Full text of Problems and Procedures in Adoption, Bureau Publication No. 262

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

m
% ^ 'i

I
»

PROBLEMS A N D PROCEDURES

IN ADOPTION

? r .?

i
■J

■4
w 4

p
y

xs£

< 0

*-|
A
■#
jf

Bureau Publication No. 262
i

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

CHILDREN’S BUREAU

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis
I

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES
IN ADOPTION
BY

MARY RUTH COLBY

Bureau Publication N o. 262

United States
Government Printing Office
Washington : 1941

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. -

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Price IS cents

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONTENTS

Page.

Letter of transmittal____________________________________________________
y
Introduction______________________________________
1
Purpose and scope of the study_____________________________________
1
Adoption rates in the States visited----- -------------------------------------------4
The children and the petitioners------------------------------------------------------------6
The children for whom adoption petitions were filed________________
6
6
.--»Race and sex of the children_________________________ __________
The parents of the children____________________________________
7
Status of birth of children for whom petitions were filed________
10
The petitioners.-________________________________________
12
Persons adopting more than one child__________________________
12
Relationship to the child______________________
12
Marital status of the petitioners________________________________
15
Residence of the petitioners____________________________________
17
Placement of the child in the home________________________ _________
20
20
Agency or person placing______________________________________
Persons with whom children were placed_______________________
23
Study of the home and the child before placement______________
25
Ages of children at time of placement_________________ _________
27
Children who were adopted_______________________.■_________________
30
Period of time in the home before adoption__ - ________________
30
Ages of children and adoptive parents___________ u--------------------33
The family situation in the adoptive home___________ ._________
36
Services of the State department_______________________________ ____ . . . .
42
Development of sound adoption practices_________ _____________ _____
42
Improvement in placements for adoption_______________________
42
Educational activities of State departments____________ ________
47
Investigation of adoption petitions__ ___________________________ ___
52
The State plan for having investigations made_________________
53
Agencies or persons making the investigations__________________
57
Procedures used in the investigation________________________________
61
Verification of vital statistics______________________ ___________
62
The social inquiry____________________
63
Time required for the investigation____________________________
71
The report of the court_________ ____________ _______________________
73
Content of the report____________________________________
73
77
Desirability of the adoption----- --------------------------------- : . ________
The courts______ .__________ ___________________________________________
80
Jurisdiction________________________________________________________
80
Consent to adoption________________________________________________
84
Consent of parents----------------------84
Legal provisions regarding consent of other persons—
--------92
Persons consenting to adoption___________________________________
95
The social investigation and report to the court-------------------------------99
Attitude of judges----------99
Court decisions after reports were received. ________________
107
Annulment of adoption_______________________________________________
Court procedure_______________________________________
The petition___________________________________
Use of an attorney___________________________________
Hearings____________:________ ______________ . . . _____ __________
111
Published notice_____ ____________________________________________
117
Records of adoption__________________________________
122
Adoption fees___________________ ____________________.____ ____ _
Summary and conclusions_________________________________________________
124
Appendix. Samples of reports on approved adoptions sent to the court
by the State department of three States________________ ______________
128

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

101

110

118

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

U nited States D epartment of L abor ,
C hildren ’ s B ureau ,

Washington, November 1, 1940.
M adam : There is transmitted herewith Problems and Procedures in

Adoption, the report of a study in nine States where responsibility has
been given to the State public-welfare department for the investigation
of petitions for adoption.
The Children’s Bureau acknowledges with appreciation the courtesy
and generous assistance given by the State departments, courts, and
private agencies that furnished information about adoption practices
in the several States.
The study was made by Mary Ruth Colby under the general direc
tion of Agnes K. Hanna, Director of the Social Service Division of the
Children’s Bureau. Caroline E. Legg and Deborah S. Portnoy
assisted in obtaining the record material.
Respectfully submitted.
K atharine F. L enroot , Chief.
Hon. F rances P erkins ,
Secretary of Labor.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS A N D PROCEDURES IN AD O PTIO N
★

INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Frequent articles on adoption in the public press and in professional
journals as well as questions to the Children’s Bureau from social
agencies and individuals concerning adoption practices have given
evidence of a growing and widespread interest in this subject. Accord
ingly a study of adoption procedures was undertaken in those States
where a State department had been given statutory responsibility for
making investigations of adoption petitions.
It was intended not to evaluate the success or failure of individual
adoptions insofar as the children adopted or the persons adopting
them were concerned but to show the extent to which the safeguards
for their protection set up by legislation or through administration
had been effective. Another aim was to obtain factual material to
show who the children were who were being adopted, how they found
their way into the homes of those petitioning for their adoption, and
what differences there were in standards, practices, and volume in the
several States in which the study was conducted.
Although there has been general acceptance of the fact that adop
tions of children born out of wedlock are frequent, no body of material
was available showing the relationship between illegitimacy and
adoption in those States having a social program for the unmarried
mother and those without it. Former studies had for the most part
been confined to a single city or county with no comparable data from
other areas.
It was expected that the study not only would provide information
on the administration of existing laws but would furnish a basis for
evaluating these laws and for determining which aspects of the legis
lation now in operation could safely be recommended to other States
contemplating changes in their adoption laws.
The selection of the States to be visited was determined largely by
the presence of a provision in the State law which gave to the depart
ment having responsibilities for public welfare the responsibility for
the investigation of petitions for adoption. This meant that adoption
records were generally centralized in the State department and, there
fore, easily obtainable.
1

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PR OBLEM S A N D PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTIO N

In 1936, when the study was made, there were 10 States1 with such
a provision in their laws.2 Visits were made to each of these 10 States,
but specific case data were not recorded in Arkansas or Delaware
because the legislation requiring the State department to make inves
tigations had been in operation for only a short time in these 2 States.
In Arkansas the State department and the Pulaski County probation
office were visited, and in Delaware visits were made to the State
department and to 3 child-placing agencies as well as to the judge of
the orphans’ court in each of the 3 counties in the State.
Wisconsin, where a limited provision for investigation by the State
department existed, also was included in the study. It was the
responsibility of the State department to give or withhold consent to
the adoption of every child born out of wedlock, except when the child
had been committed to the care or guardianship of a licensed childwelfare agency.3 The department also was authorized to make inves
tigations of petitions for adoption referred to it by the court.
Therefore the complete study, including the recording of case data,
visits to judges, and visits to child-placing and other agencies was made
in nine States only, but these nine States included about one-sixth
of the population and covered more than one-fifth of the land area of
the United States and were representative of different sections of the
country.
Visits to the States were made for the most part during 1936,
although the visits to Massachusetts and Rhode Island were made late
in 1935, and the visit to Delaware was made early in 1937. A number
of counties or towns4were visited in each State in order to understand
the procedure of the courts, and occasionally visits were also made to
persons in the local community having responsibility for adoption
investigations. For example, in Alabama, in Oregon, and in a few
Minnesota counties, county welfare workers who made investigations
at the request of the State departments were interviewed, and in Cali
fornia the probation officers who were responsible for the investigation
of adoptions by stepparents were seen in the coimties visited. The
selection of the counties or towns to be visited in each State was made
in conference with a member of the adoption staff of the State depart
ment. An attempt was made to select counties having a sufficiently
large number of adoptions so that the courts had developed some phil
osophy with regard to them. Likewise, an effort was made to visit
local jurisdictions of varied character in each State so that a relatively
true picture of the State as a whole could be obtained.
1 Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, N ew Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, Rhode Island.
2 Such a law was passed in Louisiana on July 9,1936, to become effective if and when art. V II, sec. 62, of
the constitution was amended so as to confer jurisdiction upon the juvenile courts in matters of adoption of
children under 17 years of age. A previous law passed in 1932 and amended in 1934 made it the duty of the
Board of Charities and Corrections to cause a thorough investigation to be made regarding the m ode of liv
ing, financial condition, moral and educational qualifications, and the rights of all persons concerned in the
adoption. The juvenile court was given jurisdiction of adoption of children under 17 years of age. In
February 1936 this law was found unconstitutional on the ground that jurisdiction of the juvenile court was
limited b y the constitution to neglected or delinquent children and a child who was the subject of an adop
tion proceeding could not be classified as either neglected or delinquent. (Succession of Dyer, 184 La.
261,166 So. 68.) The constitutional amendment was adopted near the close of 1936, at which time the new
adoption law went into effect. A new probate code was adopted in Kansas in 1939, which provided for inves
tigation of adoption petitions b y the State Board of Social Welfare. K entucky in 1940 and the District of
Columbia in 1937 made similar provision for the investigation of adoption petitions.
3 Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 322.04 (4).
t In Rhode Island towns were visited rather than counties.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

IN T R O D U C T IO N

In addition, 74 courts having jurisdiction in adoption were visited.
Several of the courts visited in Minnesota, New Mexico, and North
Dakota were serving districts which included a number of counties.
Table 1 shows the number of counties in the State and the number that
were served by the courts visited.
T a b l e 1.— Number of counties and number served by courts visited in 9 States

included in the study

State

Alabama------------------------- ----------- --------------------------------------------- ----------------- - -

New M exico--------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

Total
counties

Counties
served
b y courts
visited

456

14i

67
58
14
87
31
53
36
i 39
71

9
11
6
47
13
28
8
i9
10

i Towns and cities.

The records of 2,041 children for whom petitions were filed in 1934
were studied in the 9 States, and the information obtained was recorded
on schedules prepared for the purpose. The year 1934 was selected
in order that as complete information as possible would be available
in all the records. Although record materials were not obtained for 10
to 18 months after the petitions were filed, it was necessary to obtain
supplementary information later in order to complete the information
for a few cases.
The records read in seven States included all cases in which petitions
for adoption were referred to the State department during the year.5
In Rhode Island, either the State welfare department or the Rhode
Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children may investi
gate adoption petitions, and therefore the adoption cases referred to
the private agency also were studied.6 The adoption petitions referred
to the Wisconsin State Board of Control included only adoptions in
which the State department had been specifically requested to make
the investigation, adoptions of children bom out of wedlock for which
the consent of the board was necessary, and adoptions of wards of the
State public school. It was estimated that these cases comprised
about 57 percent of all adoption cases in the State during the year.
Because of the large number of petitions filed annually in California
and Massachusetts, the decision was made to limit the schedules ob
tained in these States to petitions filed during the first 6 months of the
year. This decision was made in order that any tabulation of the
record material might not be too heavily dominated by the situation
in these States. The records for 6 months in the files of the State
Department of Public Welfare in Massachusetts were supplemented,
however, by records of children who had been adopted during the year
‘ Alabama, Minnesota, N ew Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
• Rhode island, Gen. Laws, 1938, ch. 420, sec. 5; Laws of 1939, ch. 660, sec. 80.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS' A N D

PROCEDURES I N

ADOPTION

who were wards of six private agencies,7 since adoptions sponsored or
recommended by charitable corporations engaging in the care of chil
dren were not referred to the State department. The actual number
of agency-sponsored petitions filed annually was unknown, but it was
thought that the agencies visited were making most of the agency
placements for adoption. The records of the California State Depart
ment of Public Welfare also were supplemented, since the department
had no responsibility for investigations of adoption petitions filed by
stepparents. In order to obviate the necessity for visiting every
county in the State, records approximating the number reported to
the State department during 6 months were obtained by taking all the
records filed in three of the largest counties during the year and half of
those in another county.
ADOPTION RATES IN THE STATES VISITED

There is much variation throughout the United States in the extent
to which adoption is used to establish a new family relationship for a
child. The number of children for whom petitions for adoption were
filed in 1934 that had finally been adopted was known for 6 States, but
since records were available for only about 54 percent of the petitions
filed in California and 50 percent of those filed in Massachusetts the
number of adoptions consummated in these States was estimated. No
attempt was made to estimate the number of adoptions in Wisconsin
because of lack of information on petitions sponsored by child-welfare
agencies in the State. The following list shows the number of children
adopted in the States per 100,000 persons under 21 years of age:8
Alabama_____
____ 7. 6
New M e x ic o ______ ____11. 1
North Dakota___ ____ 15. 5
Minnesota
____ 33. 7 .

Rhode Island __
Massachusetts
California.
Oregon _______ __

___ 36. 0
___ 42. 9
___ 43. 5
.___ 51.1

The low adoption rate in Alabama was partly due to the fact that
a smaller proportion of Negro children than of white children were
adopted. Although approximately 36 percent of the total population
of this State in 1930 were Negroes, only 17 percent of the children
who were adopted were Negro children. Residents of other States
were permitted to file petitions to adopt children in Massachusetts
and Oregon. The inclusion of adoptions granted to nonresidents of
the State tended to raise the adoption rate in these States.
The records in all the States showed that the number of ¡adoptions
in relation to total population in urban areas was much larger than
in rural areas. This would seem to indicate a close relationship
between adoption rates and the proportion of urban population in
the State. Although other factors enter into the situation, it is
interesting to note that less than 30 percent of the population was
urban in the States with the lowest rates, and that Massachusetts
and Rhode Island, having 90 percent or more urban population, had
high rates. Although only 51 percent of the population of Oregon
was urban, this State had the highest adoption rate.
7 Children’s A id Association, Boston; Catholic Charities Bureau, Boston; N ew England Hom e for Little
Wanderers, Boston; Hampden County Children’s A id Association, Springfield; Church Hom e Society for
the Care of Children of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Boston; Worcester Children’s Friend Society,
Worcester.
8 According to the 1930 census.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

IN T R O D U CTIO N

Since most of the persons that adopt children have small families
or no children, it might be expected that the demand in a State for
children for adoption would have some general relation to the birth
rate in the State and the number of families in which there are no
children. Comparison of adoption rates with birth rates and the
proportion of families having no children under 21 years of age in
these States shows some general correlation between these factors.
The 4 States having the highest adoption rates had the smallest
number of births in 1934 per 1,000 total population (Oregon, 13.1;
California, 13.9; Massachusetts, 14.8; and Rhode Island, 15.2),9 and
the 1930 census shows that the proportion of families having no
children under 21 also was higher than average in these States.10
«Birth, Stillbirth, and Infant M ortality Statistics, 1934, p. 5. Bureau of the Census. Washington, 1936.
'«Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population, vol. 6, Families, p. 44. Washington, 1933.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE CHILDREN AND THE PETITIONERS
THE CHILDREN FOR W H O M

ADOPTION PETITIONS WERE FILED

Although adoption is not necessarily limited to children, it is
when the lives of children are affected that adoption should be of
the greatest concern to the public. The child, particularly the young
child who is the subject of an adoption petition, needs special considera
tion, since he cannot have a voice in a proceeding that will affect his
whole life. Adoption may mean his transfer to a family totally
unrelated to him, it may mean a closer relationship to persons already
related to him by birth, or it may mean that he acquires legal status
in a family of which one parent is already an integral part.
R A C E A N D S E X OF TH E C H IL D R EN

The great majority of the children for whom petitions were filed
in the 9 States were white children, as requests for adoption had been
made for only 95 children of other races, 50 of these being Negro
children. The largest number of petitions for Negro childrpin f31)
were filed in Alabama, and the largest number of^petitions for children
of Other racial grOUPS (37)
ti lpH in n alifn rnm ~
----- The number of petitions filed for girls exceeded by 79 the number
filed for boys. Children are adopted by relatives with little regard
to sex, since the purpose of such adoptions is to give the child an
assured position in the family group to which he has blood relation
ship. Table 2 shows that it was in the petitions for adoption of children
by persons not related to the children that requests for girls predomi
nated. Possibly this situation is due to the fact that the mother in
the adoptive family frequently has the strongest desire for a child,
and her preference is for a girl who can be dressed attractively and
who will give her companionship. It has been suggested that to the
parents giving up a child the boy represents a greater economic asset,
because of his potential earning capacity, but since most of the children
adopted by persons not related to them were born out of wedlock,
this factor hardly enters into the situation. Child-placing agencies
generally report that the number of applications for girls far exceeds
that for boys, and it is not unusual for adoptive parents to accept
a boy only after they have waited long for a girl. There is also the
possibility that foster families think it is less difficult to bring up a
girl than a boy.
T a b l e 2. — Sex of children for whom adoption petitions were filed

Persons filing petition

Children for whom petitions were
filed
Total

T otal_____ ________

Relatives________
Other persons_______________________________

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Boys

Girls

2,041

981

1,060

835
1, 206

420
561

415
645

THE

C H IL D RE If A N D

THE

PETITIO N E R S

TH E P A R E N T S OF T H E C H IL D R EN

The status of the parents at the time petitions for adoption of the
children were filed is shown in table 3. In all but 59 cases the normal
marital relationship of the-porowln hnrl boon Lr-o|rA?rby dCRlh uf unff-gr“'
bottfuarenfs or_by the parents’ divorce or separation, or by the fact
that the parents were not married"
" '
" ------■
--------Nearly three!*) ill'Ills of QieTj^iTchildren whose parents had married
but were separated—phrough divorce or through the death Of blie-or
both parents were desirea for adoption by relatives A stepparent,
usually a stepfather, was the petitioner tor i'lV oi tne children whose
parents ^Ate TTTvdrCed, fOi1 90 children who had lost a parent, and
for 4 children wnosesu^yiviTip; parent had mATTifid the petitioner before
his or her deatfr TiTcontrast to this situation, less man a, third oTthe^
ehi1dreh~w£ose parents were unmarried or who for other reasons
wished!*) give up the duld. were sought Tdlnn aduptiun by rokbtivos.
T a b l e 3.— Marital status o f child’ s own parents at the time the petition for child’s

adoption was filed, by relationship of the petitioners to the child
Children for whom petitions were filed
Marital status of own parents
By
relatives

Total

B y other
persons

Total-------- ------- ------------------

2,041

835

1,206

Parents married_________________

758

478

280

Living together______________
Separated_______ ____ ________
D iv o rce d >................—___ _
Both dead_________ _________
M other dead_________________
Father dead_________________

59
113
185
73
216
112

19
39
161
42
130
87

40
74
24
31
86
25

Parents not married to each other.

1,204

345

859

M other living—.................... . ...
M other dead_________________

1,155
49

318
27

837
22

Status not reported________ ______

i Includes 4 cases in which the marriage was annulled.

Married parents.

The circumstances that caused the parents living together and maintaining a home to give up 59 children for adoption were varied. Dimited financiarresourccg., lugellier with more children than they couTd
support, had influenced the patents uf 27 children to consider^adoption
as a method of providing care tor 1 or more children - Tim parttii fsTof
8 children were married eilliei shortly before or after the birth of the
child and lacked
I1'1“ L'lli,oi1 rli 'ripfrfmil nf thin situa
tion. Other situations, SUclT'as the health Of O'iie of the parents or
willingness to have « rp.iatiyp. of t.ho child flrlppt him, were the reason
for adoption in the remaining 24 cases. The lollowing excerpts illus
trate these situations!
The parents of a baby girl had six children. The father was a truck driver,
working irregularly, and both the family and all their relatives were hard-pressed
financially. When this child was born the mother seemed so discouraged that the
doctor told her he could find a good home for the baby if the parents wished him
to do so. Accordingly the child was placed when only a day old. The mother and
father were satisfied with the plan and had no desire to know what had become of
the child.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS' A N D PROCEDURES I N

A DOPTIO N

The parents of a little boy had five other children whom they were unable to
support, so they gave him up when he was
years old in order to give him a
home where he would have financial security. The parents lived in a one-room
shack with one single and one double bed for the parents and the children. The
children were undernourished and ill-kept. The foster parents were related by mar
riage to a neighbor of the parents and in this way learned of the child. The plan
was satisfactory to the parents as it meant more physical comforts for the boy
than they could otherwise provide for him.

The marriage of the parents occurred only a short time before the child’s birth.
The mother was only 16 and reported as being very irresponsible. The father
was 18 years old. They could not support the child, and it seemed doubtful if
they would continue to live together. The mother’s sister and her husband bore
all the expense of the confinement, had cared for the child since birth, and were
the petitioners for her adoption.
The father had tuberculosis and was living with his wife and five children in
Arizona. Before the birth of the sixth child the mother wrote to her sister saying
that she wished her to have the baby in order that its chances for health would not
be jeopardized. Accordingly plans were made so that the child was born at the
aunt’s home and remained there after birth. The adoption was completed when
the child was 7j4 months old.
The mother of a baby girl had tuberculosis, which was in an arrested stage.
There was one other child 3 years old, and the family had been on relief for some
time. When the younger child was born the parents felt they could not keep her,
so they advertised for temporary care for her. The family accepting her for care
became so attached to her that they begged to adopt her after she had been in
their home for 3 months. When the adoption petition was filed the representative
from the State department made a special effort to get the parents to reconsider
the matter. Both maternal and paternal relatives were seen in an attempt to
have the child retained by her own people. Although the relatives regretted the
fact that the child was being placed outside her own family, hone felt they could
take her, and the parents were unwilling to consider any other plan.

The mother was mentally disturbed at the time her baby was born and for some
time thereafter. When the little girl was 9 months old she was placed in the home
of the petitioners, who were friends of the child’s own parents. The parents
visited the foster parents and apparently agreed to the adoption after the child
had been in the home for more than 3 years. They felt the foster parents could
offer more advantages to the child than they could give her.

The paternal grandparents were the petitioners for a child who was an inmate
of a private school for the feeble-minded. He could not speak and apparently
heard and saw nothing around him. His parents had lived in another State
for 6 years, and although the father had a good position the grandparents had
assumed the full responsibility for the support of the boy. Financial reverses
had made it impossible for the grandparents to continue to pay tuition for the
boy and therefore they wished to adopt him so that he could be admitted to a
State institution. The State department disapproved the adoption, feeling that
the child should not be made a State responsibility in one State when he belonged
to another State, but in spite of this the adoption petition was granted.

The parents of 113 children were separated. In a few of these
cases a divorce was pending, but more often one or both parents had
deserted the family. Separation was sometimes caused by the fact
that a parent was receiving institutional care. Occasionally relatives
were the petitioners in these cases, but more often the children were
adopted by unrelated persons.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

CH IL D R E N A N D T H E

P ETITIO N E R S

After the separation of the parents the mother lived with another man. The
father was an alcoholic and unfit to care for the child, who was about 2 years
old. For a time the child was with the paternal grandparents but later she was
placed with friends of the family. Almost immediately the foster family filed a
petition to adopt the child, and the adoption order was entered less than 2 months
after the child was placed in their home.
The father of a little girl was in the State prison. At the time of his sentence,
the mother and child were in the home of a relative, where they remained.
Although the mother was still in the home, the petitioners had assumed the
entire responsibility for the child and desired to adopt her in order to be assured
of her future protection.

Petitions for the adoption of 185 children were filed after the divorce
of the parents or the annulment of their marriage. In most of these
cases the mother had received the custody of the child by the divorce
order and in two-thirds of them the child’s stepfather was the peti
tioner. In some cases the child had used the stepfather’s name for
years and the adoption was primarily for the purpose of legalizing
the father-child relationship that had grown up through the years.
In others the child had been with the stepfather for only a short
time. Other relatives were likewise frequent petitioners for children
whose parental homes had been broken by divorce.
A girl was about 5 years old when her mother remarried. Her own father
had never shown any interest either in her or in her younger brother. The step
father had given a father’s care and devotion to the two children and had adopted
the brother a year before he adopted the girl.

The parents were divorced when the child was only 3 months old. The father
was alcoholic and was in prison when the little girl was born. He had never seen
the child. When the child was 19 months old, the mother remarried. After
having the little girl in his home for nearly 2 years, the stepfather adopted her.
The mother and maternal relatives felt that this would be a protection to the
child in later years, particularly if her own father molested her in any way. The
stepfather and his relatives had fully accepted her, and there seemed no reason
why she should not belong to him legally.

Both parents of 73 children were dead. These children were, there
fore, without any parental ties at the time petitions for their adoption
were referred to the State department. The feeling of responsibility
for these children on the part of relatives can be seen by the fact that
petitions for the adoption of more than half of this group came from
relatives.
Three hundred and twenty-eight children bom of married parents
had only one living parent, a mother in 112 cases and a father in 216
cases. Stepfathers were the petitioners for the adoption of 65
children who were without living fathers and other relatives peti
tioned to adopt 22 of them. Although petitioners for adoption were
relatives of 130 children whose mothers were dead, only 25 of these
were stepmothers. Unrelated persons were the petitioners for 25 of
the children who had only a mother living and for 86 of those who had
only a father living.
Unmarried parents.

The parents of 1,204 children were not married to each other, and
the mothers of 49 of these children had died. Petitions for adoption
for 71 percent of these 1,204 children had been filed by persons not

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PR O BLE M S A N D

PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION

related to them. Little was known about the fathers of children bom
out of wedlock, as the paternity of only 402 of such children had been
determined. Seventy percent of these 402 children were in the 3
States (California, Massachusetts, Minnesota) in which 64 percent of
the total petitions for adoption were filed. A determination of
paternity did not always mean that support for the child was available.
In fact, no plan for support had been made for nearly one-fourth of
the children for whom paternity had been either admitted or estab
lished, and for a number of other children no information was available
to show whether or not a plan for support had been made. It was
not possible to show the extent to which orders or agreements for
support had been fully carried out, particularly when the plan for
payment had been made on a weekly or monthly basis; but in only
98 cases, about one-fourth of the total number in which paternity
was determined and not quite one-half of the number in which a
plan for support had been made, had payments been made toward
the child’s support.
For the most part the amounts paid by the father for the child’s
support were wholly inadequate to maintain the child, and frequently
the payments were so irregular that the mother had no assurance that
future support would be forthcoming. In the 11 cases in which
amounts varying from $1,100 to $3,250 had been received toward
the child’s support, the petitioner was a stepfather in 8 cases and a
maternal grandparent in 2 cases. It was difficult to determine whether
the availability of support had any relation to the plan for adoption,
but of the children for whom paternity had been determined and for
whom either no plan for support from the father had been made or the
payments for support had been inadequate, more than three-fourths
were subjects of petitions for adoption from unrelated persons.
The unmarried mother finds it difficult to keep her child without
assistance. Often she is young, her earning capacity is limited, her
family may be unable or unwilling to help her with the care of the
child, and she dreads the social stigma attached to unmarried parent
hood. Society has been fairly generous in providing resources to
prevent a married parent from the necessity of being permanently
separated from his child, but aid to the unmarried mother, at the time
this study was made, was restricted largely to that available from
private sources. Since the passage of the Social Security Act in
1935 aid for dependent children has become more generally available
to the unmarried mother.1
S T A T U S OF B IR T H OF C H IL D R E N F O R W H O M P E T IT IO N S W E R E FILED

Table 4 shows that of the 2,041 petitions for adoption filed in the
9 States, 61 percent were for children born out of wedlock. The
inclusion of petitions filed in Wisconsin affects to some extent this
percentage, for in this State the State department was required to
consent to the adoption of all children born out of wedlock who were
not under the care of an authorized agency. However, even when
petitions from Wisconsin are excluded, the percentage of children born
out of wedlock (59 percent) is higher than has been found in special
i The Social Security Board reported that in the fiscal year 1938-39,12,634 children of unmarried mothers
in 40 States, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii had been accepted for such aid.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T H E 'CH ILDR EE A N D T H E

P E T IT IO N E R S

studies covering a more restricted area. The percentage of children for
whom petitions were filed in the States included in the study who
were bom out of wedlock ranged from 49 percent in California to 73
percent in Massachusetts.
T a b l e 4.— Status of birth of children for whom adoption petitions were filed, by States
Children for whom petitions were filed
Status of birth reported
State
B om in wedlock

Total
Total

Total___________________
Alabama_____________ ____ ____
California............... ...................
Massachusetts________________
M innesota_________ __________
N ew M exico................. ............ —
North D a k o t a ________________
Oregon___________________ _____
Rhode Island-------- -----------------W isconsin__________ __________

Status of
B o m out of wedlock birth not
reported

N um ber

Percent

N um ber

Percent

2,041

1,979

775

39.2

1,204

60.8

152
537
389
379
26
55
195
102
206

142
524
381
368
25
51
188
95
2 205

69
266
101
134
14
20
90
38
2 43

48.6
50.8
26.5
36.4
0)
39.2
47.9
40.0
21.0

73
258
280
234
11
31
98
57
2 162

51.4
49.2
73.5
63.6
0)
60.8
52.1
60.0
79.0

10
13
8
11
1
4
7
7
1

1 Percent not shown because number of children was too small.
8 Figures represent only some of such cases. See p. 3 for type of cases included.

The large proportion of children born out of wedlock for whom
adoption petitions were filed in Massachusetts is not easily explained.
Unfortunately no information was available in this State showing the
birth rate of children born to unmarried parents, as the State required
no mention of the legitimacy of the child in the birth record. Since
the extent to which relatives petitioned to adopt children born out of
wedlock in this State was considerably larger than in most of the
other States, it seemed possible that family ties were regarded more
seriously here than elsewhere. Grandparents desired to adopt a child
to legalize his name, even when the mother of the child lived in the
home. Petitions were filed to adopt children who had long been
accepted as members of a family group, often in order that they might
be included in the relief budget for the family. It was also possible
that the attitude of the probation officers may have encouraged adop
tion by relatives after a determination of paternity and an order for
support had been made. It was the duty of the probation officer to
collect the support for the child from the father. Since legal adoption
relieved both the father and the probation officer of further respon
sibility, an effort was sometimes made to encourage adoption by step
parents or grandparents on the basis of a lump-sum settlement by the
child’s father. A settlement of this kind was involved in nearly onesixth of the 128 petitions filed by relatives in Massachusetts for the
adoption of children born out of wedlock.
It is probable that the large percentage of petitions for children born
out of wedlock in Minnesota in 1934 was the result of the attitude of
the child-placing agencies in the State. On June 30, 1934, 15 private
agencies were certified by the State Board of Control to place children
249071°— 41------2

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D

PROCEDURES I N

A D O P T IO N

in permanent family homes.2 The State Public School for Dependent
Children, one of the institutions under the direct jurisdiction of the
Board of Control, also maintained an active placement program.
These agencies believed in adoption as the most desirable plan for
children who had been deprived of care by their own people, and
accordingly they were liberal in their acceptance of children who were
potentially adoptable. In this State, too, an organized program for the
protection of the child bom out of wedlock, with treatment on a case
work basis, had been in operation for many years. It is possible that
this had resulted in more intensive planning for all children bom to
unmarried mothers, and consequently children bom out of wedlock
were not so likely to remain in institutions or to be allowed to drift
along in boarding homes until they were too old for placement in
adoptive hofnes. One of the aims of the State department in Minne
sota was to plan for the child bom out of wedlock so that he would be
secure either within his own family group or in a permanent foster
home. When placement in an adoptive home was the plan accepted,
cooperation from the child-placing agencies was assured. ^
Slightly more than half the petitions filed in California were for
children whose parents had been married. There was a great demand
for children to adopt in this State. The two adoption agencies
functioning in the State reported more than 4,000 applications for
children during the year’s period in which about 500 children were
placed. In some cases children of married parents were accepted
for placement with little apparent inquiry into other possible resources
for their care.
THE PETITIONERS
P E R S O N S A D O P T IN G M O R E T H A N O N E CH ILD

There were 103 families who petitioned to adopt more than 1 child.
Of these, 88 families petitioned to adopt 2 children, 12 families peti
tioned to adopt 3 children, 2 California families asked to adopt 4 chil
dren, and 1 Rhode Island family desired to adopt 5 children. About
two-thirds of the families petitioning to adopt more than 1 child were
related to the children, but 34 families bore no relationship to the
children.
R E LA T IO N S H IP T O T H E CH ILD

Adoption is ordinarily thought of as the process by which a child
becomes a member of a family with whom he has no blood kinship.
Table 5 shows, however, that 835 petitions were filed for children
related to one or both of the petitioners. Four hundred and eightyone petitions filed by relatives were for the adoption of children of
married parents and 345 for children bom out of wedlock.
Petitions by natural parents.

