers. Di from Down Under

I have been thinking about this all day! Here is a scenario (I'm good at these, I have plenty of practice). Miss Cook becomes pregnant by a Soldier. He promises, somewhat reluctantly, to marry her 'because of the baby'. She gives birth a couple of weeks ahead of your partner's mother and in the same hospital. Miss Cook's baby dies. She gets little sympathy in hospital from either Staff or the other mothers because she is unmarried. She does not tell her father that her baby has died, indeed, does not tell any member of her family, not even the boyfriend. She has to remain in hospital for a fortnight (as was usual in those days) and knows if she goes home without a baby, her chances of marrying the reluctant soldier are over. So she goes home with a baby.(It was easy - she just walked into the unlocked, unsupervised Nursery, where ALL babies spent 23 hours a day, only being taken from the Nursery to be fed - no bedside cribs in those days.) No one is suspicious, why should they be? Her father is rather anxious that the baby is registered immediately because as far as he is concerned, the baby is weeks older than it really is.She doesn't want to register the baby, keeps making excuses, so Grandad goes and does it himself, being a law-abiding citizen. I still think this story is true - why would you tell such a massive lie? Can't be covering up illegitimacy as you say your partner looks so like his mother - even if his father 'knew' that he was not the father, why go through the complicated process of registerig him in a false name and then adopting him. His parents didnt need to do anything other than register him as their child in the first place (and I bet that's happened more times than we know about). This is a fascinating mystery and I would love to know what you find out! Olde Crone