Genealogy Chat

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

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

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!)

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

See below:-