In 22 cases one or both of the child’s natural parents petitioned for
the child’s adoption. When a parent loses guardianship of his child by
a previous adoption, a readoption may be the only method by which
guardianship can be restored to him; but in only 2 of the cases studied
was this the reason for the adoption petition.
2

Seventeenth Biennial Report, State Board of Control, Minnesota, 1933-34, p. 35.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Stillwater, IVIinn., 1934»

THE

CH ILD R EN A N D T H E

P ETITIO N E RS

The paternal grandparents of a child had adopted him, and the parents peti
tioned for his readoption. The grandparents gave consent because they did not
wish to antagonize their son, but the boy did not wish to return to his parents.
Both parents were very unstable. They abused the boy when they were intoxi
cated, and they had not established a home together. A divorce was pending.
In spite of the disapproval of the State department, the court granted the adop
tion, but the child returned to the grandparents’ home.
The mother of a child became insane after the child’s birth and a maternal aunt
and her husband adopted the baby. The aunt died 5 months later, and the parents
petitioned to readopt in order to expedite the child’s transfer to another maternal
aunt, who lived in Ireland.
T a b l e 5.— Relation of petitioner to child, by status of child at birth
Children for whom petitions were filed
Petitioners
Total

T otal_______________ ________________ ____ -

Born in
wedlock

B o m out
of wedlock

Status of
birth not
reported

2,041

775

1,204

Relatives------------ --------------- ---------------------- ------------------

835

481

345

Stepparents.. ____________________________________
Grandparents------------------------ ------------------------------Other relatives........ .......... . - - - ........... - .......... .........

22
404
138
271

2
227
80
172

20
173
57
95

4
1
4

1,206

204

859

Other persons______________ - -------------------

- - ____

The children in the remaining 20 cases had been bom to unmarried
parents. Both parents were the petitioners for 9 children. In 6 cases
the child had been bom as the result of an extramarital relationship,
and after a divorce and the establishment of a home the natural parents
petitioned to adopt. In 3 additional cases the parents were unmarried
at the time of the child’s birth but married later. Adoption was the
method used to legitimate the child in 1 of these cases, although actually
this had been done by the parents’ marriage. It was explained to the
parents in a second case that adoption was unnecessary and instead
legitimation blanks were signed and the adoption petition dismissed.
In a third case a child had been bom several years before the parents’
marriage but had been registered under an entirely different name in
order to shield the father. The natural father and his wife were the
petitioners for 4 children and the father alone for 6 children, as is
illustrated by the following case histories.
The natural mother placed the child in the home of the father and his wife
when they were living in Canada. Later they moved to Minnesota and brought
the child into the State with them. The immigration authorities questioned the
man’s right to bring the child across the border and returned the boy to Canada.
Finally the father formally acknowledged paternity and the child was returned to
him. The adoption had not been completed at the time of the study, but it was
probable that a decree would be granted.
The natural father was the petitioner for adoption and the mother had lived in
his home before the birth of her child. The boy had been born in the home and
continued to live there as a son of the family. The natural father’s wife had
accepted him, and under the circumstances adoption was probably the most
satisfactory solution of the problem.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D

PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION

The mother died at the time of the child’s birth. As a result of a birth injury
the child was feeble-minded, but the father desired him nevertheless. Accordingly
he and his wife filed a petition to adopt the boy. The maternal grandmother also
filed a petition to adopt. The State department disapproved adoption by the
father and stepmother, feeling that it was unfair to the stepmother to ask her to
assume the care of a feeble-minded child, and the court dismissed their petition,
giving the child to the maternal grandparents.
The father was married but his wife did not join in the petition. The purpose
of the adoption had been to obtain additional compensation from the Federal
Government. It was explained to the father that he could legitimate the^ child
by filing the proper papers in the probate court but that he could not adopt without
his wife’ s consent. The petition was dismissed.
The father of two children in Massachusetts petitioned for their adoption after
the death of the mother, whom he had intended to marry as soon as she had ob
tained a divorce. The children were 6 and 2 years old at the time of the adoption
and lived with him in the home of his mother.
Petitions by stepparents.

A stepparent was the petitioner in nearly half the adoptions by
relatives. Usually the stepfather was the petitioner, but 33 step
mothers were included. Ordinarily a parent was a member of the
household when a stepparent wished to adopt a child, but in a few
cases the parent had died. Stepparents filed petitions for 227 children
born in wedlock, for 173 children bom out of wedlock, and for 4
children whose status was not reported.
The advantage to a child of an adoption by a stepparent depends
upon the situation before adoption. For the child bom out of wed
lock there would appear to be a special advantage in the legal status
conferred by such an adoption. He is thereby entitled to the same
name and standing in the family that would have been his if he had
been born to both parents, and whatever stigma may have been
attached to the circumstances of his birth is to a great extent removed.
Other factors, however, enter into such adoptions which also affect
the child born in wedlock. The desire of the stepparent to be assured
that no one else has a claim on the child in the event of the death
of the parent is one of these. The prevention of interference of the
other natural parent in plans for the child and the assurance of his
inheritance rights as an own child are other factors.
Less than a third of the petitions of stepparents were for children
whose parents had been divorced. Divorce courts have made a
general practice of giving the custody of young children to the mother
if she is at all a satisfactory person, and the fact that a father has
lost custody does not necessarily signify that he has been an improper
parent and has no interest in his child. It is, therefore, important
that a careful inquiry be made in order to determine whether a child
bom to two married parents will gain or lose by an adoption which
severs all legal ties between him and one natural parent, as well as
other members of this parent’s family.
Petitions by other relatives.

The next largest group of relatives adopting were the grandparents,
who represented about one-sixth of all the relatives adopting. Mater
nal grandparents were the petitioners in more than three-fourths of

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T H E 'CHILDREN A N D T H E

P ETITIO N E R S

the petitions by grandparents. Grandparents, like stepparents, were
less likely to adopt children bom out of wedlock than children of
legitimate birth, only 57, or slightly more than two-fifths of the children
adopted by grandparents, having been bom out of wedlock. Only
in Massachusetts, where the number of petitions by grandparents
was large, were the petitions for the adoption of children bom out
of wedlock appreciably higher than those for children of legitimate
birth. In this State more than three-fifths of petitions by grand
parents were for the adoption of children bom out of wedlock.
Other relatives, maternal and paternal, were the petitioners in
nearly a third of the adoptions by relatives. In somewhat less than
two-thirds of the petitions filed by other relatives, the children had
been bom to married parents. Usually one of the petitioners was
an aunt, an uncle, or a cousin of the child, but one petition was filed
by an older brother to adopt two children, two petitions were filed by
older sisters, and two by older half sisters. The petition by the older
brother was dropped because he and his family moved to an unknown
address. The sisters were persuaded that guardianship would meet
their need as satisfactorily as adoption if not more so. The laws
of Massachusetts did not permit adoption by a half sister, so the
petition of one half sister was dismissed. In another State the petition
of a half sister was granted. This sister had taken her 6-month-old
half sister into her home because her parents were physically incapaci
tated. She was a graduate nurse, 33 years of age, and her husband
was an automobile mechanic earning $1,800 a year. The petitioners
had no children of their own and had given excellent care to this child.
M A R IT A L STA TU S OF T H E P E T IT IO N E R S

It has been generally accepted that an adoptive family should
be a normal family composed of a father and a mother. Table 6
shows that a large majority of the petitions had been filed by married
persons. Widows or single women were the petitioners for only 65
children; widowers or single men were the petitioners for 27 children.
T

able

6 .—

Marital status o f the petitioners by their relationship to the child for
whom petition was filed
Children for whom petitions were filed
B y relatives

Marital status of petitioners
Total
Total

Own
parent
or par
ents

Step
father

M ater Pater
Step
nal
nal
mother grand grand
parents parents

Other
rela
tives

By
other
persons

T otal____________ . . .

2,041

835

371

109

271

1,206

M arried_____ ______________
W idow _____ _______________
Single w om a n 1___________
W idow er..................................
Single man i ................... .........
Status not reported________

1,940
47
18
11
16
9

777
25
9
10
12
2

367

28
5

98
9

23
6

3
1

243
5
9
5
7
2

1,163
22
9
1
4
7

1 Includes persons whose marriage was terminated b y divorce.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D PROCEDURES I N

ADOPTIO N

Fifty-six of the ninety-two unmarried petitioners were related to
the child who was the subject of the adoption petition: natural fathers,
stepfathers, stepmothers, grandparents, and other relatives. The
remaining 36 of this group of petitioners were not related to the child.
Twelve of these were not granted decrees, but 24 were granted decrees
of adoption. Of these, 3 were granted to single men, 1 to a widower,
6 to single women, and 14 to widows.
After the death of her mother a 2-year-old child had been placed by her own
father in the home of the petitioner, a single man, who lived nearby with his
mother. The child had been in the foster home for some 8 years and nothing had
been heard from her father for about 5 years. The foster grandmother was 76
years old at the time of the adoption. No formal recommendation was made to
the court, but the case had been classified as informally disapproved. However,
the court granted the adoption.
A boy 17 years of age was adopted by a 45-year-old single man. The probation
officer had placed the boy in the home when he was 15 years of age to act as “ com
panion’ ’ to the petitioner. At the time of the adoption the boy had been in the home
only about a year and a half. No recommendation was made to the court, as the
adoption was granted before the investigation could be completed.

A boy about 11 years old was left in the home of the mother of an unmarried
man. The child’s mother paid his board for about 6 weeks and then deserted him.
The boy remained in the home, and after the death of the foster mother the peti
tioner and the boy went to live in the home of a married brother and his family.
Both the boy and the petitioner were anxious for the adoption and after approval
by the State department a decree was granted although the boy was almost 20
years of age.
The State department had placed a 3-year-old boy with a married couple.
After the death of the wife, the foster father and boy went to live with the man’s
mother, brother, and sister. They were in this home at the time the adoption
was allowed, the boy then being about 11 years of age.

The children adopted into homes in which there was no father
included both boys and girls. Some of them were older children,
but placement in the home had frequently been made when the child
was quite young. A few of these children were placed by agencies,
but more often the placement had been made by parents or other
persons. The following case histories show the situations that led to
the adoption of these children.
A 3-year-old girl was placed by a social agency (not a child-placing agency)
with a family consisting of two single women and their bachelor brother. At
the end of 5 years, during which the family had given excellent care to the child,
the oldest member of the family group, a woman 52 years of age, petitioned to
adopt the child, and the adoption was completed when the girl was almost 9
years old.
A private child-placing agency placed a 6-year-old girl with a single woman,
who had herself been a foster child. She had not married because she had taken
care of her foster parents until their death. The agency had some question
about the woman because she was dressed unattractively and looked peciiliar,
but the references were so enthusiastic that adoption was permitted about a year
after the child was placed in the home. An 8-year-old brother of the girl also
was placed in this home and was adopted at the same time as the girl.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T H E 'CHILDREN A N D T H E

PETITIO N E R S

A single woman 30 years of age was permitted to adopt a 13-year-old boy
who, when he was 5 years of age, had been taken into her home from a children’s
institution where she was employed as a house mother. The child was ill and
no one was attracted to him. The woman asked her parents to take him, with
the understanding that she would adopt him when she married. Her marriage
failed to materialize, but the boy remained with her and she finally established
a home of her own with him. The child had normal contacts and was thoroughly
accepted by the foster mother’s relatives. Although the limitations of an un
married woman as an adoptive parent were recognized, the adoption was approved
after he had been with her for more than 8 years.

A child 3 months old was placed by an authorized child-placing agency. The
foster father died 5 months after the placement. The foster mother was amply
provided for financially and was much interested in the child, who had been in
her home 1 year and 3 months at the time the adoption was granted.

A girl was placed by a public child-placing agency when she was 8 years old
The foster parents were living together at the time of the placement but appar
ently they were not entirely compatible. About 7 years after the child was
placed with them, the foster mother obtained a divorce. The adoption by the
foster mother was completed when the girl was 17 years old.

A child was boarded by her father with a neighbor of the petitioner. She
came frequently to the petitioner’s home, and when she was 1y2 years old the
father placed her there, promising to pay for her care. No payments were made,
but the little girl continued to live in the home. In the beginning there was no
thought of adoption, although later the foster mother was appointed guardian
of the girl’s estate. Finally the girl herself asked that she be adopted, and when
she was 16 years old the adoption was completed.
R E SID E N CE OF T H E P E T IT IO N E R S

The laws of six of the nine States included in the study required
that the adoption action be taken in the county (town in Rhode
Island) in which the petitioners had residence.3 Residents of Massa
chusetts also were required to petition for adoption in the county
where they resided, but nonresidents of the State were permitted to
file petitions for adoption in the county where the child was a resi
dent.4 A petition for adoption could be filed in Alabama in the county
where the petitioners had residence, in the county where the child
resided, in the county in which the child was resident when he became
a public charge, or in the county in which the agency or institution
was located which had guardianship and custody of the child.6 Like
wise in Oregon a petition for adoption might be filed in the county
where the petitioner resided, in the county where the parent or
guardian of the child resided, or, when the petition was for the adop
tion of a child committed to an institution for dependent or delinquent
children, in the county in which the institution was located.6
3 California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, sec. 226, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 463: Minnesota M ason’s
Ann. Stat. 1927, sec. 8624; N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-107; North Dakota, 1925 Supp. to 1913 Com p
Laws, see. 4446; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 420, sec. 1; Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 322 01
4 Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, sec. 1.
* Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 504, sec. 9302A.
6 Oregon, A nn. Code 1930, sec. 33-401, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 461.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D

PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION

Table 7 shows that even in the States that authorized the filing of
a petition for adoption by persons who were not residents a great
majority of the petitions had been filed in the county or town of
residence of the petitioner.
It is interesting to note, however, that six petitions filed by non
residents had been accepted by the courts in States that had no legal
authority for this procedure, Minnesota being the only one of the
States in which this had not occurred. The reason for acceptance by
the court of three of these petitions was not known. In one case in
Wisconsin the court explained that the law had been interpreted as
permissive. Petitioners having a winter residence in Mexico and a
summer residence in a rural California county filed a petition for
adoption in San Francisco, where the agency placing the child had its
office, and apparently no question was raised as to the court’s juris
diction. The family in another State that filed a petition in New
Mexico had been living there at the time the child was placed in the
home but had left the State before the petition was filed. As they
had lived for several years in New Mexico, the court apparently con
sidered that residence had not been lost.
T a b l e 7.— Residence of petitioners in relation to the place in which the petition was

filed, by States
Children for whom petitions were filed
B y resident of the same State
State
Total
Total

Total____________________ -

Resident
in same
county

Resident
in another
county

B y resident
of another
State

2,041

2,018

1,979

152
537
389
379
26
55
195
102
206

151
536
379
379
25
55
186
101
206

149
535
375
379
25
54
158
100
204

2
1
4

B y person
whose
residence
was not
reported

2
1

10
1

1
28
1
2

9
1

The largest number of petitions filed by nonresidents of the county
where the petition was heard were in Oregon, where of the 37 non
resident petitioners 9 were residents of other Spates. Twenty-seven
of the petitions of nonresidents had been filed in the county (usually
Multnomah County) in which the agency or institution placing the
child was located, but 8 petitions had been filed in the county where
the parent or guardian of the child was a resident or had been a resident
at the time of his death. The following case histories show that ques
tions had been raised as to the jurisdiction of the court in the 2 re
maining cases.
A child born in a maternity hospital in Multnomah County was transferred to
the nursery of a child-caring and child-placing agency at the age of 2 months.
The mother of the child was a resident of a rural county, where both she and the
child were under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Despite this, the agency
permitted a family from another State to take the child for adoption when she
was 10 months old and persuaded the mother to consent to this plan. The petition

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T H E 'CHILDREN A N D T H E

P E T IT IO N E R S

for adoption was filed in Multnomah County because this was the county in which
the agency which placed the child was located. Actually the agency had no author
ity to make permanent plans for the child without an order from the rural juvenile
court, but when its procedure was questioned it defended its action by insisting
that the mother had placed the child independently. Under such circumstances
the only county in Oregon that fcould have accepted jurisdiction was the county
of the mother’s residence. Nevertheless, the adoption decree was granted in
Multnomah County when the child was 1 year and 9 months old.

A child born in the State of Washington was placed by a Washington child
placing agency in the home of a minister in an Oregon rural county.
A petition
for adoption was filed in Multnomah County. The child-welfare commission
questioned jurisdiction here. The attorney for the petitioners replied that he
had put through a previous adoption for these same petitioners in Multnomah
County. The court had accepted jurisdiction at this time because it decided that
as a minister the foster father had no technical residence and Multnomah County
was as good as any other. Nevertheless, the case was continued on recommenda
tion of the child-welfare commission and later the petition was dismissed.

The next largest number of petitions filed elsewhere than in the
county of the petitioner’s residence were filed in Massachusetts, where
14 such petitions were filed during the first half of 1934. Ten of
these were filed by petitioners living in Connecticut, Maine, Michi
gan, New Hampshire, New York, or the District of Columbia, the
petitions being filed in the county where the child had a legal residence.
Although no authority was given in the Massachusetts law for resi
dents of the State to file a petition in a county other than the one in
which residence was maintained, 4 such petitions were filed. The
attorney for the petitioners in 1 case maintained that the family had
a domicile in the county where the petition was filed because they
owned a home there. In 1 of the 3 remaining cases the report of the
State department called attention to the fact that the petitioners were
residents of another county; yet in this case as well as in 2 others no
explanation was made of the court’s reason for accepting jurisdiction.
Although the Alabama law authorized the filing of petitions by
nonresidents under certain circumstances, only two petitions were
filed by residents of a county other than the one accepting the adoption
petition, and one was filed by a resident of another State. Two of
these were accepted because the petition was filed in the county in
which the child had legal residence when he became a public charge
and one because the agency having guardianship and custody of the
child was located in the county accepting jurisdiction. The foster
father in the latter case was so well known in his own county that he
thought it would be a protection to the child to have the information
regarding the child’s family history and placement on file in another
county. The State department questioned the jurisdiction of the
court in one of these cases, as is shown by the following illustration.
A petition was filed in Alabama for the adoption of an 18-year-old girl by her ma
ternal uncle and his wife. The petitioners gave an Alabama address, but when a
visit was made it was found that they had never lived there and in fact had lived
outside the State for 20 years. The address given in the petition was that of some
distant cousins of the girl, with whom she had lived until the death of her mother
2 years before. The petitioners were eager to have the adoption completed im
mediately because they were about to leave for a foreign country. The probate
judge contended that the court in this county had jurisdiction because this was
the county where the child had legal residence when she became a “ public charge.”

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D

PROCEDURES I N

ADOPTION

The State department, on the other hand, insisted that the girl had never been a
public charge since she went to live with the petitioners immediately after her
mother’s death. The court also maintained that there was no legal provision
whereby an agency in another State could make an investigation for an Alabama
court, and since the private agency which was then making the investigation for
the State department could not go to the State of the petitioners’ residence, the
department advised the local agency to submit a report explaining why no investi
gation could be made. On this basis a final decree of adoption was entered.

Attention has been called to a number of cases in which there was
a question of the jurisdiction of the court. These situations are
serious, since there is always the possibility that at some future time
the validity of the adoption may be questioned on jurisdictional
grounds. Although the real reason of the petitioners for wishing to
consummate the adoption in another jurisdiction was known in only
a few cases, it is evident that sometimes this plan may be desirable.
The adoption law should give the court authority to transfer juris
diction, when on investigation this is found desirable, in order to pre
vent the possibility that the validity of the adoption will be attacked
on jurisdictional grounds.
Even though it is recognized that occasionally a resident of one
county may be justified in applying for adoption in another county in
the same State, there seems little justification for initiating adoption
action outside the State. When this is authorized the problem of
investigation is greatly complicated. Frequently a qualified agency
cannot be found to make the investigation in the State of residence;
the State department cannot require the same standards of an out-ofState agency that it requires of its own agencies; as a result the investi
gation for out-of-State petitions is often inadequate.
PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN THE H OM E
A G E N C Y O R P E R S O N PLACIN G

The placement of a child in a home not his own is probably the most
important step in the adoption and should, therefore, be the responsi
bility of a person especially qualified by training and experience.
For the purpose of this study “ placements by agencies” have been
interpreted as including those made by authorized7 public or private
child-placing agencies as well as a few made by other agencies, usually
institutions, without special facilities for child-placing service. “ Inde
pendent” placements were those made without the aid of social agen
cies— those in which parents, relatives, or other persons were respon
sible for the child’s placement in a foster home. A third group,
termed “ no placements,” included cases in which the child had always
lived in the home of the petitioner as well as those in which the child
came into the home by reason of a natural relationship to the peti
tioner. The petitioners in all but a few of these cases were stepparents,
grandparents, or other relatives.
Agency placements.

A well-qualified child-placing agency has been generally accepted as
the most satisfactory channel through which to obtain a child to adopt.
Such an agency has facilities for making a careful study of the physical
condition, family background, mental potentialities, temperament, and
the characteristics of the forbears of the child accepted for placement.
*Throughout the report the terms “ authorized agencies” and “ agencies licensed to place children” have
been used as signifying that in the opinion of a licensing or certifying agency, usually a State department,
the standards of work maintained b y these agencies were considered generally satisfactory.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

CH ILD R EN A N D

THE

P E T IT IO N E R S

An equally careful study can be made of the background of the foster
parents and of their physical condition, mental stability, education,
cultural background, motives in desiring a child, home life, and ability
to care for a child physically, emotionally, and financially. Such
knowledge of a child and a foster family enables an agency to select
for each child a home suited to his individual needs.
Table 8 shows that of the children who had been placed in a home
for adoption slightly more than half had been placed by agencies.
The proportion of placements made by agencies varied considerably
from State to State. Those that had the largest proportion of agency
placements were Rhode Island, Minnesota, and California. Massa
chusetts had a smaller proportion of agency placements than any
other State having a large number of placements. The records
obtained in Wisconsin were not representative of the situation in this
State, as only a few petitions for children placed by private child
placing agencies came to the attention of the State department.
T

able

8 .—

Agency or person placing child for whom adoption petition was filed,
by States

California

Massachusetts 1
1

Minnesota

2,041

152

537

389

379

195

102

206

1,455

122

404

228

306

157

128

B y agency.........................................-

737

228

198

W ithin the State_______________

691

226

188

131
47
486
27

38
3
9
3

49
17
121
1

9
214
3

18
4
39
14

8
61

18
1
9
4

6
4
12
1

Private child-placing agency. _

1
21
1

| Wisconsin

1
I Oregon

N ew Mexico

Rhode Island

1 Alabama

Total____________________ _____
Placement made_____________________

Agency or person placing child

North Dakota

Total

Children for whom petitions were filed

In another State_______________

Independently of agency_________ )

718

176

141

108

Parents, relatives, or guardian__
Persons known during confine-

532

15
7
2

6
10

N o placement made 1_________________

134

60
78
48

13
27.
13

12
11
10

5
7

13
14
15

543

123

140

1
12

1 Children who were with a parent or relative with whom they had always lived or who were b om in
the home.

Placements of 131 children were made by State agencies: the child
placing division of the welfare department in Alabama, Massachusetts,
and Rhode Island, the child-placing department of a State institution
in Minnesota8 and Wisconsin, and general child-welfare workers in
New Mexico: Local public agencies in each of the States except New
8 A few children in Minnesota were placed b y the division in charge of children committed to the general
guardianship of the State department.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS' A N D PROCEDURES I N

ADOPTION'

Mexico had placed 1 to 17 children. Most of the 559 children placed
by other agencies were under the care oi authorized child-placing
agencies in the State, but 27 children had been placed by agencies,
usually institutions, that had no special child-placing staff, and 46
children had been placed by agencies in another State than the one
where the petition for adoption was filed.
Independent placements.

Parents and relatives and an occasional guardian were directly re
sponsible for nearly three-fourths of the 718 independent placements.
It is probable, however, that a considerable number of placements cred
ited to parents or relatives were in reality arranged by persons con
nected with the mother’s confinement, including physicians, nurses,
and hospital employees, although the number actually recorded as
placed by these persons was relatively small. Only 45 placements
were made directly by the physician attending the mother during her
confinement. Twenty other physicians who learned that mothers
desired to place their children were known to have arranged such
placements; these physicians are included in the group of “ other
persons” placing children. Children were placed by foster parents
who were unable to continue caring for them, by friends of the mother
or her family, by attorneys, by judges, by clergymen, by probation
officers, by private maternity homes, and by others who were not
professionally qualified to make such placements.
Doubtless many more children could have had the advantages result
ing from agency placement had the services of the child-placing agen
cies been made more easily available to parents, relatives, and other
persons needing assistance in planning for a child. More satisfactory
placements might have resulted had prospective foster parents been
more aware of the importance of skilled placement service.
California and Oregon child-placing agencies occasionally accepted
responsibility for the supervision of children who came into foster
homes through independent placements, believing that only through
such acceptance could the number of independent placements be
reduced. Adoption petitions filed in California during the first half
of 1934 included those for 36 children who had been placed independ
ently but who had been accepted for supervision by one of the child
placing agencies in the State for some time before adoption. More
than half the children had been placed in the home by a parent. The
acceptance of these children by child-placing agencies provided an
opportunity for some service to the foster parents but did not give
the children the benefits of agency service in the selection of the home.
Independent placements of children were of great concern to the
State departments responsible for adoption investigations in the States
visited. Frequently the notice that a petition to adopt had been filed
gave the State department the first knowledge of the placement, even
though the child had been in the home for months or even years.
State departments complained frequently that it had been impossible
to make a frank report disapproving such a petition because the child
had become an established member of the foster family and community
feeling was so strong that it was feared that an adverse report might
jeopardize the whole adoption program.
The number of independent placements, particularly when such
placements are made with persons unrelated to the child, gives some

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T H E C H IL D R E N A N D T H E

PETITIONERS'

indication of the extent to which child-placing agencies are discharging
their responsibility to children, to their natural parents, and to foster
parents. When the percentage of independent placements is excep
tionally large, the child-placing agencies may well scrutinize their work
to see why this is true and what is to be done about it.
P E R S O N S W IT H W H O M C H IL D R E N W E R E PL A CE D

If the placement program in the States studied is to be fully under
stood it is necessary to know not only how the child came into the
foster home but what the relationship of the foster parents is to the
child. Table 9 shows that agencies did not often place children in the
homes of relatives. Agencies placed 137 children bom to married
parents, and of these only 18 were placed with relatives. Only 13
of the 571 children bom out of wedlock were placed with relatives.
It is possible that the demand for children for adoption by persons
who were not relatives tended to obscure possibilities of satisfactory
placement with relatives. When a child-placing agency is willing to
act as a medium for the placement with a relative of a child bom out
of wedlock a real opportunity for service is provided. The agency
protects the mother, the relative, and the child. In its investigation
the agency can make certain that the relatives are proper persons to
have the child and that they are accepting him because they truly
want him and not from any sense of duty. The agency’s connection
with the placement minimizes the possibility of community gossip
concerning the parentage of the child and the motive for adoption.
T a b l e 9.— Placement and status of birth of child, by relationship to the petitioners
Children for whom petitions
were filed
Placement and status of birth of child
By
relatives

Total
T otal_________________________________________ ______
Placement made________________ _______
B y agency________ _____ ______________ _____
Birth in wedlock_______ _________________ . . . . . . _
Birth out of w edlock..
Status not reported_____

B y other
persons

2,041

835

1,206

1,455

267

1,188

737

705

137
571
29

18
13
1

119
558
28

Independently of agency_______ ______________________

718

235

483

Birth in wedlock_____ . .
Birth out of wedlock______ _________ _________
Status not reported________________________________

327
362
29

161
70
4

166
292
25

543

531

290
250
3

285
243
3

5
7

N o placement m a d e1________________________________
Birth in wedlock_________________________ ___________
Birth out of wedlock___________ _____________________
Status not reported_______________________________
Child not in hom e___________________________________

i Children who were with a parent or relative with whom they had always lived or who were b om in the
home.

About two-thirds of the 718 children placed by relatives or other
persons had been placed in homes of persons not related to the child.
The number of children of married parents placed in relatives’ homes
was approximately the same as the number placed in other homes,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PR OBLEM S A N D

PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION'

but children bom out of wedlock were less often placed with relatives,
although 70 children were placed by their mothers or other persons in
the home of a relative.
The 543 children for whom no placement had been made included
children who became members of the petitioners’ family after the
marriage of a parent, usually the mother, and children who had lived
with grandparents or other relatives almost all their lives or who had
come into the home with the mother and remained there. The 12
children living in the homes of unrelated persons for whom there was
“ no placement” included a few children whose mothers had lived in the
home of the petitioners during pregnancy; 2 children for whose adop
tion the father’s housekeeper petitioned after the father’s death; a
child who was often in the home of the petitioners because her mother
was away from home and eventually became a member of the peti
tioners’ family; and a child who had lived with her mother in the home
of the petitioner all her life and for whom a petition for adoption was
filed in order that the petitioner might obtain a railroad pass for her.
Forty-three petitions were filed for children not then living in the
foster homes. Although the adoption was not completed in a number
of these cases, the situations that they represented are interesting.
A few of the petitioners were natural fathers who were sincerely
interested in their children. One such father wanted to legitimate
the child through adoption, although he was unwilling to have his
wife know of his plan. Since adoption was impossible unless the
wife joined in the petition, he was told how legitimation could be
accomplished without adoption. Stepfathers petitioned to adopt
children who were living with relatives or in boarding homes. Some
times there was a definite plan to have the child come into the home
of the mother and stepfather in the near future, but this was not always
true. Grandparents petitioned to adopt one child, possibly in order to
obtain a financial settlement from the child’s father. They expected
to transfer the boy from the boarding home where he was living to their
home when the adoption was completed. The grandparents of a
feeble-minded child petitioned to adopt him in order that he might be
eligible for admission to a State institution. Some relatives appar
ently filed petitions for the adoption of children who were not living
in their homes in an effort to obtain custody of them; others appeared
to be sincerely interested in the children and to have satisfactory reasons
for delaying the entrance of the children into their homes.
The six petitions by unrelated persons for the adoption of children
not in the home included one by a family that had previously had the
child and wanted her returned to them. One petition was filed out
of sympathy for the mother, but when all that was involved was
explained to the petitioner and the mother the plan was dropped.
Neighbors agreed to adopt one child whose mother wished to be re
lieved of her care, but they were unable to support the child, so they
withdrew their petition.
One important advantage of investigating adoption petitions is
that it affords an opportunity for the prevention of hasty adoptions.
If some of these adoptions of children not living in the foster home
had been completed without investigation, both the child and the
foster parents might have been placed in a situation which they would
have regretted later.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE, 'CHILDREN AND THE PETITIONERS

S T U D Y OF T H E H O M E A N D TH E C H ILD B E FO RE P L A C E M E N T

Thorough knowledge of the potentialities of the child and careful
investigation of the foster home by a qualified social agency before
placement have been accepted as essential elements of satisfactory
placement procedure. As would be expected, the records of most of
the children placed by agencies showed that an investigation of the
home had been made before the child was placed, but 20 children under
the care of agencies had been placed without such an investigation.
Most of these placements had been made by agencies that were not
child-placing agencies, but a few children for whom a child-placing
agency was responsible had been placed without investigation in
homes known intimately to a staff member of the agency.
It was surprising to find that a social investigation before placement
had beeen made in 27 independent placements. In some cases the
investigation had been made at some previous time and was not in
any way related to the child named in the petition under consideration,
but in others the person placing the child had requested the assistance
of an agency. The following cases illustrate these situations.
A child not quite 3 months old had been placed by a physician with a single
woman. Her home had previously been investigated by one of the authorized
child-placing agencies in the State when she had applied for a child, but her
application had not been approved because she was a single woman primarily
interested in adopting a boy.
A child whose parents were dead was placed by a maternal uncle in the home
of another relative. At the uncle’s request an agent from the State department
investigated the home before the child was placed there.

A child’s mental potentialities should be given careful consideration
at the time placement plans are made. This does not mean that a
child cannot be placed in an adoptive home unless he is endowed with
superior mentality, but if the placement is to be successful it usually
means that the mental abilities of the child and his foster parents
must not be markedly dissimilar. This is illustrated by the f o l l o w i n g
case.
A boy with an intelligence quotient of 71 was placed at the age of 2 years with
a family in which there were four daughters. The foster parents were described
as of “ dull, average intelligence” and it was said that the children in the family
found school difficult. In the opinion of the State department this child was
probably well suited to the foster family.

The so-called overplaced child, whose mental endowment is more
limited than that of his adoptive family and their associates and who
cannot take advantage of the educational opportunities given to him,
is rarely happy. The superior child placed in an environment that
fails to offer possibilities for complete development of his inherent
capabilities is also handicapped.
Careful observation of the development of the child before place
ment, usually while he is under care in a temporary boarding home, is
an accepted practice of qualified child-placing agencies and sometimes
such observation is supplemented by careful study of the child in a
child-guidance clinic. The records of the children studied gave little
general information on the placement procedure of the agencies, but
whenever any information was given that a mental examination of the
child had been made, this was recorded. It was surprising, therefore,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

to find that a mental examination before placement had been recorded
for only 89 children. It is probable that many more children had
been examined, but lack of such information in the records of the
investigations would seem to indicate that the agencies or the State
department had not stressed the question of the child’s mental
potentialities.
The fact that many children are placed for adoption when they are
infants does not preclude sound measurement of their possible develop
ment, as is shown by the following statement of Dr. Arnold Gesell:
Infants, after all, are individuals. Adoption raises a searching question
regarding their developmental potentialities. We should take nothing for granted,
but appraise these potentialities as judiciously as possible, through appropriate
diagnostic methods. * * * The development of the infant mind is intricate,
but it is lawful. And because it is lawful it is within certain limits predictable.
Infants as well as adults differ in their native abilities, and only careful consecu
tive examinations can determine the general developmental outlook of any
child. Such examinations will confirm normality when it is obvious or taken
for granted. They will also discover subnormality when it is altogether con
cealed in the general ambiguousness of infancy. They will sometimes reveal
normal or even superior endowment when it is least suspected because of the poor
repute of the child’s origin .9

Certain criteria have been established by which the development
of a child as young as 3 weeks may be measured, but the older the
child the more weight can be attached to his responses. The experi
ence of the Yale Clinic of Child Development, where some 10,000
infants and children have been examined in the last 25 years, brought
the staff of the clinic to the conclusion that there is a “ high degree of
latent predictability in the early sector of the life cycle.” It was
the conviction of the clinic staff that—
With scientific progress the possibilities of developmental prediction will be
enlarged. The social and medical demands for such prediction will inevitably
intensify as part of an effort to bring hygiene of early child development under
improved control. Meanwhile, we shall do no disservice to the child if we inter
pret him in terms of the processes of growth. The degree, tempo, and the style
of his mental growth denote his individuality . 10

Unfortunately resources for complete developmental studies of
children are not generally available, and in only five of the States
visited was there even relatively adequate service for psychometric
examinations. Usually this was confined to the large centers of
population, but fortunately the child-placing agencies ordinarily had
their headquarters in these areas. At the time the study was made
practically no facilities for mental examinations were available in
North Dakota, New Mexico, and Alabama. Accordingly, mental
examinations were given to very few children in these States even
when they had been placed by agencies. The policies of agencies in
Rhode Island in regard to mental examinations could not be deter
mined because complete information was not available for the adop
tions studied in that State.
The most general use of mental examinations before placement by
an agency was in Minnesota, where almost half of the children placed
by public agencies and more than one-fifth of those placed by private
• Gesell, Arnold, M . D .: Reducing the Risks of Child Adoption. Child Welfare League of America
Bulletin, new series, Vol. VI, N o. 5 (M a y 15, 1927), p. 2.
10 Gesell, Arnold, M . D ., and Associates: Biographies of Child Development, p. 3. N ew York, 1939.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE CHILDREN AND THE PETITIONERS

agencies had been tested before placement. In addition, a small
number of the mothers of children placed by the public agencies and
the mothers of approximately one-third of those placed by private
agencies had been given a mental examination before the child was
placed. About one-fourth of the children placed by private agencies
in Massachusetts had been examined before placement, but there
was no indication that the public agencies make a practice of giving
such examinations.
The Wisconsin State Public School had evaluated the mental
ability of 3 of the 6 children included in the adoptions sponsored by
the school during 1934, and mental examinations had been given to
2 children placed by local public agencies. Placements made by
private child-placing agencies were not ordinarily referred to the
State department, but 2 of the 10 children so referred had been given
a mental rating.
Child-placing agencies in California and Oregon did not usually
have children given a mental examination before placement, and
only 13 of the 278 children placed by private agencies in these States
had received such examinations.
The following list shows the number of children placed by agencies
in the 5 States in which mental examinations were recorded.
California___________________________________________
9
Massachusetts________________
II
Minnesota___________________________________________ 5 9
Oregon______________________________________________
4
6
Wisconsin___________________________________________
A G E S OP C H IL D R E N A T T IM E OF P L A C E M E N T

There has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the age
at which a child can be safely placed. A child of 4 to 6 months
whose family background is favorable and who is of normal intelli
gence undoubtedly can be placed with the reasonable assurance that he
will develop satisfactorily. On the other hand, it is not fair to pre
dict that a child of this age who is slow in developing is destined to
be a subnormal child. Placement of such children should be delayed
until a more accurate prediction can be made. There are advantages
in placing a child in an adoptive home before he is 2 years of age,
since a very young child has little difficulty in accepting a new family.
Furthermore, the acceptance of the child by the foster family is
usually more complete if he becomes a member of the family at an
early age. Foster parents not related to the child usually prefer an
infant because they can have a real part in his development and do
not have to break bad habits before new or more satisfactory habits
can be encouraged.
Table 10 shows the ages of children of married or unmarried parents
at the time of their placement in the foster home by an agency or an
individual. The majority of the children of married parents were at
least 2 years of age when they were placed and only 192 of them (45
percent) were under 2 years of age. Most of the children under 2
who were born to married parents had been placed by parents or
relatives; only 36 of them had been placed by agencies. In contrast,
757 of the children bom out of wedlock (83 percent) were under 2
years of age when placed, and more than half of them had been placed
by agencies.
249071°— 41----- 3

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS' AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

T a b l e 10.— A ge o f child at time o f placement in fa m ily home, by status o f birth and
type o f placement
Children placed in family homes
Status of birth
Age of child at time of
placement

Total

Born in wedlock

Placed
by
agency

Placed
inde
pend
ently of
agency

Born out of wedlock

Placed
by
agency

Placed
inde
pend
ently of
agency

N ot reported

Placed
by
agency

Placed
inde
pend
ently of
agency

T otal_____________ ______

1,455

137

327

571

362

Under 1 m onth________ . . . _ _
1 month, under 3______________
3 months, under 6_____________
6 months, under 1 year
1 year, under 2________________
2 years, under 4______________
4 years, under 6 _______ . . _ .
6 years or over_________________
N ot rep orted _____ ____________

235
233
173
172
170
180
85
136
71

5
8
3
6
14
27
25
47
2

65
29
14
23
35
41
30
68
32

38
126
108
100
88
75
21
9
6

125
64
42
37
29
30
6
10
19

2
5
6
4
3
6
2

10
1

2
1
1
1

The children who were under 3 months of age at the time of place
ment are of special interest. Three-fourths of them were known to
have been bom out of wedlock, and it is probable that most of the
children whose status was unknown also belonged in this group. It
was surprising to find that agencies were responsible for nearly half
the placements of children bom out of wedlock who were under 3
months of age. It is questionable whether an unmarried mother
should be asked to make a final decision about relinquishing her child
less than 3 months after his birth, since she needs sufficient time to
regain her physical strength and her mental equilibrium before she
makes up her mind about permanent plans for her child. It is also
questionable whether an agency should consider a child under 3 months
of age to be ready for placement. The agency needs time to study the
child’s development and background so that a wise placement can be
made. For these reasons the safest policy would seem to be to delay
placement until the child is at least 4 months old.
The unmarried mother or her parents, relatives, or other persons
known to her at the time of her confinement had placed most of the 163
children bom out of wedlock that had been taken to the prospective
adoptive home before they were a month old, but 38 of these children
had been placed by agencies. Most of these children were placed with
persons who were not related to them, only 78 having been placed in
the homes of relatives. Since these children were too young to make
it possible to predict their development (many of them were placed
when they were about 2 weeks old) the records of the 38 children placed
by agencies and of 37 children whose placements were arranged by
physicians were reviewed to see if they contained any evidence of the
backgrounds of the mothers. Unfortunately no information was given
for 29 of these mothers, but the mothers of 7 had a superior educational
background including college work, and 43 had an average educational
background, a number of them being secondary-school graduates.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE 'CHILDREN AND THE PETITIONERS1

The family backgrounds of the parents of 3 children placed by physi
cians were distinctly questionable; the adoption of 1 of these children
was not completed.
Most of the placements by agencies of children under 3 months of
age occurred in California, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Although
some of these placements had been made by maternity homes, insti
tutions, or agencies with questionable standards, many had been made
by authorized child-placing agencies that had not adopted the policy
of providing care under observation before placement.
Since most of the children under 2 years of age placed by agencies
were bom out of wedlock, the fact that the placements of 188 of them
had been deferred until they were at least 6 months of age would seem
to indicate wide variation in the policies of agencies. Although other
factors than agency policy may affect a particular placement, it is
hardly conceivable that such special circumstances would be present
in all these cases.
The number of children of different ages placed by agencies in each
of the States is shown in table 11. About 70 percent of the children
who were placed by agencies and whose ages were known were under
2 years of age at the time of placement. The remaining children were
largely of preschool age, nearly half being 2 or 3 years of age.
T a b l e 11.— A ge o f child at time o f placement by agency, by State in which petition
was filed
Children placed in family homes
State in which petition was filed

Age of child at time of PlaceTotal
Ala
bama

M in
Cali Massa
chu
ne
fornia
setts
sota

New North
D a
M ex
ico
kota

Ore
gon

Rhode
Island

W is
con
sin

T otal__________________ 1,455

122

404

228

306

157

128

A gency placements___________

737

228

198

Under 3 m onths__________
3 months, under 6 . ___ __
6 months, under 1 y ea r-..
1 year, under 2___________
2 years, under 4_______ _

184
117
110
105
108
48
56
9

7
6
10
10
8
5
5
3

111
40
18
18
14
16
11

21
10
15
14
16
5
6

10
45
37
35
41
10
20

1
1
1
1

3
4
7
6
1

1
1

21
7
16
8
12
6
7
1

7
1
3
7
10
3
3
1

3
3
4
6
5
3
3
2

718

176

6 years or over___________
Independent placements____

141

108

The establishment by the child-placing agencies of a State of uni
form, sound policies for placement for adoption of children of unmar
ried mothers would seem to be greatly needed. Such policies should
recognize the need for case-work service for the mother to assure the
soundness of her decision to give up the child, and for careful study of
the child and his development in order that a home adapted to his
needs may be found. Although sufficient time should always be given
to permit a thorough study of a child this does not necessarily mean
long-continued supervisory observation. An unnecessarily deferred
placement is as serious a problem as a premature placement, for it
tends to discourage prospective adoptive parents from requesting the
services of an agency.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

CHILDREN W HO WERE ADOPTED

At the time the records were studied, decrees of adoption had been
granted for only 1,718 of the 2,041 children for whom petitions for
adoption were filed in 1934.
The number of children for whom adoption decrees were granted and
the relationship of the adoptive parents to the child are shown in table
12. In Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin approximately
one-half of the children had been adopted by relatives, but in the other
States a smaller proportion of the decrees had been granted to relatives.
About 20 percent of the children had been adopted by a parent or a
stepparent, the proportion of such adoptions ranging from 10 percent
in Alabama to 33 percent in Rhode Island.
T

able

12.— Relationship of the adoptive parents to children who were adopted, by
States
Children who were adopted
B y r e latives
State
Total
Total

Own or
step
parents

Grand
parents

B y other
persons

Other
rela
tives

T otal______________________

1,718

649

i 358

108

183

1,069

Alabama--------------------------California________________________
Massachusetts_________ ______
Minnesota_______ ________ _____
N ew M exico_____________________
N orth D a k o t a .- -------- ---------------Oregon__________________________
Rhode Island------------------------------W isconsin____________________ . .

98
426
335
346
23
50
170
96
174

41
135
168
93
6
16
45
55
90

10
95
86
56
3
7
22
32
47

6
7
40
14
2
6
15
7
11

25
33
42
23
1
3
8
16
32

57
291
167
253
17
34
125
41
84

i Includes 17 own parents.

Because a new family relationship had been established for the
children who were adopted a more complete analysis was made of the
records of these children, including the length of time the child had
been in the home before adoption, the age of the child at the time of
adoption, the ages of the adoptive parents, and the character of the
home situation.
P E R IO D OF T IM E IN T H E H O M E B E FO R E A D O P T IO N

Private agencies have long recognized the advantage of delaying
the legal adoption of a child until he has been a member of the foster
family long enough to make certain that his adjustment to the family
is going to be satisfactory. Some 25 years ago, at the National Con
ference of Charities and Correction, this statement was made: “ Legal
adoption, as a rule, should not be consented to until 6 months after
placement.” 11 The next year a committee of the New York Con
ference of Charities and Correction prepared standards for the place
ment, supervision, and aftercare of dependent children, in which the
following recommendation was made: “ At least a year should elapse
before consent for legal adoption be considered. Some agencies require
u Reynolds, W ilfred S.: Standards of Placing Out in Free Family Homes. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Charities and Correction, 1914, p. 187. Fort W ayne, Ind., 1914.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE CHILDREN AND THE PETITIONERS

2 years. In special circumstances, such as a change of residence or in
matters of inheritance, consent may be given sooner if the family is
unquestionably a good one.” 12
Since these standards were formulated the adoption laws of more
than half the States have been amended so as to make provision
for either a residence period before the granting of the adoption
decree or an interlocutory period between the granting of the pre
liminary adoption order and the final decree. The interlocutory
period authorized by the laws of 10 States is in effect a probationary
period following a decision as to the desirability of the adoption, and
during such period, usually a year, the home is under the supervision
of the State department, an agency, or the court.
The adoption laws of all the States included in the study except
California and Oregon required residence in the home before the final
adoption decree was granted. Six States required a 6-month residence
period before adoption.13 In these States the court had authority to
waive the residence period for “ good cause” when it appeared that the
proposed home and the child were suited to each other. The New
Mexico law required that notice of an application for a reduction of
the residence period must be given to the State department and a
hearing on this question held, at which time the State department
was to be represented and heard.
Provision was made in Alabama for an interlocutory order of adop
tion, and the final decree of adoption was not to be granted until the
child had lived in the home of the petitioner for a year and had been
visited at least once every 3 months during this period by an agent of
the State department. This had been interpreted to mean that at
least a year must elapse between the preliminary order and the final
decree whether or not the child had lived in the home before the pre
liminary order. There was no provision in the law to authorize the
termination of the interlocutory period when the child had lived in
the home a year and the State department was of the opinion that
supervision was not needed. Forty-seven percent of the children
for whom an interlocutory decree or a final decree had been granted
had been placed in the adoptive home by the State department or
by an authorized child-placing agency, which had supervised the care
given. It is questionable whether there is need for further visits to
the home by the State department in such cases.
At the time the visit to Alabama was made the State department
was greatly disturbed over a petition which had been filed for the
adoption of two children aged 5 and 12 who were living in Cuba and
who had never been in the foster home. The petitioners had never
seen the children but had learned of them through a missionary priest.
Despite the fact that the State department disapproved the adoption
the court issued an interlocutory order granting the petition.
In view of these legislative requirements, the length of time that
children had actually lived in the adoptive home before a decree was
granted is of special interest (table 13). The residence requirement
had been waived for some children in all the States that required a
6-month residence period. The courts in Massachusetts waived the
12 Sixteenth N ew York State Conference of Charities and Correction: Proceedings 1915, p. 283. Extract
from the report of the special committee on standards of placing out, supervision, and aftercare of depend
ent children.
13 Massachusetts, Minnesota, N ew M exico, N orth Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION1

residence period in approximately one-fourth of the cases, more often
than courts in other States. The smallest proportion of waivers was
in Minnesota, where the required residence period had been enforced
for all but 2 percent of the children. The only exception to the required
year of residence in Alabama was in the case of a child readopted by
his own parents. The reason for not observing the residence period
was rarely stated in the records, although occasionally such reasons
as “ exceptional circumstances,” “ unnecessary/’ or “ for the welfare
of the child” were entered in explanation of the court’s action. The
residence period was waived in some cases because a stepfather or
other relative was the petitioner. It is questionable whether an
adoption is advisable less than 6 months after a man’s marriage to
a child’s mother. The desire to adopt the child may be much stronger
in the first enthusiasm after the marriage than later, and the stepfather
may regret his hasty action.
T a b l e 13.— Period of residence of child in adoptive home prior to grant o f adoption
decree, hy States
Children who were adopted
Period of residence in adoptive home
State
Total

T otal..................................

1,718

A labam a.. . ______ ______
California____________________
Massachusetts____________ . . .
Minnesota ______________ . . .
N ew M exico__________________
North Dakota__________ _____
Oregon_________ ____________
Rhode Island_________________
W isco n sin ........ ............ .............

98
426
336
346
23
50
170
96
174

N ot re
ported or
Less
1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years
child
than 1
less than
less
less
never
month less than 6 1 year
than 3 than 5 or more
in the
home
8

3
1
1
1
2

188

306

765

178

211

18
82
6
2
4
39
11
26

1
50
68
72
8
8
48
16
35

57
262
95
183
5
23
52
29
59

16
36
37
34
3
4
8
21
19

20
52
37
38
2
5
18
13
26

4
g
13
12
2
6
4
4
9

A provision for a period of residence in the foster home before
adoption means little if it is to be waived for the slightest reason.
The purpose of such a provision may need to be interpreted to the
courts as well as to the petitioners, and the full cooperation of the
child-placing agencies is important. Most of the children who had
lived in the foster home for less than 6 months before adoption had
been placed in the home by relatives or other persons, but a small
number had been placed by agencies that did not conform to the
accepted standards of child-placing agencies in the State.
The fact that so great a number of children (765) had lived in the
home 1 or 2 years before adoption suggests that it was the accepted
policy of a large proportion of qualified child-placing agencies to
maintain supervision of a child in an adoptive home for at least a
year. More than half of these adoptions were in California and
Minnesota, where a large proportion of the children had been placed
by agencies. Factors in addition to agency policies affect the length
of residence in the foster home before adoption. Children may

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE CHILDREN AND THE PETITIONERS

remain in the home of relatives for many years before an adoption
is contemplated, and to a lesser degree this is also true of children
living with persons not related to them.
Table 14 shows the length of time that children who were adopted
by relatives or other persons had been in the home before adoption.
More than two-thirds of the children who had been in the home less
than a year and about three-fourths of those in the home from 1 to 3
years had been adopted by persons not related to them. In contrast,
relatives had adopted the larger proportion of the children who had
been in the home for 3 years or longer.
Since most of the persons who adopted children not related to them
filed petitions for adoption as soon as possible, the 60 children who
had been in such homes for 5 or more years before adoption are of
special interest. A few of these children were adopted by foster
parents who had originally taken a child into the home for boarding
care and who had filed a petition for adoption because the child’s own
parents later died or decided to give up the child. Sometimes the
family situation or the health of the child was the cause of delay. In
many cases the child remained in the home without the security of
adoption for no apparent reason except lack of understanding of the
need for giving the child an assured place in the home. Most of these
children weie placed independently, but a few were placed in free
homes by agencies giving limited supervision that apparently had
neglected to suggest the desirability of adoption.
T a b l e 14.— Period o f residence o f child in adoptive home prior to grant o f adoption

decree, by relationship o f child to adoptive parents
Children who were adopted
Period of residence in adoptive
home prior to grant of adoption
decree

B y relatives
Total
Total

T otal______________________
Less than 1 m onth__________ __ _
1 month, less than 6_____
6 months, less than 1 year
1 year, less than 3 ____________ __
3 years, less than 5 _ _ . _______
5 years or m ore_______ ______ _
Period not reported or child never
in the home______ _____________

Own or
stepparents

Grand
parents

Other rela
tives

B y other
persons

Ì, 718

649

1 358

108

183

1,069

8
188
306
765
178
211

4
77
81
197
97
151

2
48
44
103
50
82

1
6
9
38
17
33

1
23
28
56
30
36

4
111
225
568
81
60

1 Includes 17 ow n parents.
A G E S OF C H IL D R E N A N D A D O P T IV E P A R E N T S

The ages of the children at the time of adoption are shown in table
15. Nearly half the children adopted by persons other than relatives
were under 2 years of age when adopted, whereas the great majority
of the children adopted by relatives were older. Since young children
are usually preferred for adoption, it might be expected that most of
the children of school age were adopted by relatives; in fact, 173 of
the 516 children 6 years of age or older were adopted by persons not
related to them.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

The 67 children that were adopted before they were 6 months of age
were for the most part children placed independently in the homes of
petitioners not related to the child, although 14 children had been
adopted by relatives. Almost half of this group of 67 children were
less than 3 months of age at the time of adoption. The youngest
child adopted by relatives was 24 days old and the youngest child
adopted by a family not related to him was 1 month and 4 days old.
This child had been placed by a physician with foster parents who had
been divorced and remarried. Practically nothing was known of the
child’s background, and although postponement of action for 6 months
was recommended by the State department the decree was granted
almost immediately because the petitioners said they were w illing to
take a chance on the child’s development.
T

able

15.— Age of child at time of adoption, hy his relationship to adoptive parents
Children who were adopted
B y relatives

Age of child at time of adoption
Total
Total

T otal______________________

1, 718

649

Under 6 m o n th s ________________
6 months, under 1 year___________
1 year, under 2_____ _____________
2 years, under 4__________________
4 years, under 6_____ ____ _______
6 years, under 10...............................
10 years, under 14________________
14 years or o v e r ..________________
Age not reported_________________

67
114
425
354
232
298
132
86
10

14
20
58
96
112
181
94
68
6

Own or
stepparents

Grand
parents

Other
relatives

i 358

108

183

17
40
63
113
67
53
5

6
4
15
26
17
28
10
1
1

g
16
26
30
32
40
17
14

B y other
persons

1,069
94
367
258
120
117
38
18
4

i Includes 17 own parents.

Most of the adoptions of children who were less than 6 months of
age at the time of adoption occurred in Massachusetts (34), Oregon
(15), and Wisconsin (9), although 1 or more children of these ages had
been adopted in California, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Rhode
Island also. These children, as well as some of those who were more
than 6 months but less than a year old, included several for whom
residence requirements had been waived.
Although some of the children adopted before they were a year old
may have been placed by agencies that provided supervision for only
6 months, a large number of the children placed by agencies were
adopted after their first but before their second birthday. Of the 425
children of these ages adopted, more than two-thirds had been in the
home a year or longer. A large proportion of these children had been
adopted by persons not related to them, only 58 being adopted by
relatives.
Three-fourths of the total group of children under 6 years of age
were adopted by persons not delated to them, but two-thirds of the
children 6 years of age or older were adopted by relatives.
The age of a foster parent has special significance in relation to the
age of the child he is adopting. The parents of a young child are
most often 20 to 30 years of age, and if a foster child is to have the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE. CHILD BEST AND THE PETITIONEES

normal place of an own child in the lives of his foster parents it would
seem desirable that the foster parents should be of approximately the
same age as the natural parents. It is understandable, however,
that the foster parents should be somewhat older than natural parents
having children of the same age, since the decision to adopt is often
delayed until it has become relatively certain that the foster parents
will have no children of their own.
Since the mother is the person who usually has the closest association
with the child, the ages of the adoptive mothers were accepted as the
basis for comparison with the ages of the children they adopted.
However, when the ages of both adoptive parents were compared it
was found that in 67 percent of the cases in which ages of both parents
were known, the difference between the ages of the adoptive mother
and the adoptive father was not more than 5 years.
Table 16 shows the ages of the adoptive mothers in relation to the
ages of the children. Only 21 percent of the adoptive mothers whose
ages were known were under 30 years of age and 50 percent were be
tween 30 and 40. It was mothers of these ages who had adopted more
than two-thirds of the preschool children and even a large proportion
of the children under 2 years of age. It should be noted, however,
that 36 preschool children had been adopted by mothers who were
50 years of age or older.
T a b l e 16.— Age of adoptive mother, by age of child at time o f adoption
Children who were adopted
A

Age of adoptive mother

ge of child at time o f adoption

Total

Total____________
Under 30 years_________
30 years, under 40_______
40 years, under 50_______
50 years, under 60_______
60 years or over_________
Age not reported or no
adoptive mother______

Under
2 years

2 years,
under 4

4 years,
under 6

1,718

606

354

232

298

132

315
735
323
70
23

128
344
80
7
1

67
168
75
9
4

46
82
46
10
5

61
88
71
19
8

12
40
27
15
1

1
13
24
10
3

252

6 years,
10 years,
under 10 under 14

14 years
or over

N ot
reported
10

It might be expected that most of the women 50 years or older who
adopted children were grandparents, but table 17 shows that more
than a third of these women were not related to the child. Further
more, two-thirds of the adoptive mothers who were between 40 and
50 years of age were not related to the child. Some explanation is
needed for including in the table the ages of the mothers in adoptions
by stepparents, since most of these were the mothers of the children.
In all the States visited except Wisconsin the mother joins with her
husband in the petition and legally is an adoptive parent. In adop
tions by stepparents half the mothers whose ages were known were
under 30 years of age; this number included some cases in which an
unmarried mother later married and her husband petitioned to adopt
the child.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

36
T

able

17.— Age o f adoptive mother, by relationship to the adopted child
Children who were adopted
B y relatives

Age of adoptive mother
Total
Total

Own or
stepparents

----------------------------

1,718

649

i 358

30 years, under 40------------------------40 years, under 50------------------------50 years, under 6 0 . ----------. . . .

315
735
323
70
23

160
165
113
40
18

125
85
36
2

Age not reported or no adoptive
mother________ ________________

252

153

110

T o ta l..

B y other
persons

Other
relatives

Grand
parents
108

183

1,069

1
42
28
17

35
79
35
10
1

155
570
210
30
5

i Includes 17 own'parents.
T H E F A M ILY S ITU A TIO N IN TH E A D O P T IV E

HOM E

Information on the family situation in the home into which children
had been adopted was obtained from reports of the investigations in
the files of State departments. These reports were not available for
study in any of the Rhode Island cases and they were lacking for some
cases in the other States because investigation had been waived by
the court or because the investigations were incomplete, particularly
when the adoption was by a stepparent. Data were not available for
any aspect of the family situation in approximately 8 percent of the
cases.
Number in the adoptive family.

Ordinarily when the family of which the child became a member
consisted of only 2 persons, they were the adoptive mother and father,
but when the family consisted of more than 2 persons it included
either grandparents or other relatives, the child’s own mother, or
often other children of the adoptive parents. Table 18 shows that
14 children were in homes where there was only 1 adoptive parent.
More than half the children for whom this information was reported
were living in families consisting of 2 persons, most of them having
been adopted by persons not related to them, presumably childless
couples. Children adopted into families having 3 members made
up the next largest group. Only about a fifth of the children were
adopted into families of 4 or more persons.
Some differences are shown in the size of the families related to
the adopted child and of those not related to the child. Of the
children adopted by relatives, 40 percent of those for whom informa
tion was obtained were living in homes with two persons, as compared
with 60 percent of the children adopted by persons not related to
them. In more than a third of the adoptions by the child’s own par
ents or stepparents and in about one-half of the adoptions by “ other
relatives” the adopted child was the only child in the home. Most of
the children adopted into families of four or more persons were related
to the family.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE CHILDREN' AND THE PETITIONERS

T a b l e 18.— Number o f persons in the adoptive family, by relationship of child to

adoptive parents
N um ber of children adopted
Num ber of persons in the adop
tive family

B y relatives
Total
Total

T otal___ ____ _____________
1 person_____________ _________ 2 persons. ______ . . . _______ _
3 persons________________________
4 persons.. . . . ____________ ___
More than 4 persons_____________
N um ber not rep orted ............. .......

Own or
stepparents

Grand
parents

Other
relatives

B y other
persons

1,718

649

i 358

108

183

1,069

14
843
437
154
140
130

5
226
161
80
99
78

2
111
91
49
47
58

1
26
27
13
33
8

2
89
43
18
19
12

9
617
276
74
41
52

1 Includes 17 own parents.

Only 503 families were reported as having children under 16 years
of age in addition to the child who was adopted, whereas 1,071
families were reported as having no child under 16. In the remaining
144 families adopting children, either the number of children under
16 was not reported or no investigation had been made.
Although it is possible that other children may later become mem
bers of the family group in some of the 1,071 families that were without
children under 16 at the time of this study, doubtless many of the
children adopted will grow up without the companionship of other
children in the foster home. An only child is frequently handicapped
not only because he misses the association of other children in the
home but also because the whole attention of his parents is centered
upon him. An only child in a foster home frequently has the added
handicap of serving the emotional needs of foster parents who may
have desired children for years.
Educational background.

Information on the educational backgrounds of the adoptive parents
was available in three-fourths of the records of the children adopted.
The States differed in regard to the importance they attached to ob
taining specific information about the extent of the education of the
adoptive parents, and as a result many of the reports of the investiga
tions in some States had no information on this subject whereas in
other States it was almost always available.
Although it is recognized as unfair to judge intelligence and cultural
development by the amount of formal education, this has been gener
ally accepted as an objective criterion of intellectual ability and cul
tural interests. The educational attainment of a person may have
little relation to his desirability as an adoptive parent, but ordinarily
it affords an indication of his interests as well as what might be expected •
intellectually of a child in his home. The educational background of
the foster parents should be taken into consideration because the
child’s happiness is to some extent dependent on his ability to meet the
intellectual expectations of his foster parents and to accept the
opportunities they can offer him.
The educational backgrounds of both adoptive parents were approx
imately the same in less than half the cases studied. However, when

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS' AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

they were different the parent having the more extensive formal
education was accepted as representing the educational attainment
of the parents.
Although the information about the extent of the formal education
of parents and adoptive parents was too incomplete to justify com
parison in the States visited, the figures seem to indicate that the
adoptive parents had had more formal education. It should be real
ized that in many cases the educational background of the mother,
often an unmarried mother, was compared with that of the adoptive
father, who may have had more extensive formal education because it
would result in increased opportunities for employment. Since grand
parents are likely to have had less opportunity for education than their
children, it would not have been surprising if most of the adoptive
parents who had more limited education than the parents had been
grandparents, but in fact nearly three-fourths of these adoptive
parents were unrelated to the child. On the whole, the educational
background of persons who adopted children not related to them was
more extensive than that of relatives who adopted children.
T

able

19.— Extent of formal education of adoptive parents,1 by relationship o f the
parents to the adopted child
Children who were adopted
Extent of formal education of adoptive parents 1
Total

By
relatives

B y other
persons

T otal___________ ____ ___________

1, 718

649

1,069

Extent reported_______ ________________

1,269

400

869

College____________ - ______________
High-school graduation____________
Some high school__________________
Eighth grade.................................. ......
Sixth or seventh g r a d e ..____ ______
Less than sixth grade........................

381
304
228
282
44
30

75
73
86
126
27
13

306
231
142
156
17
17

Extent not reported or no investigation.

449

249

200

1 Parent having the higher degree of formal education.

A comparison of these findings with the educational status of the
general population 21 years of age or over as estimated by the Office
of Education in 1934 u shows that the educational level of the persons
adopting children was considerably higher than that of persons in the
general population. Only 7 percent of the general population com
pared with 30 percent of the adoptive parents had attended college.
Religious affiliation.

The religious affiliations of the adoptive parents of 1,508 children
•were known. In the majority of the families both adoptive parents
were of the same religion. Both the adoptive parents of 1,031 children
were Protestant, 318 were Catholic, 21 were Jewish, and 11 were
affiliated with other religious groups.
A census of religious bodies for the year 1926 showed that nearly
half the church members in the nine States included in this study were
14 Biennial Survey of Education, 1932-34, p. 14.
ington, 1937.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

U. S. Office of Education Bulletin, 1935, N o. 2.

W ash

THE CHILDREN AND THE PETITIONERS

Roman Catholic.15 Since only about one-fifth of the children had adop
tive parents who were Catholic, it would appear that Catholic families
are much less likely to adopt children than Protestant families. It is
possible that the relatively small proportion of adoptions by Catholics
can be explained by the fact that the number of childless Catholic
families is known to be small. Indeed, representatives of both Cath
olic and nonsectarian child-placing agencies reported difficulties in
finding enough Catholic adoptive homes to meet the needs of Catholic
children available for adoption.
Information on the religious affiliations of one or both of the parents
of the child was available for only 1,439 of the children. Comparison
of the affiliations of the parents and of the adoptive parents showed
that a large proportion of the adoptions had been made by persons
of the same religion as the parents. Nevertheless, 31 Protestant
children had been adopted by Catholic or Jewish families, and 58
Catholic children had been adopted by Protestant or Jewish families.
Of the children whose parents were of these three faiths, 117 had
been placed in homes in which one of the adoptive parents was of the
same religious faith as the parents although the other adoptive parent
was not.
Economic status.

An accurate estimation of the income of a family requires a far more
comprehensive study of the resources ol the family than had apparently
been undertaken by the persons making the investigations of adoption
petitions. The records of 309 children merely included a statement in
regard to the adequacy of the income. Although the income was con
sidered adequate in most of these cases, the income of the adoptive
parents of 47 children was described as marginal, and 23 parents were
on relief. A third of the parents with inadequate income or on relief
were not related to the children.
More specific but not necessarily more accurate information was
available for 1,221 children whose records showed the annual income of
the foster family. The following list shows the distribution of these
families in different income groups:
A n n u a l in c o m e

F a m ilie s

Less than $1,000____________________________________ 94
$1,000, less than $2,000_____________________ ...______ 508
$2,000, less than $3,000______________________________353
$3,000, less than $5,000____________________________ 176
$5,000 or more____________________ _______ ,________ 90

In interpreting these figures it should be remembered that an income
adequate for a family consisting of only the parents and the adopted
child may be less adequate for a family including 4 or more persons
in addition to the child. Although families related to the adopted
child tended to be larger than those not related their median income
was in the $1,000 to $2,000 income group, whereas the median income
in families having no blood relationship to the child was in the $2,000
to $3,000 income group. The lowest income group included 58
families of relatives and 36 families not related to the child, whereas
the highest income group included 24 families of relatives and 66
families not related to the child.
18 Religious Bodies: 1926, vol. 1, pp. 142-275.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Bureau of the Census.

Washington, 1930.

PROBLEMS' AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

It is apparent that most of the children adopted in the 9 States had
become members of families with modest incomes. However, the
median income of slightly more than $2,000 in the families of 1,221
children for which income was reported is almost twice as high as the
median income ($1,160) of 29,000,000 families shown in a recent
report by the National Resources Committee on the distribution of
consumer incomes.16
Evaluation of the home.

The reports of the investigations usually included comments on or a
description of the home and the family life which gave a relatively
clear impression of the desirability of the home. Although a sub
jective element may have entered into some of the comments, much
of the information was factual. In order to assist the three agents of
the Children’s Bureau who reviewed the records to make the final
evaluation of the home on as objective a basis as possible, a rating
scale was devised which required a separate rating on five elements in
the family situation. Some of the records did not contain sufficient
information on which to base an evaluation of each of these elements,
so that it was necessary to rate the home on the general comments.
The following outline shows the measurements used in deciding
whether the home was desirable, passable, or undesirable:
(a) Economic condition:
Desirable: A stable income sufficient to provide a satisfactory standard
of living within the limits of the income available.
Passable: Income marginal but sufficient to meet simple needs of foster
family.
Undesirable: Insufficient income or debts in excess of the ability of the
family to pay.
(b) Physical condition:
Desirable: Both foster parents free from any abnormal physical condition
or chronic illness and without predisposition to any disease.
Passable: Both foster parents free from any abnormal physical condition
or chronic illness, but health history and general physical condition
shows weaknesses that may result in future illness.
Undesirable: One or both of the foster parents suffering from a disease
that may be passed on to the child; chronic illness apparent in one or
both parents.
(c) Mental condition:
Desirable: Foster parents mentally and emotionally well balanced with
out apparent mental quirks or phobias.
Passable: No mental disease but some evidence of emotional instability
and undesirable personality reactions.
Undesirable: Real evidence of mental disease; definite emotional insta
bility shown in fits of rage, jealousy, desire for self-punishment, and
so forth.
(d) Community standing:
Desirable: Family has the respect and confidence of the community.
Passable: No adverse report with regard to the family but investigation
indicates that family has not made any definite place for itself in the
community.
Undesirable: Family does not have the respect and admiration of the
community.
(e) Family relationships:
Desirable: All members of the family live in a harmonious relationship,
with real affection and respect for one another and with unity of pur
pose in the family life.
Passable: Family not generally quarrelsome but a lack of unity is evident
in their purposes and desires.
Undesirable: Members of family at cross-purposes with one another.
16 Consumer Incomes in the United States; their distribution in 1935-36, p. 19.
mittee, Washington, 1938.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

National Resources Com

THE CHILDREN AND THE PETITIONERS

Table 20 shows the evaluation obtained by this plan of measurement
of the homes of the 1,553 children whose records had sufficient informa
tion for such an evaluation. Of this number nearly two-thirds seemed
to be desirable and only about 4 percent were undesirable. A smaller
proportion were in homes of relatives that were considered desirable
than in those of persons not related to the child, but the proportion
in passable and undesirable homes was only slightly different in these
two groups.
The fact that agencies were responsible for many placements m
homes of persons not related explained to some extent the large number
of desirable homes in this group, for most of the questionable homes
were those in which the children had been placed by parents, relatives,
or other persons. It should be noted that the rating scale did not
undertake to evaluate the contribution which family ties and affection
make to the child, although these are recognized as significant in the
final analysis of the desirability of his adoption by a relative, even
when the home itself offers less than the home of a person not related
to him.
T a b l e 20.— Evaluation o f adoptive home, by relationship of adoptive parents to the

child
Children who were adopted
B y relatives
Evaluation of adoptive home
Total

Own or
step
parents

Grand
parents

Other
relatives

B y other
persons

Total-----------------------------------------------

1,718

1358

108

183

1,069

Passable------ ---------------------------------------------Undesirable------------------------------------------ ■--N ot reported----------------------------------------------

1,015
476
62
165

164
105
16
73

49.
44
9
6

94
71
7
11

708
256
30
75

1 Includes 17 own parents.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT OF SOUND ADOPTION PRACTICES

If sound adoption practices are to be developed in any State
or local community, care must be taken to see that placements for
adoption are made by agencies especially equipped to select the home
best suited to meet the needs of the child. It is therefore important
that the State department be in a position to determine which agencies
are so equipped and to limit adoptive placements to these agencies
insofar as possible.
IM P R O V E M E N T IN PLA C E M E N T S F O R A D O P T IO N

Supervision of placements.

Careful placement of children before adoption is considered of
primary importance. Accordingly the effectiveness of every State
adoption program is influenced greatly by the character of its program
for supervision of child placements and of child-placing agencies.
Some attempt to control indiscriminate placements of children was
evident in the laws of every State visited except New Mexico. Place
ment of children by persons or agencies not properly licensed for such
service was prohibited by the laws of six States.1 The Oregon law, for
instance, specifically provided that private persons, including mid
wives, physicians, nurses, hospital officials, and all officers of unauthor
ized institutions were forbidden under penalty of a fine to engage in
child-placing work, except that relatives of the first and second degree
were permitted to provide for children of their own blood.
The North Dakota statute did not definitely prohibit placements
made by unlicensed persons or agencies but it required “ any person,
partnership, voluntary association, or corporation” undertaking to
place children in permanent homes to procure an annual license from
the State Board of Administration.2
No provision had been made for licensing child-placing agencies
in Massachusetts, but some protection was maintained through a law
requiring that written notice be given to the State department by any
one who received an infant under 2 years of age for adoption or for
giving it a home, or for procuring a home or adoption for it.2
The placement of children for adoption was accordingly limited to
licensed agencies authorized by an annual license to make such
placements in seven of the States included in this study (Alabama,
California, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wis
consin) . The conditions under which licenses were granted were
specified in several of the States. For instance, in Alabama the State
i Alabama, Code 1923, secs. 119,120; California, Welfare and Institutions Code 1937, sec. 1620; Minnesota,
M ason’s A nn. Stat. 1927, sec. 4562, as amended b y Laws of 1935, ch. 112, sec. 4561; R hode Island, Gen. Laws
1938, ch. 373, secs. 3, 9; Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, secs. 33-705, 33-714, 33-716; Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec.
48.37 (1).
a North Dakota, 1925 Supp. to 1913 Com p. Laws, secs. 5099cl, 5099c2.
3 Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 119, sec. 14.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OE THE STATE DEPARTMENT

department was empowered to prescribe the minimum standards to
be met in obtaining a license. A child-placing agency in Minnesota
was required to be “ competent” and to have “ adequate facilities”
for its work before a license could be granted. The North Dakota
statutes specified that licenses be issued only to “ reputable and re
sponsible applicants upon a showing that they and their agents are
properly equipped by training and experience to find and select suit
able temporary or permanent homes for children, and to supervise
such homes when children are placed in them to the end that the
health, morality, and general well-being of children placed by them
will be properly safeguarded.”
The State departments in Alabama, Minnesota, and Rhode Island
had authority, on the basis of a report of a placement, to visit a child
in the foster home, and it was the duty of the State department in
North Dakota to visit the proposed foster home and to make inquiries
to ascertain whether the home was suitable. Child-placing agencies
in Wisconsin were required to keep records of children placed in foster
homes as prescribed by the State department and to report to the
department any facts requested with reference to these children. In
Wisconsin, homes in which children had been placed for adoption were
included in the definition of a “ foster home” and as such were required
to have an annual permit.
Supervision of agencies.

All the States visited, except Massachusetts and New Mexico, had
special legislative provisions for licensing and supervising child-placing
agencies. A general provision in Massachusetts authorized the State
welfare department to inspect and receive reports from “ all charitable
organizations,” but no special program had been developed for the
supervision of agencies or institutions receiving children for care or for
placement in foster homes. At the time of the study there were no
child-placing agencies in New Mexico, and the agency placements
reported in this State were those made by the staff of the Bureau of
Child Welfare (which in 1937 became the child-welfare division of the
newly created State Department of Public Welfare) or by agencies in
other States.
Alabama.— At the time the visit to Alabama was made, seven
agencies and institutions were licensed to place children in free
homes. Placements were reported monthly to the division of childcaring institutions and agencies of the State Department of Public
Welfare. When an agency or institution did not have sufficient staff
to provide adequate supervision for children placed in foster homes,
supervision was arranged for through the county departments of
public welfare under the general supervision of the State department.
Institutions and agencies authorized to place children in foster homes
were visited regularly by the supervisor of the division of child-caring
institutions and agencies, who familiarized herself with the policies and
practices followed. Independent placements, when reported to the
State department, were referred to the local county department of
public welfare, and each situation was dealt with on its own merits.
California.— Only two agencies in California were authorized to
place children for adoption and to receive relinquishments of children
from their parents. The relinquishment was not valid until a copy
249071°— 41------4

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

was filed with the State Department of Social Welfare.4 This require
ment made it possible for the State department to learn the acceptance
policies of the agencies. The department was given full authority to
investigate each case. One of the child-placing agencies made it a
practice to accompany the copy of the relinquishment with a history
sheet for the child which gave some information about the family
history of the child, although it seldom gave the reasons for the relin
quishment ; the other agency sent very little information with the copy
of the relinquishment. The State department ordinarily did not make
an independent investigation, nor did it request further information
from the reporting agency to ascertain whether the relinquishment
was necessary or desirable. No report of the child’s subsequent place
ment was sent to the State department, which therefore had no infor
mation on the case from the time the copy of the relinquishment was
received until a request was received to approve the adoption. Lim
ited information about the foster home usually accompanied this
request, and on the basis of this meager report the adoption was
usually approved.
The annual licensing of the two adoption agencies in California was
the responsibility of the division of permits, which also had responsi
bility for adoption work. Lack of funds, however, had made it nec
essary to curtail the activities of the division greatly, and as a result
no visits had been made to the adoption agencies for several years.
Without such visits it was difficult to evaluate the work of the agencies
on the basis of the brief reports on adoption cases sent to the State
department. Although these reports were occasionally questioned by
the adoption department, a plan by which full use could be made of
all the information available in the State department had not been
developed at the time the visit to the State was made. Reports of
independent placements received by the State department were re
ferred for investigation to the division of boarding homes for children.
Occasionally this procedure rectified an undesirable placement and
prevented the filing of an adoption petition.
Minnesota.— A supervisory program under the direction of the chil
dren’s bureau of the State Board of Control had been in operation in
Minnesota for about 20 years at the time the State was visited.6
During this time the child-placing agencies had sent to the division of
adoptions and placements in the children’s bureau a report of each
placement with such specific details about the child, the foster home,
and the foster parents as were required by the State Board of Control.
A printed form had been prepared for these reports, and in the past
little more than the information requested on this form was received.
However, at the time the State was visited several agencies were send
ing carbon copies of their placement reports to the State department.
Before 1935 the State department was required to visit every home in
which a child had been placed, even when the placement had been made
by an agency, but in 1935 the statutes made such visits permissive
rather than mandatory.6
At the time the visit to the State was made (1936), placement re
ports from agencies which had been informally designated “ fully ac
credited” were accepted without further information, although final
4 California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, sec. 224m.
s T he Board of Control was replaced in 1939 b y the Department of Social Security in which the bureau
of child welfare assumed the former responsibilities of the children’s bureau.
8 Minnesota, M ason’s Ann. Stat. 1927, sec. 4563, as amended b y Laws of 1935, ch. 112.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES 01

i i iE STATE DEPA

approval of these placements was withheld until the original report
had been supplemented by subsequent reports of supervisory visits to
the foster home. A single visit was usually made to the foster home
reported by an agency that was not fully accredited. This visit was
made not with the idea of reinvestigating the foster home but in an
effort to substantiate the opinion of the placing agency and to deter
mine whether there were outstanding weaknesses in the home which
had been overlooked. The decision to approve or disapprove the
placement was made on the basis of the visit to the home and the re
port of the agency. Independent placements when reported to the
State department were fully investigated by agents of the department
as soon as possible. If the investigation showed the placement to be
unwise, an effort was made to make other, plans for the child, but if
the placement was approved the State department, through its agents,
assumed the responsibility for continued supervision of the child until
the adoption was completed.
A general program of supervision of child-placing agencies was also
maintained through another division in the children’s bureau, which
recommended to the State department the agencies to receive the
annual license or certificate. Visits to these agencies were made with
fair regularity, but information about their standards of work was
obtained mainly through reports from the division of placements and
adoptions, where a careful analysis and evaluation of their child-placing
work was available. The supervisory program of the State depart
ment had been a distinct factor in improving the quality of the place
ment programs of the agencies. The activities of the State depart
ment had resulted in the gradual reduction of the number of agencies
placing children; some agencies were persuaded to consolidate so that
a more efficient program could be maintained, and some agencies that
gave only limited service agreed to abandon their placement work
entirely. Child-placing agencies had been encouraged to improve
their personnel standards, with the result that most of the workers
employed at the time the State was visited were college graduates
and several had also had professional social-work training. The cer
tificates of two child-placing agencies were withheld in 1935 until qual
ified case workers could be employed to conduct their placement work.
North Dakota.— The statutory plan set up in North Dakota for
supervision of child-placing and child-caring agencies by the State
Board of Administration closely resembled that of Minnesota, but
little had been accomplished because of lack of funds and the conse
quent lack of staff.7 The three child-placing agencies in the State
reported each placement made and one of these agencies also sent
carbon copies of reports of supervisory visits made to foster homes.
Placements were approved on the basis of reports received. The
same person received the placement reports and made the decision
about licensing the agencies so that there was no duplication as in
the two divisions of the State department in Minnesota.
Oregon.— Oregon agencies placing children in adoptive homes made
a preliminary report to the Child Welfare Commission within 30 days
after placement, giving the name of the child, the name of the foster
7 In 1936, when the division of child welfare of the Public Welfare Board was organized to administer childwelfare services under the Social Security A ct, it was agreed that the Public Welfare Board should assume
the duties of the children’s bureau of the State Board of Control.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

family, and the date of placement.8 A more detailed report was
usually not submitted until the time the petition to adopt was filed,
although the agencies had been urged to send such information before
placement, so that questions presented could be discussed and the
placement prevented if it appeared to be undesirable. An attempt
had also been made to encourage greater care in the selection of
foster homes and to develop higher standards in the supervision given
to placed-out children. Special note was made of adoptions which
had failed, and if the placement had been made by an agency the
reasons for the failure were carefully discussed with the agency. It
was the responsibility of the State department to license child-placing
agencies, and in this connection the State department had attempted
to improve agency standards. Progress had been slow but some gain
had been made.
Independent placements ordinarily were not referred to the State
department until a petition for adoption was received, but an effort
had been made to explain to hospitals, to the medical profession,. and
to others the philosophy behind the prohibition of placements by
unauthorized persons.
Rhode Island.— The Rhode Island statutes required that the State
department receive notification of all placements of children who were
less than 16 years of age.9 It was the duty of the department to
cause the child and the foster home to be visited within 3 months
after receiving notification to determine whether the placement was
desirable and to give continued supervision to the child in the home.
In practice, however, the State department had not required reports
of placement until adoption plans were well under way.
Annual licenses were required for agencies wishing to place chil
dren in adoptive homes. Each agency was visited before a license
was issued and some of its placement records were read. The pro
gram for the improvement of placement standards had been carried
on through case-by-case contacts, rather than by means of a broad
educational program.
Wisconsin.— The laws of Wisconsin prohibited placements by any
but a “ licensed child-welfare agency.” A “ foster home” in this
State had been defined as any home in which a child under 12 years
of age was placed with or without transfer of custody. Every “ foster
home,” including those in which children had been placed for adop
tion, was required to have an annual permit to operate. Foster-home
permits were issued either directly by the State Board of C ontrol10 or
by licensed child-welfare agencies having authority to issue them for
foster homes under their supervision. Only well-qualified agencies
had been so authorized, and each agency was required to send to the
State department a notice of each placement made and each permit
issued. The agency was expected to keep a detailed record in its
own files, however. Agencies not authorized to issue foster-home
permits made reports of each placement, giving summary information
about the child and the foster home, together with a narrative report
8 Through legislation enacted in 1939 the Child Welfare Commission in Oregon was abolished and its du
ties, including the responsibility for the investigation of adoption, were transferred to the State Public
Welfare Commission.
8 A law of 1939 changed the name from the Departm ent of Public Welfare to the Department of Social
Welfare.
10 In 1939 the duties of the State Board of Control were transferred to the newly organized State Depart
ment of Public Welfare.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT

of the investigation. Such reports were considered individually, and
the agency was requested not to consent to an adoption until the
placement had been formally approved.
The State department had recognized that since the child-placing
agencies had been given responsibility for issuing permits it was
especially important that they have high standards. The supervisor
of institutions and agencies spent some time each year reading the
records in each child-placing agency and visiting a cross section of
the foster homes used by the agency. At such times policies and
procedures were discussed. Adoptions sponsored by licensed childwelfare agencies ordinarily were not reported to the State depart
ment; instead, full responsibility was given to the agency and the
court.
Upon receipt of a report of a child placed independently in a foster
home for either temporary or permanent care, the State department
assumed responsibility for seeing that the home was visited and that
it did not continue to operate without a foster-home permit. Subse
quent supervision was given either directly by the State department
or through one of its local agents. Since every foster home caring
for a child not related to the family was required to have a permit to
operate, the State department frequently learned of the conditions
under which a child was living before adoption action was started.
The States visited that had a combined program for supervision
of placements and adoptions had found that careful supervision of
placements meant fewer unsatisfactory adoptions. Adequate super
vision of the child-placing agencies made it unnecessary to rein
vestigate placements, and the department was thus able to devote
more time to a broad educational program and to protection for
children placed without the assistance and guidance of a qualified
child-placing agency.
E D U C A TIO N A L A CTIV ITIE S OF S T A T E D E P A R T M E N T S

Some evidence was found to indicate that the State departments
gave constructive and consistent leadership in the attempt to raise the
standards of adoption practices, but the educational programs of all
the States needed further expansion. It was also found in some of the
States that an effort had been made to inform the public about
accepted procedures in adoptions. Advantage should be taken of every
opportunity to explain the policies and procedures of the State de
partment to the medical and legal professions as well as to the lay
public. Each doctor, attorney, or other person who may know of
children available for adoption should be aware of the State’s program
so that his cooperation will be assured. Interpretation of the pro
gram to one person may seem to require a great amount of time, but if
it is done skillfully it may mean the future cooperation of the indi
vidual and of his associates and acquaintances.
Programs of social agencies.

Since satisfactory adoptions are dependent upon satisfactory
placements, it was encouraging to find in the States where the State
department was responsible for supervision of both placements and
adoptions that the two programs had been closely coordinated. How
ever, State departments cannot decrease their activities in this direc-

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

tion until a much greater proportion of the children who are subjects
of adoption petitions find their way into their adoptive homes through
agencies especially equipped to give this service. About two-fifths
of the children placed with unrelated persons in the States included in
the study had been placed independently of a child-placing agency.
Private child-placing agencies in some of the States visited had
been encouraged to cooperate with the State department in giving
adequate protection to children placed independently in adoptive
homes. In California and Oregon the agencies were willing to accept
responsibility for subsequent supervision of the child in the home as
well as for adoption proceedings, even when the child was already in
the foster home at the time supervision was assumed.
Case-by-case consultation had been used effectively as a method of
improving the work of the child-placing agencies. Such procedure
made it possible to present specific illustrations from the agency’s
own case load in a discussion of general problems of child placing.
In order to develop more complete understanding of adoption
among the agencies it is distinctly valuable to develop a plan for
centering attention on this problem. This has been accomplished
in one State by the organization of an “ adoption council.” At first
membership on the council was limited primarily to staff members of
the child-placing agencies, but supervisors and executives were
finally included, although the officers were generally chosen from the
original group. At its early meetings the council discussed specific
problems relating to practices and procedures in the investigation of
placements and adoptions, but as time went on the council became, to
a considerable extent, an interpretative group. A committee of the
council compiled a bibliography of the literature on placements and
adoptions. Some time was spent in discussing the development of an
educational program designed to prevent placements made inde
pendently of qualified agencies. A feature article which described
and explained the adoption program was prepared for one of the
metropolitan newspapers in the State. The council was responsible
for having an institute on adoption problems included in the institutes
sponsored by the State conference of social work. A sample adoption
case was prepared as a basis for discussion at this institute and a
discussion leader of wide experience was obtained from outside the
State.
The preparation of satisfactory child-placing standards affords an
excellent educational opportunity for studying the needs of children
placed for adoption and for raising the standards of individual agencies.
Group thinking can be very helpful, although care must be taken by
the State department to keep from too obviously projecting its own
ideas into any group of child-placing agencies organized for this
purpose. The State department may find it expedient to guide the
group, but interest is likely to lag unless the representatives from the
agencies are stimulated to accept the major responsibility for any
final action taken. Experience has shown that individual agencies
accept suggestions for changes in procedure much more readily when
they come from other child-placing agencies than when they come
from the State department. Likewise, problems that have seemed
insurmountable to a single agency appear less difficult when con
sidered jointly by a group of agencies.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT

Methods of procedure may differ, but one that has proved relatively
satisfactory has been to divide the group into small subcommittees,
making each responsible for a specific assignment of work which will
eventually fit into the whole. It is advantageous to consult the
State department about the membership of the subcommittees, for in
assigning the members of the group to subcommittees, consideration
will need to be given both to the specific contribution certain persons
can make and to the educational needs of others who, although they
may have little to give, will profit by the stimulation that comes from
a joint discussion of common problems. When substantial agreement
has been reached by the subcommittees, acceptance by the whole
group is the next step. If the standards prepared and accepted by the
agencies can then be formally adopted by the State department and
used as the basis for supervisory work with individual agencies, future
cooperation of the agencies is practically assured.
The content of such standards will necessarily be governed by the
situation in a given State, but it may be found advantageous to
discuss such questions as (1) the policies of child-placing agencies
with regard to the minimum age at which a child should be accepted,
the advantages of temporary acceptance, the dangers involved in
inflexibility, the responsibility of a child-placing agency for children
already placed independently, and the factors to be considered in the
length of time a child should be kept under care pending a decision
for permanent separation from his own people; (2) the necessary facts
to be included in the study of a child accepted for permanent place
ment; (3) the essential facts to be learned in the study of a foster
home; (4) the legal formalities and agency responsibilities to be
considered before a child can be considered available for permanent
placement; and (5) the responsibility of the child-placing agency after
a child’s placement in a foster home.
The responsibility of a State department must sometimes extend
beyond its own State borders, particularly when its residents make
use of institutions or agencies in other States. The improvement of
undesirable placement standards under such conditions should be of
mutual interest to each State affected. Difficult interstate problems
can best be dealt with through cooperation between State depart
ments. It is possible that the concerted efforts of several State
departments might encourage another department to take action
regarding the social policies of agencies and institutions within its
State that it would hesitate to take on its own initiative.
It was found that the child-placing agencies sometimes did not
understand the programs of the State departments and consequently
were critical of the procedures used. This was occasionally due to
the fact that the private agencies considered the quality of work and
the standards of personnel in the State department inferior to their
own, but often it was the direct result of their lack of knowledge
about the State’s program. For example, the chairman of the special
commission which drafted an adoption law and which was largely
responsible for its passage told of offering the services of his agency,
incidentally not a child-placing agency, to a casual acquaintance who
was planning to adopt a child obtained from some outside source in
order to avoid the necessity for an investigation by the State depart
ment.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION'

It should be the responsibility of the State department to stimulate
the development of local resources, public and private, for the child
born out of wedlock. An active local agency equipped to give
service to unmarried mothers might well result in fewer independent
placements, since children available for placement could be referred
to authorized child-placing agencies. Treatment on a case-work
basis would undoubtedly mean that some children who otherwise
would be separated from their own people could remain with them
and that placement plans would be made for other children who,
because no one was interested in their well-being, might stay on as
unwanted children in undesirable homes.
Experience has shown that many children of unmarried mothers
find their way into foster homes through the hospitals or maternity
homes in which they are born. Supervision of the health aspects of
these institutions is important. It is equally important that the
department of welfare supervise the social-service aspects and en
courage the institutions to refer to authorized child-placing agencies
any children who may be available for placement. In the past,
maternity homes serving unmarried mothers considered the place
ment of children one of their primary functions, but it is now generally
accepted that this is wrong in principle, and progressive maternity
homes are now discontinuing this practice and making use of child
placing agencies instead.
Programs for medical groups.

The activities of members of the medical profession in the field of
child placing were of great concern to the State departments visited.
Sixty children among the 2,041 studied had been placed by persons
associated with the mother’s confinement, but physicians had been
either directly or indirectly responsible for the placement of other
children. Although the Children’s Bureau study indicated that
placements by physicians had been made much less frequently than
was supposed, it was apparent that there was a need for a general
program of education through newspapers and professional journals
in order to supply physicians with information about child-placing
regulations and authorized resources available to them when they
were confronted with the need of a mother to plan for her child’s
care or with the wish of a childless couple to find a child for adoption.
Too often the doctors were supplied with literature from agencies
whose practices were not generally acceptable but were without any
information about authorized resources.
The California State Department of Social Welfare had succeeded in
obtaining space in the annual directory of physicians and surgeons,
naturopaths, drugless practitioners, chiropodists, and midwives pub
lished by the board of medical examiners for a statement describing
the “ most satisfactory” adoption procedure. The section of the
statute was quoted which prohibited any “ person, association, or
corporation” from finding homes for children under 16 years of age
or placing any such child in any home for temporary or permanent
care or adoption, without first having obtained a license or permit in
writing from the State Department of Social Welfare.11
h

California, Welfare and Institutions Code 1937, sec. 1620.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT

Arrangements had been made with the Medical School of the State
University of Oregon to have the director of the State department talk
to the senior class. The inadvisability of having doctors place chil
dren was stressed, and proper adoption procedure was explained. An
article giving the same sort of information prepared by the director of
the Oregon Child Welfare Commission was published in a regional
medical journal.
Several other States had undertaken, through visits by State per
sonnel to doctors and hospitals, to explain the statutory provisions
and to give information about available resources for finding adoptive
homes. Often these visits were prompted by the fact that the adop
tion of a child placed by a physician or a. hospital official was under
consideration.
Programs for the courts and attorneys.

It is essential in a well-administered adoption program that the
State department, the county departments and agencies making
investigations, and the courts hearing adoption petitions establish
cordial working relationships; yet in most of the States visited such a
relationship had not been developed. As a result State departments
were sometimes unduly critical of the courts and the courts were
unsympathetic toward the policies and procedures of the State
departments.
Am effort had been made in California to assist attorneys to obtain
a better understanding of the policies and principles of the State
department, and for a time attorneys were encouraged to come to the
State department to discuss proposed adoptions before petitions were
filed. Many attorneys were reported to have taken advantage of
this opportunity, sometimes with the result that the plan for adoption
was abandoned. A cursory investigation was made after the attor
ney’s visit. This was frequently limited to clearance with the socialservice exchange, but enough information was obtained on which to
base a general opinion about the desirability of the adoption. Un
fortunately it was found necessary to discontinue this plan because of
insufficient staff, but it was reported that these preliminary investiga
tions were still made occasionally.
A circuit judge in Oregon assisted the State department in planning
a meeting with the county bar association at which adoption policies
were discussed. Although the cooperation of the local attorneys had
been greatly fostered by this meeting the plan had not been used in
other counties. Similar meetings might well be planned by county
departments making adoption investigations.
The State departments seldom sent representatives to adoption
hearings, except when an adoption was disapproved; but unless
hearings on approved cases are also attended a court may justly
conclude that the primary object of representation is to oppose
adoption. A recent adoption law of New Jersey required representa
tion at the adoption hearing of the agency directed to make the
investigation.12 The adoption law of Delaware authorized the pres
ence at the hearing of “ all interested persons,” and this would logically
include the investigating agency.13 Such provisions stress the desira
bility of having a person present who has intimate knowledge of the
circumstances affecting an adoption.
Ia N ew Jersey, Laws of 1938, ch. 355.
13 Delaware, Laws of 1937, p. 618.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION'

Personal conferences with judges on general policies, legislative
needs, and specific legal procedure may result in awakening interest in
adoptions. Apparently such conferences had never been held con
sistently in the States visited, although in one State it had been sug
gested that the supervisor of adoptions visit each of the courts in the
State during the first few months after the adoption program was
started to explain the State program and to give the courts an oppor
tunity to explain the type of material they would like to receive in
reports on adoptions. In another State a “ good-will tour” of the
courts had been suggested. When conferences with the courts are
held it is important that they be handled by a person from the State
department who is conversant with the adoption law and its adminis
tration. A discussion of general subjects may afford an opportunity
to discuss specific cases— a former decision, possibly— and to explain
fully the reasons back of the State department’s recommendations.
The representative of the State department may also obtain a better
understanding of the philosophy of the court through such discussion.
Usually it is inadvisable to discuss a pending adoption case with a
judge except at his suggestion; such discussion may be interpreted as
an attempt to interfere with judicial prerogatives. The State depart
ment should always remember that the final authority rests with the
court but that the judge cannot act intelligently without complete
information on which to base his decision.
State departments had been slow to recognize the part that child
placing agencies can play in interpreting standards of satisfactory
adoption procedure to the courts. A written report from an agency
that has placed a child and has supervised him in a foster home over
a period of months or even years may do much to acquaint the court
with important factors to be considered in an adoption decision.
Oral reports are rarely as effective as written statements since they
are usually very brief and give little detailed information.
Whether or not written reports are prepared for the court by
child-placing agencies there is value in having representatives of the
agencies attend adoption hearings now and then. Attendance at these
hearings may serve to give an agency an awareness of some of the
problems facing the State department in its service to the courts and
a greater tolerance for its administrative procedure.
INVESTIGATION OF ADOPTION PETITIONS

The laws of Alabama, Minnesota, New Mexico, and North Dakota
required the court to refer petitions for the adoption of minor children
to the State department for investigation, although in Minnesota and
North Dakota such investigation could be waived by the court “ upon
good cause shown when satisfied that the proposed home and the child
are suited to each other.” 14 Notification of the filing of a petition
for the adoption of a minor child in Rhode Island must be referred
either to the State department or to the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children, a private agency with a State-wide program.15
Adoption in California was limited to minor children, and it was
the duty of the State Department of Social Welfare to make an investi14 Alabama, Laws of 1931, see. 9302B; Minnesota, M ason’s Ann. Stat. 1927, sec. 8625; N ew M exico, A nn.
Stat. 1929, sec. 2-108; North Dakota, 1925 Supp. to 1913 Comp. Laws, sec. 4446.
n Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1928, ch. 420, sec. 5.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF THE STATE, DEPARTMENT

gation when an agency licensed to place children for adoption was not
a party, except in the case of an adoption by a stepparent in which
one natural parent retained custody and control of the child.16
In Massachusetts it was necessary to send notice to the State
Department of Public Welfare of the filing of a petition for the adoption
of a child under 14 years of age so that an investigation could be made.
This provision did not apply in the case of a petition presented, spon
sored, or recommended by any charitable corporation organized under
general or special laws for the purpose of engaging in the care of
children and principally so engaged.17
It was the duty of the court in Wisconsin in all cases of petitions
for the adoption of minors to cause an investigation to be made by a
licensed child-welfare agency, a probation officer or some other suitable
person designated by the court, or the State Board of Control. In this
State the consent of the State department was necessary for the adop
tion of any child born out of wedlock unless the child had been com
mitted to the guardianship of a licensed child-welfare agency and con
sent was given by this agency. Occasionally the courts requested
the State Board of Control to make an investigation, and it was some
times necessary for the State department to make an investigation
before a decision to give consent could be made.
T H E S T A T E PLA N F O R H A V IN G IN V E S T IG A T IO N S M A D E

The value of an investigation made before adoption is dependent
upon the qualifications of the persons making the investigation and
the extent to which it discloses complete information regarding the
child to be adopted and the foster family. It should be the respon
sibility of the investigating agency to determine what factors are
necessary for the happiness and well-being of the child to be adopted
and to evaluate the foster home with these factors in mind. The staff
members responsible for an adoption program in a State department,
therefore, need not only special skill in evaluating each individual
adoption but also ability to see the whole adoption program objectively
and to recognize the larger issues involved.
The following descriptions of the State and local public personnel
making investigations in adoption cases at the time of the visits to the
States illustrate the wide variation in the resources for professional
services available to the State departments at that time. The rapid
expansion during the last 5 years in public social services undertaken
by qualified personnel has resulted in significant improvement in the
adoption programs in most of these States.
Supervision of the program.

Except in States where the number of adoptions is very small there
are definite advantages in having the adoption program under the
direction of a special supervisor who is particularly qualified by pro
fessional training and experience. The supervisor should be respon
sible for reviewing all investigations and reports to the court and
should also be able to evaluate the whole program— its legislative and
administrative strengths and weaknesses. One of the States visited
during the course of the study had started its adoption program with
only an “ adoption clerk” in charge, thinking that this clerk could
16 California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, secs. 221, 226, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 463.
Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, sec. 6A.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDIJRES1IN ADOPTION

look after the routine administrative details and that local workers
could make the investigations. It was not long before the State
department realized that someone was needed in the central office
who would be able to solve the knotty problems being brought to the
attention of the “ adoption clerk” and who could give supervision to
the local workers. However, it was not until 5 years after the passage
of the adoption law that arrangements were made to appoint a quali
fied person as adoption supervisor.
A special adoption supervisor devoting full time to adoption work
or to the supervision of adoptions and foster-home placements had
been appointed in Alabama, Massachusetts, and Minnesota. The
supervisor of probation in the State department was acting as super
visor of adoptions in California at the time the visit to the State was
made. The director of the bureau or division responsible for the
State’s program for children had general supervision of the adoption
program in New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, but
in the last three States the major responsibility for adoption inves
tigations had been delegated to one member of the staff. The North
Dakota Children’s Bureau had only one professional worker, and gen
eral supervision of adoption work was one of her many duties.
Membership in the American Association of Social Workers has
been increasingly accepted as evidence of academic accomplishment
as well as professional training and experience of a professional grade.
It was, therefore, interesting to find that only five of the persons
supervising adoption work in the nine States were members of this
organization, although a sixth was a registered social worker in his
own State.
Desirable experience for a supervisor of adoptions should probably
include experience in the children’s field, particularly in child-place
ment work. Five supervisors had such experience. The previous
experience of the remaining supervisors included hospital social work,
family-welfare work, probation work, and county welfare work, none
of which provided the specialized experience necessary to understand
the intricacies of an adoption or the problems involved in placement
of children. The qualifications of the supervisors were reflected in
the standards of the State or local staff members to whom the respon
sibility for the actual investigation was frequently delegated.
The State staff.

A State staff was employed to make investigations of adoptions
referred to the State department in five States. Three district offices
had been set up in California with five full-time workers and one
part-time worker. Four workers were employed on the adoption
staff of Massachusetts, all working out from the central office. One
worker in Rhode Island made the investigations throughout the State.
Two adoption workers were employed in Wisconsin; one spent almost
all her time in Milwaukee County and the other made the investi
gations in the remainder of the State. Shortly after the visit to the
State was made in 1936 the staff of the division was enlarged and
district workers were made responsible for adoption investigations
in all but seven counties of the State. One of the special adoption
workers made the investigations in three counties and the other
continued the work in Milwaukee County and in addition made
investigations in three nearby counties.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OOF THE STATE, DEPARTMENT

Although no worker had been appointed for full-time adoption
work in Oregon, it was estimated that the time given by the director
of the department and the 2 staff workers approximated that given
by a full-time worker. There was no legal provision in Oregon
authorizing the State department responsible for this service to dele
gate the investigation of adoption petitions to local agents, but since
delegation of authority was not directly prohibited, local agents
having satisfactory qualifications were used in some counties. At
the time of the visit to the State, the State staff was making investi
gations in a large urban county and in 18 other counties; in 9 counties
the county relief secretary was ordinarily requested to make the com
plete investigation, and in 3 other counties assistance was received
from such workers; the county Red Cross secretary and the relief
worker were used in 2 counties, and in another a well-qualified county
nurse made investigations.
The qualifications of the staff workers responsible for adoption
investigations varied from State to State. Fifteen workers were
employed by the five State departments in which adoption investiga
tions were made by a State staff. Only four of these workers in three
States were members of the American Association of Social Workers,
although eight workers in four States had had professional training
in social work. Likewise, seven staff members in four States had had
previous experience in the children’s field, the value of which was
dependent on the type of supervision given and the standards of the
agencies where the experience was gained.
Local public agencies.

When the investigations are made by members of the State staff,
the State department can ordinarily set the qualifications for persons
to be employed, but if the investigations are delegated to local workers
it may be more difficult to require the workers to be professionally
equipped for this type of work. The situation differed in each of the
States where it was the usual practice to have adoption investigations
made by a local worker under the general supervision of the State
department.
It was the policy of the State department in Alabama to have
investigations of adoption petitions made by the local county publicwelfare departments, the director, or sometimes a visitor making the
necessary visits to gather the facts required by the adoption law and
other pertinent information about the child and the foster family.
Reports of the field representatives of the Alabama Department of
Public Welfare at the time of the visit to the State indicated that the
qualifications of the county directors of public welfare were very high.
More than four-fifths of them were college graduates and five had
advanced degrees. About the same proportion had had professional
training of 3 months to 2 years, the great majority having 3 to 6
months’ professional training. Many of these workers had had
teaching experience which was accepted as prerequisite experience.
Nearly three-fifths of the directors had been superintendents of child
welfare in Alabama counties. Many of them had had additional
social-work experience either in the relief field or in allied fields.
Investigations of adoption petitions in Minnesota were ordinarily
made by an agent of the county child-welfare board, although in the
counties where such a person was not employed a member of the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AND1 PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

child-welfare board accepted this responsibility. During 1934 mem
bers of the county child-welfare boards investigated 14 of the 379
petitions for adoption in the State and assisted in 31 others.18 The
members of the county child-welfare boards giving this service were
local persons appointed because of their interest in children, but they
usually did not have professional experience or training. The quali
fications of the agents employed by the county child-welfare boards
varied, but on the whole they were not high at the time the visit to
the State was made.19 Fortunately the larger counties in the State,
where the greatest number of adoption petitions were filed, had long
had professional staffs making adoption investigations.
The State Board of Public Welfare was the agency originally
responsible for the investigation of adoption petitions in New Mexico,
but in 1936 this board was Consolidated with the New Mexico Relief
and Security Authority created in 1935.20 The adoption program
thereby became part of the general welfare program for children
organized under the child-welfare-service provisions of the Social
Security Act. For the purposes of this program the State was
divided into seven districts, each containing three to six counties.
Each district had a supervisor who was responsible for the investiga
tion of adoptions as well as other work in the interests of children.
Most of the seven district supervisors were college graduates; five had
professional training at an accredited school of social work. Although
only four had previous experience in social work for children, all had
experience in family service or allied work. Four were members of
the American Association of Social Workers.
The meager financial resources of the State department had in
fluenced the plan set up in North Dakota for the investigations of
adoption petitions. Responsibility for the investigation of adoptions
had been delegated to the three private agencies in the State and to
the juvenile commissioners appointed to assist the juvenile court in
each judicial district. Representatives of private agencies usually
traveled on railroad passes and were allowed $5 a day by the State
department for time spent on adoption investigations. No additional
payment for this work was made to juvenile commissioners employed
on a full-time basis, but those who worked on a per diem basis were
paid $5 a day. On the whole, the qualifications of these workers were
not high.
In making adoption investigations a well-qualified local worker,
when available, is preferable to a State worker, who usually has only
a limited time to give to an investigation. It is far more difficult for
a State worker covering a large territory to arrange for supplementary
visits to a home when necessary than it is for a local worker to make
such visits. Informal visits made when the worker “ is passing by”
the foster home frequently yield valuable information about the
family life of the foster home. A local worker acquainted with the
community knows the relative value of the references obtained, while
the State worker may be unaware of the best sources of information
is County welfare-board members have been included in the classification “ Other persons” in table 21.
1®State legislation enacted in 1937 authorized each county to have a county welfare board with an executive
secretary appointed in accordance with rules and regulations set up b y the State department, and the duties
of the county child-welfare board were transferred to this new board.
so The name of the N ew Mexico State department was changed in 1937 to the State Department of P ub
lic Welfare.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF T H E STATE D E PA R TM E N T

about the family and may therefore accept without question state
ments from unreliable sources.
AG E N C IE S O R P E R S O N S M A K IN G TH E IN V E S T IG A T IO N S

Investigation of petitions for adoption of State wards.

Direct care for children in Alabama and Massachusetts was pro
vided through divisions responsible for foster-home care for children,
and in Minnesota and Wisconsin through State institutions for
dependent children which maintained child-placing programs. The
State department of Minnesota also accepted guardianship of children
needing special care and arranged for the care of many of these
children in foster homes with the assistance of private child-placing
agencies and county-welfare agencies. In order to obtain complete
information in regard to the State wards for whom petitions for adop
tion were filed during 1934, it was necessary to review the records of
the direct-care units, as only limited information was available in the
units, responsible for adoption investigations. The relationship
between these two units in each of these four States is shown in the
following description of their procedures:
Alabama and Massachusetts.— In neither of the two States having a
special child-placing program had a well-coordinated plan been
developed by the adoption division and the direct-care division.
Adoptions sponsored by the direct-care division were not subjected
to the same critical study that other adoptions received, and as a
result important information about the foster family and the child
was frequently missing. Even when original placement of the child
had been made with no thought of adoption, the placement investiga
tion was seldom supplemented by a more intensive study made from
the standpoint of prospective adoption. Occasionally several years
had elapsed since the initial investigation, yet a clear picture of the
situation at the time of the adoption was rarely provided. This is
illustrated by the following case:
A child was placed at the age of 3 months, and soon afterward the family moved
out of the State. During the next 6 years the foster father’s employment resulted
in frequent moving, but later the family returned to the original State and
petitioned for the child’ s adoption. There was no evidence that a réévaluation of
the family situation was obtained, although a visit to the home was made by the
direct-care division before adoption was agreed upon. Much of the information
obtained before placement was not pertinent at the time of the adoption; yet no
effort was made to obtain a picture of the current situation. Had this been a
private-agency placement it is probable that up-to-date information would have
been required, but apparently because a division within the State department was
sponsoring the adoption this precaution was overlooked.

Minnesota.— There was no legal or administrative provision in
Minnesota whereby the placement program of the State institution for
dependent children might have the benefit of supervision from the
children’s bureau of the State Board of Control. Although the adop
tion law did not expressly exempt adoptions of children under the
guardianship of the State institution for dependent children from
the procedures used by private agencies, this had been done in prac
tice. The superintendent of the institution for dependent children
was required by law to join with the petitioners in any petition for the
adoption of a child who was a ward of the institution, and such joinder
operated as a consent to the adoption.21 When petitions for the
21 Minnesota. M ason’s Ann. Stat. 1927, sec. 8624.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PRO BLEM S AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION’

adoption of wards of the State institution for dependent children were
referred to the State Board of Control by the courts it was the practice
in the children’s bureau of the Minnesota State Board of Control to
approve them without inquiry. Occasionally the courts “ waived
investigations” in adoptions of wards of the State institution for
dependent children ; at other times they granted the adoption without
the formality of a waiver or a report from the State Board of Control.
More than half the adoptions sponsored by this institution during
1934 had not been referred to the adoption division of the State
department for a report to the court, and there was no record in the
adoption division for a number of adoptions of wards of this institu
tion. A plan was under way to correct this situation by administra
tive action on the part of the State institution and the adoption
division of the State department.
Wisconsin.— The State institution for dependent children in Wis
consin was subject to the general supervision of the juvenile depart
ment of the State Board of Control. As an accredited agency it was
not required to transmit to this department detailed reports of
placements, but since children under the care of the institution were
wards of the State Board of Control it was necessary for the board to
consent to the adoption of these children. It was the responsibility
of the juvenile department to supply the board with information on
which to base its decision, and accordingly the institution sent the
juvenile department a copy of its report to the court, and from this
report a recommendation was made to the Board of Control. Such
procedure had the advantage of making the State children’s agency
a part of the State-wide program for placements and adoption of
children and of requiring the same standards for the State agency as
for private agencies.
The division responsible for the supervision of adoptions is pre
sumably the primary authority on adoption practices and procedures
within a given State, and accordingly its staff should be competent
to give expert advice to other divisions and institutions of the State
department. When no opportunity is given to do this, a real con
tribution to the adoption program of the State may be lost.
Investigations of other petitions for adoption.

The responsibility of the State department for adoptions growing
out of agency placements is quite different from that for adoptions
resulting from independent placements. Petitions for adoptions
sponsored by agencies were exempted from investigation by the State
department in California, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. There
were no child-placing agencies in New Mexico. It was the general
practice in Alabama, Oregon, and Rhode Island to accept the report
made by the agency without further investigation, although in
Oregon it was sometimes necessary for the State department to visit
the agency and to review its record in order to obtain sufficient in
formation on which to base a report to the court. Visits were made
to the homes of petitioners also when there was reason to believe that
the foster family had not received complete information about the
child they were seeking to adopt.
The Minnesota agencies made fairly detailed reports of both the
child and the foster family at the time the placement was made.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF T H E STATE D EPA R TM E N T

These were supplemented by semiannual reports of supervisory visits
to the home and a final report before the adoption, which described
the adjustment of the child to the home and the reason why the
adoption seemed desirable. During 1934 one visit to the foster home
as required by statute was usually made by a representative of the
State department, and this visit, together with the reports from the
agency, constituted the investigation.
When a petition for the adoption of a child who has been placed
independently is referred for investigation, the State department
may be handicapped at the start by the fact that months and some
times even years have elapsed between the time of placement and the
filing of the petition to adopt. During this time a bond of affection
often has grown up between the child and the foster parents which
cannot be ignored. It is, therefore, important that the investigation
include every possible source of information in order that a fair de
cision can be made which will take into consideration the contribution
that the foster family can make to the well-being of the child in spite
of any liabilities that the home may have. Although the situation
may be one in which a well-qualified placing agency would hesitate
to place a child, the investigation should seek to determine whether
the child’s place in the home is such that it is preferable for him to
remain there as a legal member of the family, despite the handicaps,
than to be deprived of legal status in the family or to be uprooted
from the only home he knows.
One who investigates an independent adoption should recognize
that his responsibility extends further than the acquisition of facts for
the use of the court. When the child and the home are wholly un
suited to each other it may be necessary to work out a new plan for
the child, either directly or by referral to another agency. It is also
possible that the investigation may show that an adoption is unwise
or unnecessary and this will need to be interpreted to the petitioners
and an alternative plan suggested. The investigation of independent
adoptions requires skilled case-work service and should be handled
only by persons qualified to give such service to the family if needed.
Frequently the mere fact that a stepfather, a grandparent, or some
other close relative is the petitioner means that the investigation of
the adoption is more or less cursory. This is unfortunate, because
relationship to the child does not always mean compatibility or make
a closer legal bond advisable. Investigation of adoptions by relatives
should include sufficient information to determine whether the child
is going to gain or lose by the proceeding.
Investigations made in nine States.

Table 21 shows the agencies or persons making investigations of
adoption petitions in each of the nine States. Half the investigations
had been made by members of the State staff alone or with the assist
ance of other agencies or individuals. As has been explained, some
of these investigations were made by the direct-care units of the State
department rather than by the unit responsible for investigation of
adoptions. Although it was the policy of the State department in
Alabama and Minnesota to refer investigations to county welfare
departments, a number of investigations had been made by the field
staff of the State department because county child-welfare workers
were not available for this service in many rural counties in 1934.
249071°— 41----- 5

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

H
60

PROBLEM S AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

County welfare agencies were responsible for 324 investigations.
Most of these investigations were made in Minnesota, where the
statutes required the State department, through the county welfare
agency, to investigate all adoption petitions, even when the adoptions
were sponsored by authorized agencies. Most of the remaining in
vestigations by county agencies had been made in Alabama and
Oregon, although a few had been made in North Dakota, New
Mexico, and Wisconsin. It should be noted that 42 investigations in
Minnesota and 1 in Wisconsin had been made by members of the
county child-welfare boards in counties that had no child-welfare
worker.
T a b l e 21. — A gen cy or person making investigation o f adoption petition, by States
Children for whom petitions were filed
Agency or person making
investigation

T otal____ ____________
State department__________
A lon e.- - ---------------- -W ith
cou nty
welfare

Massa M in
chu neso
ta
setts

N ew North
M ex
D a
ico
kota

Ore
gon

R hode
Island

W is
con
sin

Ala
T otal bama

Cali
fornia

2,041

152

537

389

379

195

102

988

121

353

180

807

1 45

1 350

8 64

8 158

39
117
25

1
84

11
13

324
472
142
48
67

38
43
5

3 254
12

4
274
118
24

2
1
36

1
24

7
9
9
1
28
14
11

18
58
12
26
7

206

2
9
11
16

36
5
7
7
1

1 Includes children who were wards of a child-placing unit of the State department.
8 Includes children who were wards of the State institution for dependent children.
3 Includes children for whom investigations were made b y members of the board of the county welfare
agency, either alone or with the assistance of a private agency.

Private agencies were responsible for 472 of the investigations
reported. Ordinarily these agencies were acquainted with the plans
for adoption because the children concerned were their wards and had
been placed by them. Accordingly their reports were accepted by
the State departments as investigations, but in some cases a special
investigation was made at the request of the State department. In
Massachusetts and Wisconsin petitions for adoptions sponsored by
authorized private agencies were not required by statute to be in
vestigated by the State department, although in Wisconsin a few
petitions for the adoption of children originally placed by agencies
were referred to the State department.
A few investigations had been made by probation officers in Ala
bama, Oregon, and Wisconsin, but most of the 142 investigations by
probation officers were made in California, where the statutes provided
for investigations by probation officers of petitions filed by step
parents. Other persons had been selected by the State department
to make the investigation of 48 petitions. More than half of this
last group of investigations had been-made in Oregon, where county
nurses, Red Cross workers, or other persons had been called upon for
assistance.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OE T H E ST A T E D E PA R TM E N T

No investigation had been made for 67 cases. In 34 of these cases
the investigation was waived by the court or the State department
and the decree granted; 17 of these were adoptions by stepparents,
1 by grandparents, and 16 by persons not related to the child. Waiver
of the investigation had occurred in 20 Minnesota cases, 10 North
Dakota cases, and 4 Oregon cases. Although the court was willing
to cooperate with the State department in 2 other Minnesota cases
and 1 other Oregon case, decrees were granted without an investiga
tion because of the long delay in having the investigation made.
In 26 cases the petition was withdrawn for various reasons or the
plan for adoption was given up, all but 3 of these being California
cases. The remaining 4 cases in which no investigation was made
involved other situations, as is shown by the following excerpts from
the records.
The child was born out of wedlock, but when he was 2 years old his mother and
father married. His father was primarily interested in the child’s legitimation
and his attorney requested that the investigation be delayed until a plan of
procedure was agreed upon. When no further word was received by the State
department, it was discovered that a decree had been entered.

The child had been born out of wedlock and had lived with his grandparents
for more than 3 years before the petition for adoption was filed. The director
of the State department decided that the department would be severely criticized
for making an investigation of this adoption, since the grandparents were wellknown persons. Accordingly the adoption was approved without an investigation.

A girl nearly 18 years old was adopted by persons not related to her with
whom she had lived for more than 15 years. The girl and the agency that had
placed her in the home consented to the adoption.
The State department,
which had information about the original placement and had a recent report of
the situation, apparently did not think further investigation was necessary and
approved the adoption.
A child had been abandoned by her mother in the home of the petitioners.
The State department, because of its interest in all children born out of wedlock
and its plan for certification of foster homes, probably had been acquainted with
the child and with the home of the petitioners, and it therefore considered a
special investigation unnecessary. At any rate, the adoption was approved with
the statement that the child had received excellent care and was developing
well in the home.
PROCEDURES USED IN THE INVESTIGATION

After careful consideration it has been decided to limit this dis
cussion to the practices followed in the several State departments in
the investigations of adoptions not sponsored by agencies. Some
explanation of the principles underlying such investigations will be
made, and consideration will be given to the responsibility of a State
department when it is confronted with an adoption petition concerning
a child and foster parents about whom it has had no previous in
formation.
The provision for an investigation implies acceptance of the basic
principle that the State is interested in protecting the child from an
adoption that is not conducive to his best interests. Accordingly,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

the State department, as the representative of the State, must assemble
factual data that will enable the court to make a decision that is in
harmony with the child’s welfare.
Standards have been set up by which child-placing agencies can
measure their procedures, but as yet no standards have been for
mulated and accepted by which to measure the procedures to be fol
lowed in an investigation subsequent to the filing of an adoption peti
tion when the child is presumably already in the home of the petition
ers. With the exception of the Alabama law, which specified what the
report to the court should contain and, therefore, stipulated to a cer
tain extent the facts to be determined by the investigation, the laws
of the States included in the study ordinarily made only the general
requirement that the allegations of the petition be verified, that an
investigation of the “ condition and antecedents of the child” be made
to ascertain his suitability for adoption, and that “ appropriate in
quiry” be made to determine that the proposed home was suitable
for the child.
V ER IFICA TIO N OF V ITAL S TA TIS T IC S

It is important that all vital statistics relating to the child and the
foster parents be verified in order to be certain that the child is legally
available for adoption and that the foster parents can legally assume
the responsibilities imposed through adoption.
It was the usual practice in Alabama, California, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin to verify the birth of the child,
although occasionally this had not been done. Verification of the
child’s birth meant that the identity of the child and his parents was
definitely established and it satisfied any doubt about the child’s
actual birth date. Verification of the birth of an older child settled
any question as to whether he should be required to consent to his own
adoption. Verification of the child’s birth is particularly important
in States having legislation for changes in the birth record after a
decree of adoption has been entered, since through this procedure
information will be obtained about missing or incorrectly reported
birth records.
It was less usual to find that the death of a parent had been verified,
although it is important to establish this if it is given as the reason for
not obtaining the parent’s consent. The cause of a parents death
as shown in the death certificate also may be important in under
standing the child’s physical heritage.
■ 1.
The marriage of the foster parents was always verified m Cali
fornia, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin; in Minnesota and Oregon verifi
cation was the usual procedure, but in the remaining States less em
phasis was given to verification of marriage. Although adoption
petitions are rarely filed by two persons not legally married, it is
important to make certain that a valid marriage is recorded. An
adoption under such circumstances would undoubtedly be considered
void if it were questioned and the child would thereby become an
innocent victim of the failure to obtain proof of the marriage. There
have been occasional instances also where an attempt to verify a
marriage disclosed the fact that the person solemnizing the marriage
failed to send notification to the clerk of the court and the unsuccessful
attempt at verification made it possible for the petitioners to have their
marriage properly recorded.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF T H E STATE D E PAR TM EN T

Although the adoption laws in several of the States contained
provisions vitally affecting a divorced parent, verification of the divorce
of a natural parent had not been recognized as important and therefore
was not a usual procedure except in California. More attention was
paid to verification of the divorce of a petitioner. It was the general
practice to verify such divorces in California, Massachusetts, Min
nesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin; but no special policy regarding such
verification had been adopted in the remaining States. The State
department in California verified not only the divorce which per
mitted the petitioners to marry but also previous divorces, in order to
make certain that no illegal marriages had been consummated.
Whenever a previously divorced petitioner had a child the order of
the court with regard to the child was obtained, and if payment for
support had been ordered an inquiry was made to learn whether the
financial responsibility imposed by the court order had been met. It
was the opinion of the State department that no new obligations should
be assumed through adoption unless old responsibilities had been dis
charged, and it was not unusual for an adoption to be disapproved
when a father had failed to support his child by a previous marriage.
Special forms were sometimes used by the States for obtaining
verifications of vital statistics. These forms saved correspondence and
often served the purpose as well as a certified copy of the official
record. Certain advantages were gained, however, when an exact
copy of a certificate could be obtained, for the original document
frequently included helpful information that otherwise would not
have been available.
TH E SOCIAL IN Q U IR Y

Use of the social-service exchange.

Clearance or registration with a social-service exchange has been
generally accepted as the first step in any social investigation. Regis
tration of the names of the child and the petitioners in a socialservice exchange was being questioned in some of the States, the opin
ion being that clearance would serve the purpose quite as satisfactorily.
Since adoption is a legal process by which a child becomes a member of
a family group with all the duties and responsibilities that family
membership entails, it was thought that registration of information
about the persons involved would not be so necessary as when social
or physical ills had beset a family. Even if the child or the foster
family should later experience any difficulty that requires an appeal
to a social agency, information about the child’s status in the home
should come from the family itself rather than from the social-service
exchange.
A State registration bureau had been created within the State
department in Minnesota to serve the State institutions as well as cer
tain other divisions under the general jurisdiction of the State depart
ment. The names of the child and the foster parents were registered
with this bureau as a matter of routine. Since registration was State
wide it was possible to obtain information about any member of the
child’s or the petitioner’s family in rural or urban areas who had been
registered by a State institution, bureau, or division under the juris
diction of the State department. Under a cooperative plan worked
out with the social-service exchange in the three largest cities of the
State, further information was available through the State registration

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

bureau about persons living in these cities. A State-wide exchange
operated in Massachusetts, and the State department registered with
the exchange the name of every child and the names of all foster
parents.22
The advantages of clearance with a social-service exchange of the
names of all persons directly connected with an adoption are clear.
Even though a relatively small number of these are identified, it is worth
while to know of other social agencies having information that will be
helpful in providing a better understanding of either the child or the
foster parents. Much of the value of clearance was lost, however,
when the knowledge gained through this procedure was not utilized.
Visits to the home.

Usually the adoption petition contains such facts as the residence of
the petitioners, their marital status, their relation to the child, the
name of the child and of his own parents, the child’s birth date, and
the length of time he has been in the home of the petitioners. It is
with this skeleton information that the representative from the State
or local department prepares to visit the home of the petitioners. As
a rule it was not the practice in the States visited to notify the peti
tioners of the intended visit. This was probably an outgrowth of a
past conviction that a surprise visit enabled the visitor to see the home
in its usual rather than its “ company” condition. Present-day accept
ance of the principle that the surface situation in a home is of less im
portance than the attitudes of the persons living there has led many
child-placing agencies to arrange the visit to the home at the con
venience of the petitioners. This prevents the possibility of making
a trip when one or both of the petitioners are away and saves the
foster mother the embarrassment of a visit when the house is not in
order. It is possible, too, that the petitioners will be more at ease if
they have had a part in setting the time of the visit.
It is a generally accepted principle that more than a single interview
is needed in which to decide, even temporarily, the destiny of a child
when a decision is to be made to separate him from his own home.
This is an equally sound principle to follow when the adoption of a
child is under consideration.
All too frequently the State departments made their reports to the
court on the basis of a single visit to the home of the petitioners, in
spite of the fact that a minimum of two visits to a foster home has been
accepted as necessary before placement of a child in a home. Cer
tainly when the plan has the finality of an adoption the visits to a home
previously unknown should be at least equal in number to those made
prior to a decision regarding placement.
.
Since the children who had been placed in family homes inde
pendently of an agency and who had never received agency service
were of great concern to the State departments, the number of visits
made to such homes during the investigation was reviewed. Informa
tion in regard to the number of visits to the homes was available for
563 of the 718 children placed independently of an agency. Fortyseven children were not included because they had had some agency
service after placement and no information was available concerning
the visits made to 108 children.
22 A State exchange operated in Rhode Island, but only the names of State wards and their foster parents
were registered as a matter of routine. Apparentl y 19 of the 102 adoption cases reported to the State depart ment in 1934 were registered.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF T H E STATE, D E PAR TM EN T

Two or more visits had been made to the homes in which 149
children (26 percent) were living, slightly less than a third of these
homes having been visited 3 to 5 times. The proportion of cases
in which 2 or more visits had been made to the home ranged from 7
percent in Massachusetts to 45 percent in California.
There is a special advantage in having both the petitioners present
at the time of the initial visit to the home, particularly if this visit is
the foundation upon which the investigation will be built. Later the
resourceful visitor will arrange for separate interviews in order to
obtain a clear-cut picture of each foster parent and to be able to draw
conclusions as to the relative interest each parent has in the prospective
adoption.
It was the usual practice in all the States visited to interview both
foster parents together and only occasionally was a definite effort made
to have separate interviews. When there was an interview in addition
to the joint interview with both parents the mother was seen more
frequently than the father, probably because she was more accessible.
When the only interview is the joint interview it may be difficult to
obtain a true picture of the place of the child in the home or of the
attitude of each foster parent toward the proposed adoption, because
the dominant member of the foster family leads the discussion.
The purpose of visits to the home of the petitioners is not only
to obtain factual material about the foster family but also to obtain
a picture of life in the foster home and of the contribution the family
has to offer the child. When this is clearly understood the need for
more than a single visit becomes plain. The factual data necessary
to complete the information given in the petition offer a starting
point from which to obtain the more specific information which is
necessary in order to understand the petitioners as individuals. It is
important to know the ages of the petitioners, their education, finan
cial status, the members of their family group, and other such factual
details, but it is even more important to know the kind of childhood
the petitioners had, the problems they have had to face in reaching
their present status, their philosophy of life, and some of the factors
that have made this philosophy what it is. It is also important to
know their expressed motive for the adoption and to understand
their real motive.
Some indication of the relations between the members of the foster
family may be obtained through observation at the time of the visit
to the home, but more than a single visit undoubtedly would be neces
sary before any definite decision could be made about anything so
subtle and involved.
The attitude of the individual members of the family toward each
other and toward the child, life within the home, and the interests
of the family group— all these are important when a child is to become
an integral part of the home. The happy home is likely to be one in
which are found affection, respect, frankness, tolerance, unity of
purpose, common interests, and individual freedom. Knowledge of
whether these elements exist in a home must come from close acquaint
ance with it supplemented by objective information obtained from
outside sources. The reports of investigations in the States visited
gave some evidence of attempts to evaluate these elements and of

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION'

an appreciation of their importance, but frequently detailed informa
tion was missing.
From the petitioners themselves it should be possible to obtain
some information concerning their relatives and acceptance of the
child by these relatives. It should not be forgotten that through the
proposed adoption the child will acquire not only parents but a whole
coterie of relatives. Although little evidence was found in the States
visited to indicate that relatives had been interviewed, this should
be considered an essential part of the investigation, particularly if the
relatives are residents of the community in which the petitioners’
home is located. Relatives living in the foster home should never
be overlooked in the course of the investigation. Older children of
the foster parents, even when they are out of the home, have a right
to careful consideration, since the child is to share with them a place
in the family group. It is possible, too, that these older children
may be able to describe objectively some of the assets and liabilities
of the home.
Since the child in the adoptive home will have the same place in
the community as though he were an own child, it is important to
know the community’s attitude toward the foster parents. The
exceptional child may be able to overcome community disapproval
of his family group, but ordinarily the attitude of the community
toward the parents is reflected in its attitude toward the child. It
was, therefore, encouraging to find that the investigations for adoption
usually included some information about the community standing
of the petitioners. Frequently it would have been helpful in under
standing the home had a more extensive description of community
standing been given, particularly when the report was favorable.
Outstanding liabilities were much more likely to be described than
assets.
The cultural background of a home can make a distinct contribution
to a child. Accordingly, some attention may well be given to the
interest of the petitioners in good books, music, and art, and to evi
dences of refinement in the home. Some idea of these interests can
be obtained through observation, and through well-directed conver
sation it should not be difficult to discover indications of the cultural
interests of the petitioners and of their acceptance of available oppor
tunities to extend their horizon beyond their daily routine. Even
in the simplest home it is not unusual to find broad cultural interests,
whereas in the most pretentious home such interests may be wholly
lacking. All too often it was found, however, that the cultural back
ground of the petitioners had been wholly overlooked in the report of
the investigation, despite its importance to the child.
Child-placing agencies are beginning to require a report of a recent
physical examination from applicants for a foster child. Although
none of the State departments visited required such an examination
and report, there has been some discussion of it in States where plans
for investigations are just beginning. It is questionable whether a
requirement of this kind could be enforced when the child is already
in the home. However, if the petitioners have not had a recent phys
ical check-up it probably would be advisable to try to persuade them
to have one as part of the adoption investigation.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES O F T H E ST A TE D E PAR TM EN T

The response of the petitioners to the efforts of the visitor to obtain
information on which to base a decision as to the desirability of the
proposed adoption affords an opportunity to obtain an insight into the
personality of the petitioners— their reactions to particular situations,
their interests, antipathies, and ambitions. Relatively few of the
reports in the State department gave this detailed picture of the
petitioners.
It was apparent that in some of the States a tour of the whole
house was made in the course of an investigation. The physical
aspects of the home were carefully observed and described in detail
in the report of the visit. Important as these more obvious aspects
are, they are relatively unimportant when compared with the social
values of the home. The house is only the shell of the home; the,
personalities in the home affect the life of the child, and to understand
these personalities more than a single visit is necessary. Cross currents
in a household are frequently not apparent until a fairly intimate
acquaintanceship has been established.
The child and his background.

A child-placing agency ordinarily knows the child and his back
ground thoroughly before placement with a family is considered, but a
representative from the State or local department making an adoption
investigation frequently finds it necessary to obtain the initial informa
tion about the child from the petitioners themselves. Their explana
tion of how they obtained the child must be detailed enough to provide
further sources of information about the child and his background.
The attitude of the petitioners and of the child’s own parents toward
each other must also be clearly understood if future misunderstandings
are to be avoided.
It is essential that complete details about the child’s family history
be obtained if possible. It is recognized that when the child has been
separated from members of his own family for a period of years judg
ment must be used in making direct contacts with the child’s own
parents or relatives. A careful inquiry should be made about them,
however, and care must be taken to make certain that parental rights
have been adequately protected and that there are no legal handicaps
that have been overlooked in connection with the proposed adoption.
The reports of the investigations in the several States showed that
usually more information was available about the child’s maternal
history than about his paternal history, even when the child had
been born to married parents. When the child was in the home of
relatives it was apparently considered unnecessary to make an intensive
inquiry into his history and in such a case it was not unusual to have
no information about a parent who was dead, who had deserted, or
who was divorced from the parent having custody of the child.
The State departments in Alabama, Oregon, and Wisconsin reported
that an effort was made to obtain the paternal history of a child born
out of wedlock when it was possible to locate the father. It was also
reported that inquiry about the father of a child born out of wedlock
was made by the State department in California when paternity had
been determined. Some information about both the mother and the
father of a child born to unmarried parents was ordinarily already
on file in the State department of Minnesota at the time the adoption

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D PROCEDURES' IN

ADOPTION

was referred, but even in this State the information about the child’s
paternal history was frequently limited.
Specific information about the physical and mental condition of
the child’s own parents is important, particularly when the petitioners
are without this knowledge, but the records usually failed to include
such information. However, it is probable that outstanding handicaps
were recorded, although information about physical liabilities were
frequently limited to statements concerning the presence of venereal
disease.
Although it is generally accepted that the child who is to be adopted
must be physically fit, information about the child’s physical condition
was frequently not recorded. The State department in Alabama was
•the only department visited that made it a rule to have a medical
examination of children who were subjects of adoption petitions. A
report of the examination, which was usually made by the family
physician of the foster parents, was filed in the child’s adoption record.
A report of a Wassermann test was required, but otherwise only the
most obvious health difficulties were noted.
9
For the child who has been under the regular care of a physician
during his residence in the home of the petitioners a routine medical
examination as part of the adoption investigation would seem to be
of little practical value. On the other hand, when the child has not
had such regular medical attention it is important that he be given a
thorough examination even though he is related to the petitioners.
Such an examination should be urged for protection of the petitioners
as well as the child.
. .
The use of the mental examination as an aid m determining a child s
placement possibilities has already been discussed. It can play its
part in the adoption investigation, too, if used judiciously. If an
infant’s history raises any doubt about his future development, every
effort should be made to persuade the foster parents to delay action
until an evaluation of the child’s mental possibilities can be obtained.
Should the examination indicate that the child is not mentally suited
to accept the opportunities offered by the foster home, it should be
considered the responsibility of the person making the investigation to
interpret the findings to the foster parents and to make certain that
they are aware of the responsibilities they^would be^assuming by adopt
ing the child. In the case of an older child, some indication of mental
ability may be obtained from school records, but a mental examination
may help in gaining a better understanding of the child and in inter
preting his needs to the foster parents. The mental examination,
like the physical examination, should be used purposefully if full value
is to be derived from it.
No hard and fast rules can be laid down as to what should be in
cluded in an adoption investigation. Certain general standards of
procedure may serve as a guide, but the plan for each investigation
must depend on the circumstances involved. At no time should the
procedure be permitted to become routine; otherwise the purpose of
the investigation is likely to be obscured by the necessity for gathering
routine information. Just as each child is an individual, so each
adoption investigation must be planned individually.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES O F T H E ST A TE D E PA R TM E N T

Use of references.

It was the policy in the States visited to obtain reports from persons
given as references before approving the adoption. In some of the
States the requirement was made that a specific number of persons
be interviewed; for example, three persons recommended by the family
and five other qualified persons. Any plan for the use of references
should be as flexible as possible, as no sound rule can be made for the
selection of persons to be interviewed. The decision whether any
persons should be seen in addition to those suggested by the foster
parents and who such persons should be, must be made on the basis of
the need for supplementing information in each investigation. The
welfare of the child must be the primary consideration; and it is,
therefore, important that persons used as references be sufficiently
well acquainted with the foster home to see and understand its assets
and liabilities.
Statements of persons used as references must be considered in
relation to their competency to evaluate the foster home and the
situation under discussion. It is important also that the worker
making the investigation spend enough time on the interview and be
skillful enough in the interpretation of statements made to be able to
understand what is back of them. The person who cannot be objec
tive when his friends or family are under consideration is of little
value as a reference. On the other hand, an objective relative may
be the best possible reference. The credit rating of a socially promi
nent family may be more illuminating than the opinions of friends
known only through social contact. The information that a peti
tioner has fitted up a workshop in his basement for the use of neighbor
hood boys and spends many evenings working with them may be
worth much more than the knowledge his banker has about him.
The family physician, when he really knows a foster family, may be
a very valuable source of information. Not only can he give specific
information about the health of the members of the family but he can
also evaluate the mental attitude of the family toward questions of
health and toward actual health situations in the family group. The
family physician had been used as a reference in nearly half the cases
investigated, but too often the interview with him yielded little more
than a general statement which was inadequate for obtaining any
specific understanding of the health aspects of the foster home.
In only a few cases did a report indicate that the family physician
had been asked for an explanation of the failure of the foster parents
to have children of their own. It is recognized that physicians may
hesitate to give out medical information they consider confidential,
but this difficulty can often be obviated by obtaining; a note from the
petitioners authorizing the doctor to give complete information.
The family pastor was frequently used as a reference. The pastor
of a large urban church may know little or nothing about his pa
rishioners as personalities or about their home life, but his records will
probably show whether they contribute to the church, and he may
know something of their church attendance. On the other hand, in
the rural or semirural areas, where the church is an integral part of
the community life, the pastor may be in an excellent position to make
an estimate of the advantages or disadvantages of a foster home.
Well-selected references can be a distinct asset in the evaluation of
a foster home, but skill is needed to conduct profitable interviews

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

with persons given as references. Frequently the person interviewed
does not understand what is expected of him, and his loyalty to the
petitioners expresses itself in a desire not to say anything that will
be to their discredit. Time and intelligent direction of the conversa
tion are needed to obtain more than superficial opinion. The records
in the State departments visited frequently did not indicate the
processes by which references had been evaluated nor the skill that
had been exercised in the interviews. Such general statements as
“ recommends fam ily/’ “ approves adoption,” “ fine family,” gave
little indication of either the quality of the reference or the type of
inquiry made.
Although it is probable that there are relatively few foster-home
placements in which the status of the child is unknown to the relatives
and friends of the foster parents, it is important to know the attitude
of the foster family toward outside inquiries before these are made.
It may be necessary to inform the family of the advantages of telling
the child of his position in the home and the folly of trying to keep
this knowledge from the community. However, if the family is still
unwilling to have the plans for adoption known, the imaginative
worker will be able to find sources of information which will not violate
the family’s desire for secrecy and yet will make it possible to protect
the interests of the child.
Written statements from persons given as references had not been
generally used in the States, although the State department in Cali
fornia obtained such statements before the investigation was made.
Occasionally petitioners could be persuaded to give up the plan for
adoption on the strength of these statements, but, except when this
occurred, written statements were not considered a substitute for
personal interviews. Correspondence with persons suggested as
references had been used as a preliminary procedure by some child
placing agencies, which found that through such correspondence they
were frequently able to determine whether it was worth while to
proceed with an investigation. Since few persons will put in writing
unfavorable information about an acquaintance or a friend and since
the opportunity to evaluate the competence of the person used as a
reference is lost in a written statement, personal interviews should
always be used when possible.
The relative emphasis to be given in an investigation to intensive
study of the family and what it can offer to the child and to informa
tion about the family obtained from other sources has been discussed
at various times. The opinion of one writer was that “ it is the inside,
and not the outside, story which we care most about learning.” 23
Another writer has stated that the use of independent references not
offered by the family had been completely abandoned by one large
child-placing agency and that the whole practice of interviewing
references was considered a waste of time to be better used in learning
from the foster parents themselves their attitudes and their motives
in seeking a child.24
Acceptance of such a principle presupposes the employment of
persons with special qualifications, including a thorough understanding
M Elizabeth M cC ord, in Proceedings of the National Conference of Social W ork, pp. 112-113. M em
phis. 1928, p p . 112-113. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1928.
24 Virginia P. Robinson: A Changing Psychology in Social Case W ork, p. 97. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1930.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES O F T H E STATE D E PA R TM E N T

of the psychology of human behavior, which will enable them to make
the most of every interview with the family. It also means that
there must be sufficient time for repeated interviews on which to base
a decision. The final decision on the value of an adoption should
not be the sole responsibility of the worker who has made the investi
gation but should be made only after consultation with other members
of the staff and after a careful discussion of all the elements involved.
T IM E R E Q U IR E D F O R T H E IN V E S T IG A T IO N

At the time the adoption cases included in the study were referred
to the several State departments (1934), three of the nine States had
limited by law the time allowed for the investigation. Thirty days
were allowed in Massachusetts and Wisconsin 25 and 20 days in Ore
gon.28 The laws of Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and
Rhode Island required that the report of the investigation be made as
“ soon as practicable/’ although in New Mexico this must be within 6
months.27 There was no limitation in the California law in 1934.28
Although no time limit had been set by the statutes in Alabama, the
State department itself had set 60 days as the time within which the
“ thorough investigation” required by the statutes could be made.29
Table 22 shows the time required for making the investigation and
preparing the report for the court in cases referred to the State depart
ments during 1934. In a majority (62 percent) of the cases in which
a report was made, the report was returned to the court in less than a
month’s time after the petition was received. In contrast, the reports
in 11 percent of the cases were not returned to the court until 6 months
or more after the filing of the petition. These long-delayed investi
gations were almost invariably investigations of independent place
ments, and in a large proportion of the cases the State department
was responsible for the investigation.
T a b l e 22. — Tim e between receipt o f petition by the State department and report to
the court, by States
Children for whom petitions were filed
Tim e between receipt of petition and report to the court

State
Total

Total___
Alabama_____
California____
Massachusetts.
Minnesota___
New Mexico...
North Dakota.
Oregon_______
Rhode Island—
Wisconsin____

Less
1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year
than 1
less
less
less
less than
or
month
than 2
than 3
than 6
1 year
more

2,041

1,117

266

136

108

152
537
389
379
26
55
195
102
206

46
307
283
160
2
32
119
92
76

36
37
66
31
2
8
43
8
35

15
15
2
22
3
1
13

17
28
1
57
10

15
29

27
7
4
3
1
22

9
1
1
7

Tim e not
reported
or no
report
made

240
23
52
37
73
1
10
15
29

” Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, sec. 5A; Wisconsin Stat. 1939, sec. 322.03 (1).
D Oregon, Laws of 1921, ch. 215, p. 429. The act of 1935, ch. 324, p. 508, increased the time limit in this
State to 30 days.
, ^ 7 Minnesota, M ason’s Ann. Stat. 1937, sec. 8625; N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-108; North Dakota,
1 « J i H P P - 1913 Com p. Laws, sec. 4446; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 420, sec. 5.
California, Laws of 1927, ch. 691, p. 1196, set a 90-day limit on the time for investigation; this was with
^ a w * b y Laws of 1931, ch. 794, p. 2402, but b y Laws of 1935, ch. 563, p. 1655, a limit of 180 days was set.
29 Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 505, sec. 9302B.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

problems and procedures in adoption

Reports on adoptions resulting from agency placements which
merely required a review by the State department were ordinarily
sent out within a few days after the notice of the pending adoption
was received. Of 653 such placements in which the time between
referral to the State department and the report to the court was given,
545 (83 percent) were made within less than a month’s time.
The approval of the State department for an adoption sponsored by
an agency in California and in North Dakota ordinarily preceded the
filing of the adoption petition. The adoption agency in California
and the petitioner’s attorney in North Dakota submitted the approval
of the State department to the court at the time the petition for adop
tion was presented. This meant that occasionally some time elapsed
between the time approval was given and the date when the petition
was heard and the adoption decree entered. Unless the agency
remained in close touch with the foster family during this time, it
would have been possible for the petition to be granted on the basis
of the recommendation made several months before despite the fact
that the situation had changed materially.
...
It was the general opinion in the 3 States where a time limit had
been set for the investigation that sufficient time had not been allowed
to make an adequate investigation, particularly when it was neces
sary to make inquiry in remote sections of the United States or in
foreign countries. The State department in Massachusetts, how
ever, had been very punctilious about making its report within the
30 days set by the law, even though this sometimes meant that certain
important details remained unexplained. Although there was a small
proportion of the cases in this State in which the report to the court
was not made within the 30 days, it was a rare occurrence when more
than 3 or 4 additional days were used. In Oregon 119 of the 180
investigations were made in less than a month (table 22), but of these
only 88 were completed within the 20-day time limit. Sixty-one
investigations, one-third of the total number reported, required 30
days or more. That delay is sometimes justifiable is illustrated by 3
cases in Oregon. The reasons for delay in these cases were: to permit
additional time to judge the suitability of the home after the recovery
of the mother from a physical and mental break-down; to make pos
sible a trial period before the adoption; and to give the natural parents
an opportunity to reestablish their home so that they could have the
child with them.
A month or more had elapsed between the time the petition was
received by the State department in Wisconsin and the time the report
to the court was made in 101 of the 177 investigations for which time
was reported. In 16 cases the report was made in 10 days’ time or less
after the 30 days allowed by the statute, but in 29 cases 6 months or
more had elapsed. Typical reasons for delay in Wisconsin were:
(1) The necessity for additional time to make inquiries outside the
State, (2) a desire to have paternity established before the adoption
was granted, (3) additional time to permit the foster family to recover
from an economic slump, (4) the need for further study of the child,
and (5) the necessity for a period of supervision of the foster home.
A comparison of the time required for the investigation in the States
having a time limit and those not having a time limit showed some
differences. These differences could often be explained by the situa-

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES O F T H E ST A TE D E PA R TM E N T

tion in the State during the year of the study, such as the reorganiza
tion of the State departments in Alabama, California, and New
Mexico.
There is doubtless some value in a requirement limiting the time of
the investigation, provided the time set is not so short that it will
hurrv the investigation to a point where its quality will suffer. The
necessity for making the report within a specified time encourages
prompt action by the State department, but 60 to 90 days is probably
ample time for most cases, and provision can be made in the statute
for a grant of additional time by the court at the request of the State
department. Such a request should be accompanied by a statement
giving the reasons why the investigation cannot be completed within
the time allotted.
THE REPORT TO THE COURT

The purpose of the report to the court is to supply the judge- with
factual information so interpreted that he may have a clear but un
biased understanding of the entire situation surrounding the proposed
adoption to assist him in making his decision. This factual informa
tion is obtained from data made available through a special investiga
tion or through information provided by an authorized child-placing
agency that has had the child under its care and that has full knowl
edge of the foster home, the child’s background, and the adjustment
of the child in the home.
No clear policy had been developed in the States visited regarding
the type of report that should be submitted to the State department
by agencies sponsoring adoptions. Usually a child-placing agency
made a report of the foster home and of the child’s history on forms
prepared by the department, and Occasionally these forms were
supplemented by additional narrative reports. As a result, many
reports submitted to the courts on adoptions sponsored by agencies
gave the approval of the State department to the adoption but only
a limited amount of descriptive information. There seems little
need for this situation, since an agency that has placed and supervised
the child in the home has a wealth of information for the prepara
tion of a report to the State department that would show the present
situation, the child’s background and reasons for separation from his
parents, the evidence of adjustment of the child and foster family,
and the contribution of the home to the child. Such a report would
give the State department a sound basis for its approval and could
serve as the report to the court if prepared according to an established
form.
C O N T E N T OF TH E R E P O R T

The report to the court is one of the most important parts of the
adoption procedure. It affords the State department an opportunity
not only to present to the court the information obtained in the inves
tigation but also to interpret the principles and policies involved in
satisfactory adoption practices. It was disappointing, therefore, to
find that the reports to the court in the States visited often contained
little more than a recital of uninterpreted facts which in themselves
had relatively little meaning.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S AND PROCEDTJRES’ IN ADOPTION1

It was clear that the interpretative value of the reports to the court
had not been generally recognized. Through these reports it should
be possible to give the courts a clearer understanding of the social
problems involved in adoption and of the underlying elements in
family situations that contribute to or jeopardize the welfare of the
child. The general situation in two cases may appear the same, yet
on the basis of the intrinsic value of the adoption to the child the
recommendations of the State department may be different in the two
cases. Unless the constructive features of the approved case are so
clearly shown that the negative features of the other case are evident,
the court may easily question the recommendations made in these
cases.
On the whole, reports to the court were relatively short, on the
theory that the court would not want to read a long, involved report.
The statutes of Alabama specified that the report show: (1) Why
the natural parents, if living, desired to be relieved of the care, support,
and guardianship of such child; (2) whether the natural parents had
abandoned the child or were morally unfit to have its custody; (3)
whether the proposed foster parents were financially able and morally
fit to have the care, supervision, and training of the child; (4) the
physical and mental condition of the child insofar as this could be
determined.30 The form prepared for the reports to the court in
Alabama contained little specific information about the situation but
stated that “ a full report of the investigation is on file in the office of
the State Department of Public Welfare.”
In Minnesota the report to the court for approved petitions contained
almost no specific information, but more detailed reports were pre
pared for disapproved cases. No additional information accompanied
the reports sent to the rural courts, but the court was formally notified
that a “ complete report” of the investigation was available in the
files of the State department. On the other hand, reports sent to
urban courts were accompanied by a form which provided a few specific
details about the foster parents and the physical aspects of the foster
home.
Narrative reports of one to five pages were prepared for the use of
the courts in the other States. These were not generally drawn up
in topical form, although they were sometimes subdivided with the
information about the child, the natural parents, and the petitioners
grouped together so that this information could be located with
relative ease.
As a rule, unfavorable reports were fairly explicit as to the reasons
why an adoption should not be allowed, but specific reasons for favoring
an adoption were rarely included in a report.31
Recommendation.

The adoption laws of five of the States visited required the State
department to make a definite recommendation to the court.32
Although the Alabama law required only that the State department
report its findings “ in writing,” apparently it was expected that the
report would contain a recommendation, since the department was
so Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 505, sec. 9302B.
31 Appendix, pp. 122-129, contains samples of reports on approved adoptions submitted to courts in three
States.
32 California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, sec. 226, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 463; Minnesota, M ason’ s
Stat. 1927, sec. 8625; N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-108; North Dakota, 1925 Supp. to 1913 Com p.
Laws, sec. 4446; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 420, sec. 5.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OE T H E ST A T E D E PA R TM E N T

authorized to move for a dismissal of the petition if the report
disapproved the adoption.33
Until 1935 the State department in Massachusetts carefully omitted
specific recommendations from its reports, although it was usually
not difficult to determine whether the department considered an
adoption desirable; in that year, however, the reports became more
specific, and although the word ‘ ‘recommendation’ ’ was still not used,
a discerning court could have little doubt about the attitude of the
department toward the proposed adoption.
The adoption law in Oregon authorized the State child-welfare
commission to file with the court “ such information regarding the
status of the child and evidence as to the suitability of the proposed
foster home” as it cared to submit.34 Accordingly, the commission
exercised great care not to make a specific recommendation. Instead,
a fairly comprehensive report was sent to the court, and when the
commission was of the opinion that adoption was desirable the follow
ing statement was usually made: “ The Child Welfare Commission has
investigated this home and believes that it offers opportunity for
affection, education, and security for this child.” On the other hand,
in a report on a petition not recommended by the commission, a
statement such as the following might be included: “ The Child
Welfare Commission respectfully raises the question whether it may
not serve the interest of this child to remain a ward of the court instead
of becoming the legal son of the petitioners.”
The Wisconsin statutes provided that the report to the court
should contain only a statement of the facts as disclosed by the inves
tigation, showing that the investigation included “ an actual inspection
of the proposed home” and “ a careful personal inquiry” as to its
suitability.38 Although the State department did not exceed its
authority in this respect, its reports left little doubt about its opinion
as to the desirability of the adoption.
Reports on adoption sponsored by private agencies.

In some of the States a different method of reporting was used for
adoptions sponsored by agencies. For instance, in California reports
on agency adoptions merely indicated that the adoption had been
approved. The reports on agency adoptions in Oregon were much
less detailed than those for adoption of children placed independently
and stated clearly that they were based on information received from
the agency and not on an independent investigation.
The State department in Massachusetts did not report on adoptions
sponsored by “ any charitable corporation” because these did not come
under the plan developed for other adoptions in the State.
It was the practice of the child-placing agencies in Massachusetts
and California, however, to have a representative present at the
adoption hearing to answer any questions raised by the court. The
statutes in these States did not require child-placing agencies to make
a written report to the court, and apparently neither the State depart
ment nor the agencies had recognized any advantage in such reports.
On the other hand, a written report was required for every adoption
in Wisconsin, and as the agency placing a child in a foster home was
usually designated by the court to make the investigation before
83 Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 505, see. 9302B.
84 Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, sec. 33-401, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 461.
88 Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 322.02 (1).
249071°—41------6

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

adoption, it was also responsible for the report. No uniform plan
was followed in the preparation of the reports at the time the study
was made, but each agency was expected to follow the general
instructions of the statutes for reports to the court.
Agencies placing children for adoption miss an opportunity to
interpret their policies to the court when they have no plan for making
written reports to the courts on the adoptions growing out of their
placements.
Preparation of the report.

It was the practice in New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin to have
the report to the court drawn up by the worker making the investiga
tion, subject to review by the supervisor of adoptions. In Alabama
the district worker of the State department ordinarily prepared the
report even when the investigation had been made by a local countywelfare superintendent. In California a district worker of the State
department not only made the investigation but also prepared the
report for the court. The entire responsibility for the report was
assumed by the district office when the adoption was approved, but if
it was recommended that the petition be denied and there was any
controversy about the recommendation either with the petitioners or
with their attorney, the case was usually discussed with the supervisor
of adoptions before the final report and recommendation to the court
was made. Reports from the State department in Rhode Island were
prepared by the director of the children’s division in the State depart
ment after a conference with the adoption worker. In Massachusetts,
Minnesota, and North Dakota the report to the court was prepared
by the person responsible for supervision of adoptions in the State
department program.
Although there is a decided advantage in having all reports sent to
the court from a central State authority, the preparation of the report
may well be delegated to the qualified State or local worker who has
made the investigation. It is important that the report give a clear
and concise picture of the findings, together with an interpretation of
the most significant facts. The final decision about the substance of
each report to the court should rest with the supervisor of adoptions.
The report to the court was signed by the director of the State
welfare department or the chairman of the administrative board
directing the department in Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
and Oregon and by the secretary of the administrative board in Wis
consin. The name of the director of the State department was typed
on each report in California, although the signature of the supervisor of
adoptions and sometimes that of the worker making the investigation
also appeared. The director of the division responsible for adoption
investigations signed the report to the court in Massachusetts and
New Mexico, but in New Mexico the report was also signed by the
worker making the investigation. At the time of the visit to Alabama,
reports to the court were signed by the district field representative who
was responsible for supervision of the local worker making the investi
gation, but shortly afterward the plan was changed and the reports
were signed by the director of the Department of Public Welfare.
There is considerable value in having the report to the court signed
by the director of the State department. This practice not only
lends prestige and official approval to the document but also implies

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES OF T H E ST A TE D E PA R TM E N T

that the recommendation will have the support of the department if
it is questioned. It is also possible that greater interest in adoptions
and adoptive practices will be stimulated by having responsibility
shared with the administrative director of the department in which the
adoption division is located.
D E SIR A B ILITY O F TH E A D O P T IO N

Factors entering into the appraisal of an adoption.

In determining the desirability of an adoption many points must
be taken [into consideration, such as the desirability of the home and
its suitability for the child, the ties of affection that have already been
established between the child and the family, whether adoption is a
desirable plan for the child, and whether there are physical or mental
disabilities of either the child or the petitioner that might affect the
future family relationship. When the total situation in an adoption
was obviously desirable or undesirable, it was comparatively easy to
arrive at the opinion of the State department in the adoptions studied
even in the States that did not require that a definite recommendation
be made to the court.
The State department apparently had hesitated to make unfavorable
recommendations when investigations showed some desirable elements
in proposed adoptions. As a result, only a small number of the adop
tion petitions had been definitely disapproved either by specific recom
mendation or by a clear presentation of the undesirable features of the
adoptions. Therefore, in order to evaluate the adoptions the data
given in the reports to the court and in the reports of the investigations
were reviewed by the representatives of the Children’s Bureau. On the
basis of this information the adoptions that had been apparently ap
proved by the State department were further classified as desirable,
satisfactory, or approved with reservations. Although the evaluations
of many situations were based on the opinions of the persons who pre
pared the reports, others were based on the judgment of the represent
ative of the Children’s Bureau who evaluated the data given in the
reports.
Adoptions were considered “ desirable” when it appeared that adop
tion was the best plan for the child and when the adoption seemed des
tined to succeed because of specific elements in the family life and
because the child and the petitioner were evidently suited to each other.
In a “ satisfactory” adoption the chances for success were less positive
but the situation had certain value for the child. An adoption “ ap
proved with reservations” was one in which, although definite liabilities
had been recognized, these were not sufficient to warrant disapproval.
When a child had been in his foster home long enough to make a
place for himself, an adoption might be classified as “ satisfactory”
even though the foster parents were older than was ordinarily con
sidered advisable, the child’s heritage was doubtful, or the family
income was marginal. Frequently the “ satisfactory” adoptions were
those in which a stepparent or grandparent was the petitioner. In
some cases it was presumed that the situation was satisfactory,
although there was little information on which to base a judgment
except the absence of any outstanding disadvantages. The following
cases illustrate some of these situations.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

This adoption, classified as satisfactory, would have been considered desirable
had it not been that the foster mother died soon after the petition to adopt was
filed. The foster father and his stepson, aged 16, were devoted to the child, who
had been in their home for some 2 years, and the assets of the family apparently
overbalanced the serious disadvantage of the absence of a mother.

A child born out of wedlock to a high-school girl had a heritage which promised
exceptional development, but in spite of this he was placed in an average home.
The foster parents were of good character but somewhat slow and plodding.
They were devoted to the child and gave him excellent physical care, but it was
doubtful whether they would recognize his full potentialities or be able to offer
him an opportunity to develop them to the fullest extent.

Two sisters had been placed in a foster home when they were 6 and 9 years of
age, respectively. The natural parents had a poor reputation— both were con
sidered immoral and the father had once been in the penitentiary. The foster
home was selected because it was similar to the one in which a brother had been
placed. The foster home was simple, and the foster parents had moderate means.
Little would be expected of the girls academically. In the 4 years they had been
in the foster home both girls had made good adjustments.

Adoptions classified as “ approved with reservations” included those
in which situations such as the following were found: The child and
the foster parents were of different religious faiths; question had been
raised about the mental or physical heredity of the child; there was a
great discrepancy in age between the child and one or both foster
parents; the economic situation of the foster parents was not satis
factory; separation of the child from his mother or other relative did
not seem advisable; a question had been raised about the behavior of
the foster parents.
A baby girl born out of wedlock to an Italian schoolgirl with an intelligence
quotient of 74 was placed by an agency at the age of 3 months. The mother was
a Catholic, but the child was placed with a Protestant American family. A petition
was filed after the child had been in the home for about a year and a half. The
foster father was in the Navy and had an income of about $1,300 a year. The
petitioners were reported to be thrifty and ambitious, but they moved about a
great deal and had no social life in the community. The adoption was approved,
but the State department had distinct reservations about it because of the finan
cial condition of the petitioners, their unstable home life, and the difference in
the nationality background and religion of the petitioners and the child.
Reports on the desirability of the adoption.

Table 23 shows the opinion of the State department with regard
to the desirability of the adoptions. The large number of disapproved
petitions in Massachusetts needs some explanation. Since no specific
recommendation to the court was made in this State it is probable
that the reports were more specific with regard to undesirable situa
tions than those in States requiring a recommendation, but there are
two other factors that enter into the situation. As was shown in table
22, a report of the investigation of a petition was always returned
promptly to the court in Massachusetts, whereas in some of the other
States this was often long delayed, the delay in many cases being due
to the work being done to persuade the petitioners to give up the
plan for adoption. Another factor that may have affected the number
of disapprovals was the large proportion of independent placements
of children for adoption made in this State.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SERVICES O F T H E ST A TE D E PA R TM E N T

T a b l e 23.— Report to the court as to desirability o f adoption o f children fo r whom
petitions were filed , by States

Children for whom petitions were filed
Report to the court as to de
sirability of adoption

Total

Ala
T o ta l bama

Cali Massa M in N ew
fornia chu nesota M ex
setts
ico

North
Da
kota

Ore
gon

R h od e Wis
Island consin

2,041

152

537

389

379

195

102

206

Adoption approved__________ 1,604

122

434

296

294

139

158

31
12
2

94
28
16
1

30
21
6
38

61
66
31

14
11
31

1
3
3

Desirable.______________
Satisfactory______________
W ith reservation_________
N ot classified____________

919
393
192
100

69
36
16
1

264
102
25
43

117
83
85
11

242
38
9
5

11
7
2
1

Deferral of action advised____
A doption not approved______
N o report made______________

21
89
327

6
24

6
97

50
43

5
6
1 74

1
2
2

5
43

1 Includes 20 cases handled b y the State school for which a report was not required.

The 327 cases in which no report on the desirability of the adoption
had been made by the State department present many interesting
situations. In 88 cases no recommendations were necessary; 36
petitions sponsored by agencies in Massachusetts and 28 petitions
sponsored by the State Public School for Dependent Children in
Minnesota were not referred to the State department, the remaining
24 petitions being those referred to the State department of Wisconsin
only for consent to the adoption. In 34 cases in Minnesota, North
Dakota, and Oregon an investigation had been formally waived by
the courts (see p. 61) and accordingly no recommendation was neces
sary. In 61 California cases a recommendation had been made to
the court to dismiss the case or to take it “ off the calendar,” these being
cases in which the petition was withdrawn or no response had been
made by the petitioners to a preliminary questionnaire sent by the
State department. The remaining 144 cases included: Petitions that
were to be withdrawn, petitions that had been granted before the
investigations had been completed and the report sent to the court, a
few cases in which the report to the court gave no information on the
desirability of the adoption, and cases in which no report had been
made to the court.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE COURTS
JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction over adoption cases had been given to the probate
court in three of the States visited.1 In four States a court of general
jurisdiction, which heard cases in both law and equity, including civil
and criminal actions, had jurisdiction over adoptions,2 although in
North Dakota “ a county court of increased jurisdiction” also had
concurrent jurisdiction. In Oregon the county court, a combined
judicial and administrative body, had jurisdiction over adoption cases
in all but three counties, where this had been given to a court of
general jurisdiction.3 The superior court, a court of general juris
diction and limited appellate jurisdiction, had jurisdiction in adoptions
in California.4
The quality of the service of any court is to a great extent dependent
upon the qualifications demanded of the judge who presides over the
court. Differences were found in the qualifications for judges of
probate courts in the three States placing jurisdiction in these courts.
The Massachusetts State Constitution provided that “ all judicial
officers,” including probate judges, “ should be nominated and ap
pointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the
council.” 5 No specific qualifications had been set forth in the law,
but appointments were made for life and it had been the practice to
appoint as probate judges men of standing in the legal profession.
A probate judge in Alabama was elected for a term of 6 years; he
was required to be a citizen of the State and a resident of the county
from which he was elected for a year preceding his election.6 Since
legal training was not required, it was not strange that many probate
judges in Alabama were not members of the bar.
The town council of each town in Rhode Island sat as a probate
court, unless the town meeting had delegated to the council the power
to elect a judge of probate.7 A report for the year 1935 showed that
a judge of probate had been elected in 18 of the 39 cities and towns in
Rhode Island.8 The municipal court in Providence had been desig
nated as the probate court.9 This was the only city in the State
having a full-time probate judge. He was required to be a member
of the bar and was elected by the city council for a 6-year term.10
Probate matters occupied so little of the judges' time in other cities
and towns where probate judges had been elected that it was not
1 Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 504, sec. 9302A; Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, sec. 1;
R hode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 420, sec. 1.
8 Minnesota, M ason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 8624; N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-107; North Dakota, 1925
Supp. to 1913 Comp. Laws, sec. 4446; Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 322.01.
8 Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, sec. 33-401, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 461.
4 California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, sec. 226, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 463.
8 Massachusetts, Constitution, pt. 2, ch. II, sec. 1, art. I X .
8 Alabama, Constitution, secs. 152,155; Code 1923, sec. 9572.
7 R hode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 568, secs. 1-3.
8 R hode Island Manual, 1935-36, p p . 322-324.
8 R hode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 568, sec. 2.
18 R hode Island, Laws of 1939, ch. 1444.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TH E

OOTJRTS

unusual for them to conduct a private law practice. The term of
office for a probate judge outside Providence was not specifically set
in the law, but presumably it lasted as long as that of the town council
which had elected him. The statutes provided that a town meeting
be held annually or biennially “ as required by law in each town”
and that the members of the town council elected at the town meeting
hold office “ until the next election of town officers.” 11 The usual
term of office for a judge of probate was apparently 2 years, although
reappointments had been frequent.
The courts hearing adoption cases in Minnesota, New Mexico, and
North Dakota were the “ district courts,” which served a judicial
district composed of 1 or more counties. Nineteen judicial districts
with 51 district judges had been established in Minnesota; 6 districts
with 15 judges had been set up in North Dakota; and in New Mexico
there were 9 districts with 9 judges. District judges in these 3
States were required to be “ learned in the law” ; they were elected for
a term of 6 years in Minnesota and New Mexico and 4 years in North
Dakota.
In North Dakota a “ county court of increased jurisdiction” having
concurrent jurisdiction over adoptions could be established by a vote
of the people in a county having a minimum population of 2,000
persons upon presentation to the county commissioners of a petition
signed by at least 20 percent of the qualified voters and taxpayers
of the county.12 Five counties in the State had provided for such
courts at the time the visit to the State was made (May 1936), but
only 1 of these made a practice of hearing adoption cases. The
county judge was elected for a term of 2 years and was required to
have the same qualifications as those for the district judge, except that
he had to be a resident of the county at the time of his election.13
The court with responsibility for adoptions in Wisconsin was the
“ county court.” It was presided over by a county judge elected for
a term of 6 years. Apparently the only qualification for the county
judge in counties having a population of less than 14,000 persons
was residence in the county, but in counties with a population of more
than 14,000 the judge was required to be an attorney.14
The judge of the “ county court” in Oregon was elected for a 4-year
term and was required to be a resident of the county from which he
was elected.16 In three counties where judicial functions of the
county court had been transferred to the circuit court through special
legislative action, the judge was elected for a 6-year term and was
required to be an attorney.16
The California Constitution required that each county in the State
have at least one superior-court judge elected for a term of 6 years.17
A superior court judge was required to be a resident of the State
for 5 years and of the county for 2 years preceding his election; he
had to be admitted to practice law before the State supreme court
n Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 330, sec. 1; eh. 332, secs. 1,15.
18 N orth Dakota, Comp. Laws 1913, sec. 8926.
• 'A ®
, __ , ,
is N orth Dakota, Constitution, secs. 110, 111. Sec. 107 provides that the district judge must be Earned
in the law, be at least 25 years of age, and a citizen of the United States, or a resident of the State
2 years preceding his election, or at the time of his election be an elector within the judicial district for w c
h6H Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, secs. 253.01,253.02.
__
^
" o0_aoq
18 Oregon, Constitution, original art. V II, sec. 11. 1935 Supp. to 1930 Ann. Stat., sec. 28-608.
w Clackamas, M ultnom ah, Klamath (1935 Supp. to 1930 Ann. Code, sec. 26-108).
17 California, Constitution, art. V I, secs. 6-9.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEMS AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

at least 5 years before his election and was required actually to have
practiced law in the State at least 5 years.18
The legislature had authority by a two-thirds vote to decide the
number of judges a given county should have. Los Angeles County
had 50 superior-court judges, San Francisco County had 16, Alameda
County had 9, San Diego County had 6; 2 other counties visited had
4, 2 counties had 3, 1 had 2, and 2 counties had only 1 judge.
In counties having more than one judge the presiding judge was
sometimes selected to hear adoption cases; in other counties it might
be the judge hearing probate matters, the judge assigned to hear
juvenile cases, the judge selected by the attorney for the petitioners,
or the judge with the greatest amount of time at his disposal, depending
upon the precedent established in a given county.
In all the States visited except Massachusetts and Rhode Island
the court hearing adoption cases also served as the juvenile court in
one or more counties of the State, although the juvenile court had not
been given specific jurisdiction over adoptions in any of the States
visited. The probate courts in Alabama served as juvenile courts,
except in those counties in which special courts having exclusive
jurisdiction over children had been established by act of legislature.
Accordingly, the court to which jurisdiction over adoptions had been
given also acted as a juvenile court in all but eight counties of the
State.
The superior court sat as a juvenile court in California, and when
there were several judges in a county it was the duty of the judges
to designate a judge to hear juvenile cases.19 One judge served in
each of 38 counties, however, and heard all matters brought before
the court, including adoptions and juvenile cases. Information about
the practice in all of the remaining 20 counties was not obtained,
but in 6 of the 8 counties in this group visited, adoptions were generally
referred to the judge hearing juvenile cases. A definite plan had
not always been established in the counties, but a generally accepted
practice had grown up. For instance, one judge who regularly heard
juvenile and probate matters said he heard the adoption cases because
he had more time than some of the other judges. Another said that
although adoption cases had not been assigned to any of the 4 judges
in his county, most of them were brought to him because he handled
other cases involving children. Los Angeles County was the only
county where adoptions were heard by a judge whose work was limited
to juvenile cases.
Adoptions were heard by the judge of the juvenile court in only
one Minnesota county, where legislation provided that in the election
of judges of the district court one should be designated as judge of
the juvenile-court division.20 It was the practice to refer adoption
cases to this judge even though technically they were not heard in
the juvenile court. Adoption cases were rotated in the other counties
served by more than one district judge.21
18 California, Code of Civil Procedure 1937, see. 157.
19 California, Welfare and Institutions Code 1937, secs. 571-572.
90 Minnesota, M ason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 8638, as amended b y Laws of 1931, ch. 250.
21 Minnesota, Mason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 8637, as amended b y Laws of 1933, ch. 184, provides that the district
court in counties having more than 40,000 inhabitants, except in the seventh judicial district, shall function
as a juvenile court. This applies to 4 counties—Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis, Ottertail.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

COURTS

District courts in North Dakota and New Mexico were authorized
to sit as juvenile courts.22 Accordingly, although adoptions were
heard in the district court, they came before the same judge as though
they were within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
In Multnomah County, Oreg., adoption cases were heard by the
circuit court sitting as a court of domestic relations, which also heard
juvenile cases. In two other counties, where no provision had been
made for a court of domestic relations, the same judges heard all types
of cases coming before the circuit court, including adoption cases.
The county judge had been designated as the judge of the juvenile
court in 44 of the 71 counties in Wisconsin;23in these counties juvenile
cases and adoption cases were the responsibility of the same judge.
Effective work in adoption cases appeared to be dependent upon the
interest and understanding of the judge hearing the case rather than
upon the type of court in which jurisdiction was vested. Consider
able criticism was voiced in some of the States visited because judges
hearing adoption cases were not attorneys. It is, of course, important
that the court hearing adoption cases be presided over by a judge who
has intelligence and integrity, but if he also has a social mind, and is
clear thinking and willing to ask and accept advice, legal training may
not be essential. Indeed the judge who is not bound by rigid rules
and practices may be able to hear an adoption case as a human
problem and to make his decision on the basis of the best interests of
the child.
The question of jurisdiction in adoption cases is of minor significance
if (1) provision has been made for investigation of adoption petitions
under the general direction of a State agency and (2) the legal status
of the child has been settled before adoption proceedings are held.
Indeed the question has been raised whether adoption is “ a truly
judicial procedure and whether what the social workers desire is not
rather a permanent record of a conclusion reached on the basis of
sound and thorough social diagnosis of the interest of the natural
parents, the adopting parents, and the child. Discussion along these
lines may justify the conclusion that those States which rely on a pro
cedure not unlike that of the deed, if the registration of the transfer
is preceded by sound and thorough social inquiry, have a procedure
which can be made to serve the interests of those concerned more truly
than any ostensible judicial procedure based upon the false hypothesis
of an issue. As a matter of fact, no adoption should result where there
is an issue. The true issue arises with reference to the competence of
the natural parents. The question of their unfitness presents a real
issue. That question having been determined, the question of adop
tion becomes chiefly a matter of sound social practice.” 24
” N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 35-4102; North Dakota, Comp. Laws 1913, secs. 11404,11405, as amend
ed b y Laws of 1929, ch. 113.
23 Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 48.01 ( 2 ), provides that the judges of the courts of record in each county shall
annually designate one of their number to serve as juvenile judge.
24 Breckinridge, Sophonisba P .: The Family and the State, pp. 356-357. University of Chicago Press.
Chicago, 1934.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PRO BLEM S A N D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION'

CONSENT TO ADOPTION
C O N SE N T OF PA R E N T S

Since the enactment of the first Massachusetts adoption law, adop
tion laws enacted in the United States have generally recognized that
consent of the parents or other persons legally responsible for the child
is important. Under the common law the father of a minor child born
in lawful wedlock was entitled to his child’s services and earnings as
well as to his custody.25 By inference or by express provision, the
States of the United States, with few exceptions, have provided that
the rights of the mother and father to the services and earnings of the
child are equal. The common law considered the child born out of
wedlock as “ Alius nullius” (nobody’s child) and gave him none of
the rights or privileges ordinarily accompanying the parent-child
relationship.26 M odem statutes, however, have given the mother of
the child bom out of wedlock the right of custody and the duty of
support, with the attendant right to the services and earnings of her
child.
.
Even under the common law, the English courts exercised the right
to remove a child from the custody of his father in exceptional circum
stances, but this was rarely done.27 The power of the court has been
greatly expanded by legislation in the United States, however, and the
statutes of every State have authorized the courts to remove a child
from the custody of both parents- under certain specified conditions.
Through an adoption action, however, a parent who has not other
wise lost parental rights to his child voluntarily gives up the right to
custody, earnings, and services. Accordingly consent is an essential
element in the adoption proceeding.
Legal provisions affecting consent of parents.

The consent of the parents (or surviving parent) of the child bom
legitimately and of the mother of the child born out of wedlock was
required in all the States visited, except when otherwise specified.
Competence of parents.— The laws of six of the States visited did not
require consent of a parent who was insane,28 and in three of these
States consent was not required from the parent who was “ otherwise
incapacitated.” 29 The consent of the mother of a child bom out of
wedlock was required in one State only when she was “ capable of
giving such consent.30 It would seem obvious that the consent of men
tally incompetent parents would not be acceptable, but should it be
the province of the adoption court to make the decision regarding the
mental competence of a parent? Even when the mental condition of
the parent has been definitely and legally determined, circumstances
may have developed which make it unwise or even unfair to ignore his
parental rights. The question of terminating parental rights should
be settled before the question of adoption is raised. At the time of the
visit to California the juvenile-court law provided that a child might be
declared free from the custody of one or both of his parents when they
Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England, 11th ed. (1791), yol. I, ch. 6, p. 453.
*> Ibid., vol. II, p. 458.
v. D u k e o f B e a u f o r t , 2 Russell 1 (1827).
,
0 „ n . XT
. ^ , , 1no.
28 Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 506, sec. 9302C; Minnesota, M ason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 8626; N orth Dakota, 1925
Supp. to 1913 Comp. Laws, sec. 4444, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 189; O r^ on , Ann. Code 1930, sec.
33-403; Rhode Island, Gen Laws 1938, ch. 420, sec. 3; Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, eh. 210,
27 W e l l e s b y

Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota,
so N ew M exico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-105.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

COURTS

had been declared feeble-minded or insane by a court of competent
jurisdiction, provided the State director of institutions and the super
intendent of the State hospital of which the parents were inmates or
patients certified they would not be capable of supporting or control
ling the child in a proper manner.31 An amendment to the adoption
law enacted in 1939 declared that consent of a parent is unnecessary
under these conditions.32
Abandonment.— The consent of a parent who had abandoned his
child or who could not be found was not required in three States,33
and in three other States the consent of a parent who had deserted his
child or who had neglected to provide proper care and maintenance
for a stated period of time, ranging from 1 to 3 years, was not neces
sary.34 The New Mexico law likewise did not require the consent of
the parent upon satisfactory proof that the child had been abandoned
and was not provided for by parents or relatives.35 The laws of Cali
fornia and Wisconsin did not require consent of a parent who had aban
doned his child, but in such cases it was necessary to have parental
rights terminated by previous court action.
Whether a parent can be said to have “ abandoned” his child is
largely a matter of interpretation. It is, therefore, important that
adequate protection be given to the rights of the parent. There is
more likelihood that such safeguards will be effective if adoption is not
an issue at the time the question of abandonment is being decided.
Consequently the court hearing juvenile cases and not the adoption
court should be responsible for making this decision.
Before the Wisconsin adoption law was amended in 1929 it was
within the power of the adoption court to allow an adoption without
the consent of a parent who had “ abandoned” his child,36 and in this
connection an interesting situation was referred to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
The parents of two young children separated, the mother continuing to care for
the children with the help of the maternal grandmother. The mother obtained
employment away from home and gave the boy to her sister, leaving the girl with
the maternal grandmother. Meanwhile the husband obtained a divorce in South
Dakota, where custody of the children was awarded to him. Since neither the
mother nor the children were within the jurisdiction of the South Dakota court,
this order was void. The mother visited the little girl frequently but did not con
tribute to her support, and the grandmother allowed her to go to the home of a Mr.
and Mrs. Rice. The mother continued to make occasional visits to the child in
the Rice home. Finally the mother remarried and asked for the custody of her
child. This was refused, and when habeas corpus proceedings were instituted she
was still unsuccessful in obtaining the little girl. The Rice family then filed a
petition to adopt the child, alleging that the mother had abandoned her and that
therefore her consent was not necessary. Although the mother opposed the action,
the adoption was granted. When the case was appealed the Wisconsin Supreme
Court did not find sufficient evidence of abandonment and the adoption was nul
lified. In its opinion, the court admitted that the mother had not given the child
the parental care she might have given her under other circumstances, but “ there
is no evidence to show that she ever intended to willfully abandon the little
gjrj
* * * [The Rice family] made no complaint to the mother that she did
not furnish money for the support of the child. It might well be that they rec
ognized her inability to do much along that line. That the mother showed affec31 California, Welfare and Institutions Code 1937, sec. 701.
32 California, Laws of 1939, eh. 463.
33 Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota.
34 Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, sec. 33-403; Rhode Island, Oen. Laws 1938, ch. 420, sec. 3; Massachusetts,
Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, sec. 3.
38 N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-112.
36 Wisconsin, Stat. 1923, sec. 4022.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

tion fo r th e ch ild an d a desire to reclaim it as soon as she w as in a p osition t o give it
a h om e is adm itted. W e th in k the evid en ce falls short o f th a t con v in cin g q u a lity
necessary to perm a n en tly dep rive th e pa ren t o f her offsprin g.” S7

Such a situation could not arise under the present Wisconsin law,
for the only responsibility of the adoption court is to make certain
“ that the facts stated in the petition are true, that the petitioners are
of good moral character and of reputable standing in the community
and of ability properly to maintain and educate the child sought to be
adopted, that the best interests of such child would be promoted by
adoption, that such child is suitable for adoption, and that all legal
requirements relative to adoption have been complied w ith /’ 38 The
abandonment issue would be settled in the juvenile court.
Loss of civil rights.— The adoption laws of four of the States39 visited
did not require the consent of a parent deprived of civil rights, and the
law of New Mexico had a general statement to this effect. The Oregon
and Rhode Island statutes specifically stated that consent was not
necessary from a parent imprisoned hi the State prison for a term of
not less than 3 years, and in Massachusetts consent was not necessary
from a parent imprisoned in the State prison or a house of correction
for a temi of which more than 3 years remained unexpired at the time
the petition was presented to the court.
The fact that a parent has violated the statutes of a State and has
been imprisoned does not necessarily also imply that he is not interested
in the welfare of his child and that he therefore should be deprived of
his parental right to plan for the. custody of the child. But when the
child’s welfare is jeopardized by the imprisonment of one or both of
his parents the decision to terminate parental rights should rest with
the juvenile court and not the adoption court.
By the terms of the California Juvenile Court Act, which specifi
cally provided for such situations, a child could be declared free from
the custody of a parent when the parent has been deprived of civil
rights because of conviction for a felony. Imprisonment in itself
apparently was not considered sufficient for court action, for the court
had to find that the felony was of such nature as to prove the unfitness
of the parent to have the custody and control of the child or that the
term of the sentence was of such length that the child would be
deprived of a normal home for a period of years.40
Divorce.— The laws of five of the States visited did not require the
consent of a parent who had lost custody through divorce action.41 In
New Mexico, however, this applied only to a parent who had been
adjudged guilty of adultery or cruelty ; in Oregon it was necessary to
serve a citation on the parent not having custody to show cause why
the proposed adoption should not be allowed. The statutes were not
always clear as to the rights of a parent who had lost custody when the
parent to whom custody had been given was dead or was disqualified
from giving consent. However, in Minnesota and North Dakota a
divorced parent was required to have notice of the adoption in such
manner as the court directed if the child was without a guardian.
37 I n r e R i c e , 179 Wis. 531 (1923); 192 N . W . 56
38 Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 322.05.
39 Massachusetts, Qen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, sec. 3; N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1939, sec. 2-104;
Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, sec. 33-403; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 420, sec. 3.
40 California, Welfare and Institutions Code, 1937, sec. 701.
c J 1iA 5n™ma’ L^ Y ^ ofJ 931’ p - 506' sec- 9302C; Minnesota, M ason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 8626; New Mexico, Ann.
btat. 1929 sec. 2-104; North Dakota, 1925 Supp. to Comp. Laws, 1913, sec. 4444, as amended b y Laws of
1939, ch. 189; Oregon, Ann. Code 1930. sec. 33-402.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TH E

COURTS

The consent of a father who had lost custody in divorce proceedings
was required in California unless he had willfully failed to pay for the
care, support, and education of the child for a period of a year, and
even then it was necessary to serve him with a copy of a citation requir
ing him to appear at the hearing; if he could not be located, service by
publication was sufficient.
In the three remaining States (Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island) the action of the divorce court in no way affected the necessity
for parental consent in an adoption.
Interestingly enough, no court decisions were found relating to the
provisions in the five States on the basis of which the parent who had
lost custody of his child in a divorce action was deprived of his right
to consent to the child’s adoption. A decision of the California
Supreme Court in 1915 had direct bearing on such procedure.42 At
the time this opinion was rendered the statutes did not require consent
from a parent who was adjudged guilty of adultery or cruelty and
divorced, for either cause or one who had been judicially deprived of the
child on account of cruelty or neglect. The court held that a decree
of divorce which awarded to the wife the custody of a child did not
deprive the husband of custody so as to render his consent unnecessary
on notice of adoption proceedings; and the adoption granted was
therefore set aside.
The mother of the child had been granted a divorce from the father
on account of “ failure to provide,” and the custody of the child was
given to the mother. When the child was 6 years old, petition for
adoption was filed and granted. The father then claimed that he had
had no notice of the adoption petition and had not consented to it.
The California Supreme Court in its opinion held:
Divorces are not granted for offenses against children, and the bestowal of the
custody of a minor in a divorce action is not, unless otherwise provided by statute,
an adjudication of the fitness of the parent who is for a time denied the right to
retain possession of the child. It is nothing more than the expression of the
court s belief that, under the circumstances then existing, the welfare of the child
would be best subserved by placing said child with one of the parents rather than
the other.
Where a father is deprived of the custody and control of a minor child without
knowledge of any proceeding in that behalf and without a hearing, he is entitled
to be relieved from the judgment or order taken against him because of surprise
and his excusable neglect.
*

The showing made by [the father] in the adoption proceeding, when he asked
for relief * * * was * * * sufficient prima facie evidence to establish
the fact that he had been denied the care and custody of his daughter without due
process of law.

It was the practice in some States, where the consent of a parent
who had lost custody through divorce was not required, to get in
touch with the parent and to discuss the proposed adoption. This
informal procedure to some extent counteracted the injustice to the
parent imposed by the statutes, but statutory provisions making both
parents, equally responsible for consent to the child’s adoption would
have been greatly preferable. However, a provision requiring notice
to the parent deprived of custody, thereby making it possible for him
to enter his objections at the time of hearing, would be some protection
to him.
«

B e ll

K ra u ss,

169 Cal. 387 (1915). 146 P. 874.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PRO BLEM S A N D PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION

Other 'provisions.— Other provisions that made consent of a parent
unnecessary were found in the laws of the States included in the
study. A child who had been supported by an incorporated chari
table institution or by a town commonwealth for a continuous period
of more than 2 years before the petition to adopt was filed could
be adopted in Massachusetts without the consent of his parents.
Such a provision would make it possible for an unscrupulous institution
or a penurious town officer to effect an adoption without the knowledge
or consent of the parents, although the investigation by the State
department would probably prevent this from happening.
Again in Massachusetts, consent was not required of a parent who
had been sentenced for drunkennesss for a third time within a year or
who had been convicted of being a “ night walker or a lewd, wanton,
and lascivious person” and who had neglected to provide proper
care and maintenance for his children. The consent of a parent who
had been adjudged a habitual drunkard was unnecessary in New Mexico,
nor was consent required when the person having the care and custody
of the child was a prostitute or an inmate of a house of ill fame and
the child was so situated that he was liable to be corrupted by associa
tion with the person. Provisions such as these cloud the primary
issue when adoption is under consideration.
T erm in ation o f parental rights.

Table 24 shows that one or both of the parents of 751 children
for whom adoption decrees were granted had lost the right to consent
to the adoption of the child through divorce or other court action or
through voluntary surrender of the child to an agency.
T a b l e 24. — Parental rights to consent to adoption lost through court action or volun
tary surrender in cases o f children adopted, by States
Children adopted
Parental rights to consent

Ala Cali
Total bama
fornia

Massa M in N ew North
chu
D a Oregon Rhode W is
Island consin
setts nesota Mexico kota

............... —- 1,718

426

335

346

170

174

751

268

219

56
2

5
2

Through other court action

372

192

2
40
3

10
16
6

5
4
1

10
154
28

1
19
1

2
10
16

1
15

Both parents.-........ .........

36
278
58

5
19
3

Through voluntary sur
render________________

321

235

7
193
35

2
1

40
2

Both parents__________

7
276
38
858

139

278

112

134

Total

Parental rights not lost_______
Both parents or unmarried
mother dead_______________
N o report on whether rights
were lost______ _____________

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE COURTS

Although the laws of 5 States had a general provision by which
a parent who had lost the custody of his child through divorce was
deprived of the right to consent to his adoption, only 58 adoptions
had been affected by this provision, and nearly three-fourths of these
were in JVTinnesota and Oregon. In California the provision was
applicable only under special circumstances; the only California
father who had lost parental rights through divorce had evidently
forfeited this right through failure to pay for support of the child
although he was able to do so.
The most interesting differences in the States shown in table 24
are in the relative use of court action and voluntary surrender for
termination of parental responsibility. The reasons for these differ
ences lay in legal provisions relating to adoption, to juvenile-court
procedures, and to regulations affecting the services given to children
by institutions and agencies.
The statutes of Minnesota43 and North D akota44 specifically pro
hibited transfer of parental responsibility for the permanent care and
custody of a child except by court order. In Alabama and Rhode
Island a similar provision had been made as far as it affected transfer
to individuals, but the Rhode Island 45 statutes definitely authorized
relinquishment of a child to any incorporated and licensed “ orphanage
or society/’ and in Alabama 46 the prohibition did not apply to the
State department and licensed agencies. Transfer of parental rights
in Wisconsin was possible only by court action. The laws of New
Mexico neither authorized nor prohibited transfer of parental rights
to an agency.
Table 24 shows that for 12 children for whom adoption decrees
were granted in these States parental rights were lost through volun
tary surrender. The children in Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wis
consin and 1 child in Rhode Island had been surrendered to an agency
in another State before placement in the adoptive home. The relin
quishment of the 4 children in Alabama apparently had not been
questioned by the court, although it was contrary to the policy of
the State department for agencies to accept relinquishment of children.
Three of these children were born to unmarried mothers and had
been surrendered to the maternity home in which the mother received
care, and the fourth was surrendered to an individual connected with
a social agency, although neither of these agencies had been licensed
to place children in family homes.
In California and Massachusetts the number of children whose
parents voluntarily surrendered their care exceeded the number
who.had been dealt with by the court. The California adoption law
specified that consent of the parents to an adoption was not necessary
when the child had been relinquished to an organization licensed by
the State department to find homes for children and to place children
in homes for adoption, provided the agency joined in the petition for
adoption. Only two agencies in this State had been authorized to
accept relinquishments and to place children for adoption. Although
such relinquishments were required by statute to be signed before
« Minnesota. M ason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 4561.
44 North Dakota,T925 Supp. to 1913 Comp. Laws, sec 4440al
48 Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 373, sec. 2.
48 Alabama, Code 1923, sec. 130.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S AND' PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION

two witnesses and acknowledged before a representative of the agency,
they were not valid until a certified copy had been filed with the
State Department of Social Welfare.
The adoption law of Massachusetts provided that the written sur
render by the parents of a child to an incorporated charitable institu
tion could be substituted for parental consent in any adoption later
approved by the institution; under another section of the law the
mother of a child under 2 years of age and born out of wedlock was
authorized, with the consent of the State Department of Public Wel
fare, to surrender her child to the department, and such surrender could
serve as a consent to any adoption later approved by the department.47
The statutes of Oregon48authorized agencies, societies, or institutions
to receive needy or dependent children from their parents or legal
guardians through a signed release, and when such release expressly
stated that it was given for the purpose of adoption the agency was
permitted to consent to the adoption. It was illegal, however, for
the agency to present a child so released for adoption until at least 6
months after the signing of the surrender, unless the parent, parents,
or guardian waived their right to personal appearance and filed their
appearance and consent by a signed and attested certificate. In
adoption proceedings the agency was required to file a copy of the
parents’ release as well as its own written consent.
In all nine States except California, Massachusetts, and New
Mexico it was possible for the juvenile court to commit a child to the
permanent guardianship of an agency, or in some States to an indi
vidual, and at the same time terminate the rights of the parents.
This procedure was used when parents desired voluntarily to relinquish
their children through the court as well as when the parents had
deserted or were found to be unfit to retain guardianship.
The juvenile court in California had no authority to transfer
guardianship of a child to an agency, although action could be taken
by the court to terminate parental rights on the filing of a petition
“ to declare a person free from the custody and control of his parents.” 49
When parental rights were terminated the court was authorized to
commit the child “ to the care of some association, society, or cor
poration embracing within its objects the purpose of caring for or
obtaining homes for such persons and willing and able to receive and
care for such wards,” although the child remained a ward of the
court. The court in New Mexico had authority to remove a child
from the custody of his parents and to order his adoption without
parental consent, but all children so dealt with were wards of the
court. However, the one case in New Mexico in which parental
responsibility was lost through court action had been heard in another
State.
The juvenile court of Massachusetts had no authority to commit
children to permanent guardianship nor to terminate parental rights,
but action might be taken in the probate court to appoint a guardian
of the person of the child. Such action had been taken in 6 of the 10
Massachusetts cases and “ guardianship with custody” was trans
ferred, an agency being appointed guardian of 2 of these children.
<7 Massachusetts, Gen. Laws 1930, ch. 119, secs. 3, 16. This provision had not been utilized for m any
years.
4* Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, secs. 33-711, 712.
4» California, Welfare and institutions Code 1937, secs. 776-786.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

COURTS

One parent was deprived of his rights to the child after his marriage
to the mother of the child was annulled. The parents of one child
and the mother of another child lost their rights through a previous
adoption. The parents of the remaining child had been deprived of
their rights in another State.
It is important that the question of parental rights be settled before
placement of a child in an adoptive home. Any other procedure is
unfair to the child’s own parents, the foster parents, the child himself,
and even the court. It was a frequent practice in one county visited
to have the court hearing for termination of parental rights on the same
day the adoption hearing was held, even though the placement of the
child in the foster home had been made sometime before. Although
there was no indication that any confusion had ever arisen in this
court as a result of this procedure the plan has definite disadvantages.
For instance, the court might decide that a child should not be removed
from the custody of his parents in spite of the fact that he had become
well established in a foster home or the court might be influenced to
remove a child from the custody of his parents primarily because he
was happily established in his foster home.
It is also important that provision be made for a substitute for
parental authority after termination of parental rights. Parental
surrender of a child to a child-placing agency transfers to the agency
the responsibility for placing the child as well as for consenting to
or approving his adoption. Likewise the court having authority to
terminate parental rights should be authorized to transfer the per
manent care, custody, and control of the child to some agency com
petent to place him in a desirable home and to consent to the adoption.
Adequate safeguards should be set up to prevent children from being
placed indiscriminately. It was undoubtedly the desire to provide
such safeguards that brought about legislation prohibiting transfer of
custody without court order. Court action is necessary when the
rights of a parent are to be terminated because of his incompetence
or of his desertion, neglect, or maltreatment of his child. There are,
however, differences of opinion as to the necessity for court action when
a parent wishes to be relieved of the care of a child.
Parental rights and responsibilities for the care, support, and educa
tion of a child that are conferred by the common law should not be
transferred without proper safeguards and recording. Unless such
transfer is accomplished through court action, it is essential that
relinquishment of parental rights be accepted only by agencies espe
cially authorized to place children for adoption, that adequate case
work precede such acceptance, and that the acknowledged release be
approved by the State agency and be filed with a court of proper
jurisdiction or with the State agency.
Provisions relating to filing consent.

To the parents the signing of a consent to adoption often represents
the final transfer of the child to the adoptive parents and means as
much to them as the actual adoption proceeding before the court.
There is much variation in the procedures prescribed in adoption laws
for the signing of consent; some laws do not set forth any procedures
and others merely require a signed statement. In order to assure the
validity of consent some laws require acknowledgment before a notary
249071°— 41----- 7

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PRO BLEM S A N D PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION

public; others require that the consent be signed at the time of filing
the petition, or before the hearing, or at the time of the hearing.
The procedures in the States visited were equally varied. The laws
of Minnesota and of Alabama and North Dakota, where many of the
provisions of the Minnesota law were copied, had no special require
ment for signing consent. The practice in these States was to file a
written consent to the adoption at the time of filing the petition. The
laws of Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin required
written consent. In New Mexico consent had to be signed at the time
of filing the petition or at the hearing.
The procedures outlined in the California law were designed to
prevent parents from consenting to undesirable adoptions. In all
cases in which consent of the parents was necessary, except when the
adoption was by a stepparent and one natural parent retained custody
of the child, the consent was required to be signed in the presence of
an agent of the State Department of Social Welfare on a form prescribed
by the department. Furthermore, it was made the duty of the State
department to ascertain whether the child was a proper subject for
adoption and whether the proposed home was suitable for him. If
the department refused to accept parental consent as a result of its
investigation the parent had the right to appeal to the superior court
of the county in which the petition had been filed. It was then the
duty of the court to notify the department of the appeal, and 10 days
were allowed to permit the department to file a report of its findings
in regard to its refusal to accept consent. After the findings had been
filed, the court had authority to allow the signing of consent in open
court. 60
At the time of the visit to California the State department had
found it desirable to modify this procedure, and parents were fre
quently permitted to sign consent before an investigation of the adop
tion had been made. The signature in such cases was accompanied
by the following statement: “ In signing this consent I understand that
it does not become final until it has been accepted by the State Depart
ment of Social Welfare after ascertaining that the proposed home is
suitable for my child.” During the 5 years after August 1931, the
State department had recommended that the petition be denied and
had refused to accept the consent of the parents for some 68 adoptions,
but in only 11 of these had the parents appealed from the decision.
LEGAL PROVISIONS REGARDING CONSENT OF OTHER PERSONS

Consent by a guardian.

Guardianship and custody of a child may be conferred by either of
two court procedures: (1) Appointment of a personal guardian having
custody of the child by a court having jurisdiction to appoint a guar
dian of the estate of any person; and (2) commitment of the child by a
juvenile court to an agency or persons to whom permanent guardian
ship and custody are given. Although the general guardianship laws
of many States authorize the appointment of a guardian of the person
of a child, this form of guardianship is seldom used for children
subject to adoption.
50 California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, sec. 226, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 463.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE COURTS

The adoption laws of Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon,
and Rhode Island authorized the guardian of a child to consent to his
adoption. The general term “ guardian” could be interpreted as
applying to an agency guardian or to a personal guardian. In Wis
consin the only guardian that could consent to an adoption was an
agency to which the permanent custody and guardianship had been
transferred by a court of proper jurisdiction. The laws of California,
Massachusetts, and New Mexico had no provision for consent by a
guardian, although in Massachusetts a guardian must receive notice
of the adoption.
The right of a guardian, appointed under general guardianship laws
to consent to the adoption of a child has been confirmed by court
decisions in some States, but a ruling of the California Supreme Court
made in 1921 held that an adoption granted without the consent of
the child’s guardian was valid. The opinion of the court included the
following statement:
The main purpose of adoption statutes is the promotion of the welfare of chil
dren bereft of the benefits of the home and care of their real parents, by the legal
recognition and regulation of the consummation of the closest conceivable counter
part of the relationship of parent and child. While a guardian of the person of a
minor is charged with a high duty and serious responsibility in the care of his
ward, nevertheless, the status of guardian and ward falls short of the close approxi
mation to the relationship of parent and child which is obtainable through actual
adoption, culminating, as it does, in the child becoming a member, to all intents
and purposes, of the family of the foster parents. The statutes in question should
not, therefore, be construed so as to exclude an orphan in the custody of a guardian
from the realization of the peculiar advantages to be derived from an adoption,
unless such construction be unavoidable.51

The juvenile-court laws in the nine States differed materially in
provisions regarding commitment and the authority given to an
agency for the permanent care of a child. No provision had been made
in the laws of California, Massachusetts, and New Mexico for granting
guardianship to an agency. Dependent and neglected children within
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court became wards of the court in
California and New Mexico and might be placed under care of an agency
subject to order of the court. The court in Massachusetts which
hears children’s cases had authority to commit a neglected child to
the custody of the State department during minority or to place him
in the care and custody of a charitable corporation upon the assurance
of his further appearance in court. The juvenile court in Wisconsin
had the right to transfer the permanent care, control, and custody of a
child to an agency and to terminate all rights of the parents with ref
erence to the child, but authority for the agency to consent to the
adoption of its wards was provided for in the adoption law.52 The
Oregon statutes authorized the juvenile court to make an order com
mitting a dependent or neglected child to the care of some “ suitable
association willing to receive it.” The court was required to specify
whether the commitment was temporary or permanent, and only per
manent commitments transferred guardianship of the person of a child
and the right to consent to adoption.53 In North Dakota the juvenile
court had authority to commit a child to the guardianship of the pres81 I n r e S a n t o s E s t a t e , 185 Cal. 127 (1921); 195 P. 1055.
82 Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 48.07 (7) (a).
88 Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, secs. 33-626, 33-627, 33-712.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D PROCEDURES' IN ADOPTION

ident, secretary, or superintendent of an institution or association car
ing for children, and the guardian was permitted to appear in any
subsequent adoption proceedings and to consent to the adoption of
the child if the order so specified.54
The juvenile-court laws of Minnesota and Rhode Island provided
that a child became the ward of the authorized agency to which he was
awarded unless otherwise ordered and that he was subject to the guard
ianship of the agency, which was authorized to be a party to adoption
proceedings and to consent to his adoption. These laws further pro
vided that notice of the filing of a petition be sent to the court commit
ting the child to the agency. The juvenile-court law of Alabama
authorized commitment of a child and transfer of his guardianship to
an authorized agency. Authority for the agency to consent to his
adoption was given in the adoption law.
Consent by the State department.

The State department in five of the States was authorized by the
adoption law to give consent to the adoption of a child under specified
conditions. In Alabama, Minnesota, and North Dakota this could be
done when consent of parents was unnecessary and the child had no
guardian. In Wisconsin consent of the State department was required
when there was no legal guardian and when the child had no living
parent or the parents were nonresidents and had relinquished parental
rights in a State where such relinquishments were valid; consent was
also required to the adoption of every child born out of wedlock who
was not under the guardianship of a licensed child-welfare agency.
The State department in California was required to consent to the
adoption in all cases when parental consent was not necessary and
when a society licensed to place children for adoption was not a party
to the petition.
Consent by a guardian ad litem or next friend.

The adoption laws of three of the States (Massachusetts, Oregon,
and Rhode Island) permitted the court to appoint a guardian ad litem
or next friend to “ give or withhold consent” to an adoption when there
was neither parent nor guardian to do this. It was difficult to deter
mine the extent to which such guardians had actually been appointed,
since the records of the State department often did not show this and
the court records were not studied. Judges in Oregon and Rhode
Island who were interviewed on the matter were of the opinion that
the investigation of the State department obviated the necessity for
such appointments. One Rhode Island judge reported that he occa
sionally appointed a next friend so that there would be no basis for
contest later, but he admitted that this was little more than a form, since
he usually appointed “ someone in the room,” who merely signed the
petition and made no investigation. Apparently none of the judges
had considered the possibility of appointing as next friend the person
making the adoption investigation. One judge said he would use a
person who had an interest in the child or an attorney if it were ever
necessary to appoint anyone in this capacity.
The appointment of a guardian ad litem was mandatory in Wis
consin when consent to an adoption was given by a minor parent.55
m North

Dakota, Comp. Laws 1913, secs. 11409, 11410, 11418.
«s W isconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 322.04 (6).

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

COURTS

Interviews with judges, however, indicated that few of them under
stood the real purpose of such appointments. As a rule, an attorney
was appointed to serve as guardian ad litem, and only one judge among
those interviewed could see any value in the provision. This judge
explained that the guardian ad litem checked the legal aspects of the
case and was of considerable help. A fee of $5 was usually paid by
the county for the services of the guardian ad litem. Most of the
adoptions in which consent was given by a minor parent were of chil
dren bom out of wedlock. Since the consent of the State department
was necessary for the adoption of these children the need for such a
guardian might well be questioned.
Consent by the child.

The right of the child to consent to his own adoption when he is old
enough to understand its meaning had been accepted by all the States
included in the study. The laws of six States (Alabama, Massachu
setts, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin) required every
child above the age of 14 years to consent to his adoption; in California
and New Mexico consent by the child was required if he was more than
12 years of age; and in North Dakota the consent of a child 10 years
of age or over was necessary.
The consent of the child to the adoption as required by the State
laws should have been given in addition to the consent of other persons
in 105 adoptions, but records of such consent were available for only
53 children. It is possible that consent had been given in open court
in the remaining cases. More than two-thirds of the children whose
consent was not recorded were adopted by relatives, 27 by stepparents,
usually stepfathers, and 10 by other relatives. As all but 5 of the
remaining group were under the care of agencies, there would seem to
be little question that the desires of the children had been given
consideration.
PERSONS CONSENTING TO ADOPTION

Consent by parents.

Table 25 shows that information in regard to the persons consenting
to the adoption of the children for whom adoption decrees had been
granted was available for all but 22 of the 1,718 cases. One or both
parents consented to the adoption of 56 percent of the children for
whom consent was given. In addition to the 778 cases in which par
ents alone consented, a parent had given consent in 128 cases in which
consent was given by more than 1 person. The proportion of cases
in which consent was given by parents ranged from 35 percent in Cali
fornia to 83 percent in Massachusetts and 100 percent in New Mexico.
These percentages reflect the differences in the States in extent of use
of agencies for placement of children for adoption shown in table 8
and may be affected also by the fact that the proportion of children
adopted by relatives in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin
exceeded the number adopted by other persons. (See table 12, p. 30.)
As has been noted, the records obtained in Wisconsin were not typical
of the actual situation in this State, since the State department did
not ordinarily receive records of adoptions sponsored by private
asrencies.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION
T a b l e 25.— Persons giving consent to the adoption o f child, hy States
Children who were adopted
Persons giving consent

Ala
Total bama

Cali
fornia

Massachusetts

M in
ne
sota

N ew
M ex
ico

426

335

346

170

174

141

260

135

62~

19
99
17

2
15
3

6
16
3

12
53
10

9
47
6

10
4
9

193

2 41
4

192
1

18
1

‘ 65

25
1

1
6
22
1

3
1
1
3
10

2
5
19
4

T otal__________________ 1, 718
Parents on ly ____________ ____
Father_______ __________
M other____ _____________
B oth parents------ -------------

778
127
i 554
97

11
24
2

25
79
37

33
217
10

666

253

659
7

2 253

28
« 129
22
73
22
N o report as to consent-----------

11
6
4
10
1

6
2

North
D a
kota

3
5

Ore
gon

Rhode
Island

W is
con
sin

8
117

14
1

1 Includes 18 children adopted b y a stepfather, consent of the mother not being recorded.
2 Includes guardian in fact as well as in law.
\
H
2 Includes 1 nonresident child in California and 2 children in Massachusetts for whom the agency had
legal guaruiauainjj.
....................
,•
,
4 Includes 24 children com m itted to guardianship of the agency by the courts.
s includes 118 children for whose adoption a State department in addition to a parent or guardian
gave consent.

Consent by a guardian.

About half the 659 children to whose adoption an agency guardian
had given consent had been committed for legal guardianship and care
to an agency having the right to consent to their adoption. The
agencies consenting to the adoptions of about an equal number of
children had custody of the child and served as the only representative
of his interests in adoption proceedings. Most of this latter group
had been relinquished by their parents to institutions or child-placing
agencies for adoption, and the instrument of relinquishment together,
with the joinder of the agency in the petition had constituted consent.
A few California children had been committed to the custody of or
had been accepted by agencies placing children for adoption because
of court termination of parental rights or the death of their natural
parents, and a few Massachusetts children were wards of the State
department whose parents had deserted or were unknown.
Of the seven personal guardians who had consented to adoptions,
four were relatives, two were persons connected with a social agency,
and one was a lay person interested in the welfare of the child. All
these guardians had been appointed through guardianship proceedings.
Consent by the State department.

Consent to the adoption of 28 children was given by the State
departments alone in Alabama, California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
Both parents or the unmarried mothers of 14 of these children were
dead. Although Wisconsin was the only State that specifically
required the consent of the State department under these circum
stances, such consent had been given to the adoption of 4 children
in Alabama, of 1 child in California, and of 1 child in Minnesota. Con
sent of the State department also was given to the adoption of 2

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T H E 'ClO'UiRTS

children in Alabama and 2 in Minnesota whose parents were unknown
or could not be found and of 10 children in California whose parents
had lost parental rights through court action.
Consent by the State department to the adoption of a child who
has been abandoned or whose parents are unknown and who has no
guardian was permissive rather than mandatory in Alabama and
Minnesota, but it is interesting to note that only one child in each of
these States was declared abandoned and was, therefore, adopted
without the consent of a guardian or the State department. Consent
of the State department in California was required for the adoption
of all children whose parents had lost parental rights through court
action, unless an agency authorized to place children for adoption
sponsored the adoption. Consent by the State department was not
recorded, however, for three children who were not under the care of
an agency, although the department approved the adoption.
Consent by other persons.

The consent of the parent or parents or a guardian of 129 children
was supplemented by consent of another person. The State depart
ment supplemented the consent of a parent or guardian of 122 children
adopted in California and Wisconsin. In the remaining cases an
agency, a next friend, or a relative gave consent in addition to the
consent of a parent or guardian.
Included in the 22 adoptions in which consent had been given by
“ other persons” were those consented to by the child’s adoptive
parents, by a guardian ad litem or next friend, by grandparents, who
may have been the child’s “ next of kin,” by the husband of the mother,
who was considered the child’s “ legal father,” by the natural father,
by the court responsible for the child’s placement, and by a child
whose parents were dead.
Consent not given.

Wisconsin was the only State in the study in which consent of the
parents or the surviving parent, a legal guardian, or the State Board
of Control was necessary in every adoption coming before the court.
In the other States the court had authority, if satisfied as to the
desirability of the adoption, to grant a decree when the consent of
parents could not be obtained for various reasons, including the death
or desertion of the parent or parents.
Consent to the adoption of 31 children had not been given because
of the death of parents. These children constituted only a small
proportion of the children whose parents were dead, since children
without parental guardianship usually were brought to the attention
of agencies that were given guardianship through court action or
that accepted custody of the children and sponsored their adoption.
Another group of 28 children for whose adoption no consent had
been given had been deserted or abandoned by their parents. Most
of these children were adjudged abandoned by the court granting
the adoption. Previous court action in a juvenile court on the issue
of abandonment would have prevented the necessity of publishing
notice of adoption as had been done in 18 of these cases. The fol
lowing abstracts from adoption records illustrate some of the undesira
ble procedures that resulted in decisions of abandonment in the
adoption court.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S A N D PROCEDURES' IN ADOPTION

The father of a child was dead and the mother left the child in the petitioner s
home. Later the girl was returned to her mother, but after a time the mother
wrote the petitioners, requesting them to take the child once more. They agreed
to do so only if they might be permitted to adopt her. The mother agreed to
this plan, saying that she was entering the hospital and might not survive. No
further word was received from the mother, but at the tune of the adoption the
attorney for the petitioners made an unsuccessful attempt to have personal
service made on her. The adoption was allowed without consent.
A child born out of wedlock and placed by the superintendent of a hospital
was adopted without consent and before the report from the State department
was received. The petition showed that the parents deserted the child at birth
and had not supported her for a year. Abandonment proceedings were not
instituted, however, and no attempt was made to locate the mother either by
publication or otherwise.
A married couple answered a newspaper advertisement, and a man who claimed
to be the baby’s father brought a 12-day-old baby boy to them. No papers
were signed. Three years later .the petition for adoption was filed. No informa
tion about the parents could then be obtained and there was no evidence to show
that consent of any kind was obtained or that the juvenile court had adjudged
the child to be abandoned.
A child was accepted by an agency on the .oral relinquishment of the mother.
Later unsuccessful attempts were made to verify the mother’s story and to locate
her; but “ believing the child permanently abandoned,” the agency placed him
in a permanent home. When a year had passed without any word from the
mother, adoption proceedings were started. Although the child was considered
“ abandoned” no action was taken in a juvenile court, but notice may have been
served on the mother by publication.
A mother left her child in an institution for temporary care. Later she wrote
asking that the child be permanently placed, but a relinquishment was never
signed. The child’s birth certificate gave the name of a legal father, but the
agency reported that the judge had instructed the attorney to indicate in the peti
tion for adoption that the father was dead. The State department questioned
the petition and asked the agency to make an attempt to verify the whereabouts
of the parents and to institute abandonment proceedings if the parents could not
be found. The agency was also advised to have the petition rewritten correctly.
Although an unsuccessful attempt was made to locate the parents, nothing else
was done, and the adoption was granted in spite of the faulty petition and without
abandonment proceedings.

Special provisions in State laws for the waiver of parental consent
under certain circumstances deprived the surviving parent in six cases
of the right to consent to the adoption of the child because of loss
of custody through divorce, imprisonment, or adjudged insanity. The
special provisions in Massachusetts and Rhode Island as to consent
of nonresident parents affected four children, each of whom had a
surviving parent not a resident of the State. Although notice of the
adoption was published in these cases, no consent to the adoption of
these children was obtained.
In the remaining adoptions in which no consent was given the court
apparently waived consent. In one case the petitioner was the child’s
legal guardian. The court decision overruled the refusal of a parent
to give consent in the following cases.
A maternal aunt was the petitioner for the adoption of a child whose mother
had died. In the course of the investigation the father was located. He had
remarried, and both he and his wife expressed a desire to have the child. Accord-

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

COURTS

ingly he refused to consent to the adoption. The father had failed to support the
child and had not shown any interest in her during the 8 years she had lived with
her aunt. Although the court found that the child was abandoned this finding
might well be challenged.
The father of a little boy permitted the petitioners to care for him after the
mother’s death in childbirth. He insisted that he did not wish to give the child
up permanently, however, and refused to give consent to the adoption. In spite
of this, the adoption was granted when the child was 14 months old.

The mother of a child died soon after the birth of the baby. The father claimed
that he had left the girl at the hospital until he could establish a home for her and
that he had given labor amounting to about $85 in part payment for the child’s
care. The hospital superintendent denied this and said the father had never done
anything for the child and had not answered letters regarding plans for her. Four
months after the mother’s death the father remarried and moved to another State.
When he was visited after the receipt of the adoption petition he denied any knowl
edge of the child’s placement and refused to give consent. The adoption was
granted without the father’s consent, although 6 months later this was obtained
and filed with the record.
Consent not reported.

Of the 22 adoptions for which the records in the State department
did not contain information regarding consent 12 were in Minnesota
and North Dakota, where the State department had not received a
copy of the petition because investigation was waived by the court.
One adoption was granted in California after an appeal to the supe
rior court when the State department refused to accept the consent of
the parent because its investigation indicated that adoption was
inadvisable. Apparently the court had overruled this decision and
accepted consent in open court.
THE SOCIAL INVESTIGATION AND REPORT TO THE COURT
ATTITUDE OF JUDGES

Of the 69 judges interviewed, 17 expressed unqualified approval of
the investigation and report made by the State department, and 32
favored the procedure. The principle of a social investigation was
accepted by 8 judges who expressed some reservations about the ad
ministrative procedure used in their States. Only 1 judge was defi
nitely opposed to the investigation, although 10 judges raised objec
tions to certain aspects of the plan. One judge was unaware that
there was a provision for investigation in his State.
The most enthusiastic response to the inquiry came from the judges
in Minnesota, where the provision for investigation had existed longest,
and most of those seen expressed satisfaction in being able to share
responsibility in adoptions with the State department. In this State,
as well as in some jurisdictions in other States, the State department
was looked upon as a partner working with the courts in the interests of
the child. A few judges went so far as to say they would not wish to
make a decision in an adoption without the help of the State depart
ment. One judge said that at first he had felt that the provision for
investigation would interfere with the work of the court but that he
now appreciated its value.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

100

PRO BLEM S AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

A few judges serving in rural areas were inclined to discount the
value of the investigation because they knew “ practically everyone in
the county.” One such judge served a county with a population of
approximately 135,000 and an area of about 20,000 square miles.
Others were less extravagant in their statements, there is oiten a
question whether a judge has sufficient knowledge of a family to deter
mine their suitability to adopt a child unless he has available an
unbiased report of the whole situation.
. 1.
,
A few judges were of the opinion that anyone wishing to adopt a
child must be motivated by a charitable impulse and therefore would
make a satisfactory foster parent. Accordingly, these judges con
sidered an investigation unnecessary. They had little appreciation ot
the need for knowing the child and his background or of the importance
of having the child and the foster family suited to each other.
It was evident that opposition to the provision for an investigation
and report was not always based on principle or a difference in philoso
phy but often resulted from a personal dislike for any action which
interfered in any way with procedures that had long been accepted as
prerogatives of the court. One judge could see no need for a detailed
investigation when the petitioners belonged to one of the better
families” in the community; another considered the investigation a
“ needless expense,” since unwise adoptions were rarely discovered
through the investigation; a third thought the discretionary power oi
the court was hampered by the requirement that air adoptions be
referred to the State department for investigation. One judge had
been in conflict with the State department over a case m which his
procedure had been irregular, and as a result he was not in sympathy
with the procedure of the State department; and one judge said he
thought there was danger of making too extensive an investigation
in these cases, but he did not explain just what he feared..
The only judge who expressed definite opposition to the investigation
resented the fact that the State department had assumed judicial
functions.” His attitude was probably the result of action taken by
the State department on a case which was pending at the time the
visit to him was made and which involved a question that he considered
it was the responsibility of the court to decide.
The most general complaint was the delay involved in making the
investigations. This was frequently a just criticism which might have
been overcome to some extent had more effort been made by the State
departments to explain the reason for the delay in each case.
The judges who questioned the administrative procedure m inves
tigations were more constructive in their criticism than most of the
others. They thought the investigations would be more satisfactory
and would be made with less delay if a local agency were made respon
sible for them. One judge suggested, however, that the State depart
ment review all investigations and provide leadership m the adoption
P Tke attitude of the court toward the reports submitted to it was
obtained only from 59 judges in 8 States. Wisconsin judges were
excluded because all reports in this State did not come from the State
department and the situation was, therefore, not comparable with
that in the other States included in the study.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

COURTS

101

On the whole, the judges were uncritical of the reports and had
accepted them without much thought as to their adequacy. Only
three judges expressed real dissatisfaction with the reports received
and nine thought occasional supplementation was needed. The others
were generally satisfied.
One judge had been so dissatisfied with the early reports sent to
his court by the State department that he had prepared a blank form
and had requested that this be used for future reports so that he would
be certain to receive the information he thought necessary. He con
sidered the reports from the State department so meager as to be
almost useless and said they did not even include the facts called for
by the law. Apparently no effort had been made to explain to him
that more information was being included in later reports from the
State department, but instead the form prepared by the judge was
still used at the time the visit to the State was made.
Four of the nine judges interviewed in one State, where the reports
from the State department gave almost no specific information, had
made it a practice to supplement the reports by conferences with the
local worker who had made the investigation.. One of these judges
placed so much reliance on the judgment of the local worker that he
usually asked her to make a preliminary investigation before a petition
was accepted and would not permit the filing of a petition for adoption
if it was decided that an adoption was unwise. Two Rhode Island
judges preferred the reports from the State department to those from
the private agency sharing the responsibility for investigation of
adoptions because they contained more information.
A Minnesota judge implied that he would prefer additional informa
tion but said he had confidence in both the local welfare agency and the
State department and that he therefore was willing to accept their
opinion without substantiation although he always questioned the
petitioners in the course of the hearing.
Only one of the three judges expressing dissatisfaction with the
reports from the State department had clearly defined reasons. He
desired additional information about both the child and the foster
fam ily and said he also wanted a definite statement from the State
department as to the advisability of granting the adoption even though
this was not in the form of a specific recommendation.
There was no evidence that the adequacy of the investigation bad
been questioned by the courts when a favorable report was made nor
was there any indication that the courts had disagreed with recom
mendations for approval. On the other hand, there was not equal
acceptance of reports in which there had been either specific or implied
disapproval of an adoption.
COURT DECISIONS AFTER REPORTS WERE RECEIVED

A comparison of the opinions expressed by State departments as to
the desirability of the adoption with the action taken by the court is
shown in table 26.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBLEM S AN D PROCEDUREIS IN

102

ADOPTION

T a b l e 26.— Report to the court as to desirability o f adoption, by relation to the action
taken by the court
Children for whom petitions were filed
Disposition of petition b y court
Report to the court as to desirability
of adoption

Total

Petition
Case
Interlocu
Decree tory order not grant pending
or no ac
ed or
granted
granted dismissed tion taken

N ot
reported

2,041

1,718

177

Adoption a p p roved ...

1,604

1,509

Desirable________
Satisfactory--------W ith reservations.
N ot classified____

919
393
192
100

884
368
164
93

12
6
5

4
2
2

17
13
20
4

2
4
1
3

Deferral of action advised.
Adoption not approved...
N o report made---------------

21
89
327

12
37
160

9
34
80

2
36

Total.

16
51

Adoptions approved by the State department.

A decree of adoption or an interlocutory order was granted in most
of the cases in which the petition for adoption was approved by the
State department, although 8 petitions had been formally dismissed
after withdrawal of the consent of the parent, death of the foster par
ent, or change of plan for the care of the child. The 54 petitions
approved by the State department on which no formal action was,taken
illustrate some interesting situations. Although in 4 cases it was
known that the plan for adoption had been given up or that parental
consent had been withdrawn, no formal action had been taken by the
court. Action was deferred on 7 petitions because undesirable condi
tions had developed in the home after the social investigation was com
pleted. In the remaining cases no effort evidently had been made by
the court or by the petitioners or their attorneys to complete the
adoption; in fact, a check of these cases made by the Children’s
Bureau after the visit to the State showed that action still had not been
taken, although in many cases 2 or 3 years had elapsed since the
petition had been filed.
Deferral of action advised.

Because of some undesirable situation associated with the adoption
that in time might be corrected or overcome, deferral of action for a
specified period or indefinitely was advised by the State department in
21 cases. This plan apparently was accepted by the court in 11 cases,
since in addition to 9 cases in which no action had yet been taken there
were 2 cases in which the decree was not granted until the conditions
in the recommendations had been met. On the other hand, the court
ignored the advice of the State department in 10 cases. The following
cases in which deferral of action was advised illustrate the wide
difference in the social understanding of the judges hearing adoption
cases.
A petition was filed for the adoption of a foundling after he had been in the
home about 4% months. The State department recommended postponement
of proceedings for a year so that legal action might be taken to declare the child
legally abandoned. The court abided by this recommendation, and the decree
was not granted until the child was V/% years old.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TH E

COURTS

103

A child born to a married woman whose husband denied paternity was placed
in the foster home by his mother at the age of 7 months. After he had been in
the home about 2 months a petition for his adoption was filed. The husband
refused to give his consent, believing that this would be an admission of paternity.
The State department recommended postponement of proceedings because of the
mother’s expressed interest in the child’s possible return. It was recommended
that the child remain in the foster home a year and that abandonment proceedings
then be started if paternity was not established. Nevertheless, the adoption was
granted 4 days after the report was received.
A child had been placed in the foster home by her maternal grandfather when
she was 9 years of age. After she had been in the foster home
years a petition
for her adoption was filed. The State department recommended an indefinite
postponement of proceedings because the attitude of the foster father had once
made it necessary to remove a ward of a child-placing agency from the home.
The judge agreed to the delay, but during his absence from the court the adoption
was granted by an “ acting judge.”
Adoptions not approved by the State department.

Because of the relatively small number of reports in which clear
disapproval of the adoption was expressed and the evident, unwilling
ness of State departments to express their disapproval of an adoption
even when approval was qualified by many reservations, the action
taken on disapproved adoptions is especially significant. A decree
was granted in more than two-thirds of the 53 cases on which formal
action was taken.
Analysis of the records of the 37 children for whom an adoption
decree had been granted despite the disapproval of a State department
showed that the action of the court in 14 cases was probably sound,
since the child had an assured place in the family into which he was
adopted. Two of these children were adopted by stepparents, 6 by
grandparents, and 6 by persons not related to the child. The dis
approval of the State department of the adoptions by relatives was due
to undesirable conditions in the home or to the insecurity involved in
the adoption of a young child by persons of advanced age. Unwise
placement of the child in the home was the basis of the objection of the
State department to the adoption of children by persons not related
to them, the probability of retarded mental growth of the child being
the issue in most of these cases. The following cases illustrate these
situations.
A child who was about 2 years of age when her mother married had been in the
home with her stepfather for almost 4 years. The home was not a satisfactory
one. The mother was mentally retarded, the father was unemployed, and the
child appeared to be mentally deficient. The motive for the adoption was not
noted in the record, but the meager report presented to the court did not give
justifiable reasons for not allowing the adoption. The court, therefore, probably
concluded that since the mother was in the home and the child would continue to
live there, the wisest procedure was to make the stepfather legally responsible for
her.
_______
The maternal grandparents petitioned for the adoption of children, aged 6, 7,
and 9 years, who had always lived in their home. The State department questioned
the adoption because the two petitioners were in their sixties and because the father
of the children would, through the adoption, be relieved of his responsibility.
The record showed that the father and mother had been divorced and that the
father had paid almost nothing toward the support of the children, although an
order of $75 a month had been made at the time of the divorce. He opposed the
adoption but failed to appear in court in response to an order to show cause why

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

104

PROBLEMS AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

it should not be granted. The income of the grandparents was barely adequate,
but apparently it had met the cost of care for the children during the time they
had been in the home. Since there seemed little basis for an assumption that
the father would take his responsibility more seriously if the adoption was not
permitted, the court followed the more practical course and granted the petition.

A child who was placed in a home on a boarding basis when less than 2 months
old had remained there for 4 years and had become an integral part of the family.
Culturally the home was considered desirable, but the State department dis
approved the adoption because the family had 6 children of their own and an
uncertain, inadequate income. The court apparently was of the opinion that this
situation was mitigated by the fact that the whole family was devoted to the
child and that the parents had succeeded admirably in educating their own children
despite their limited financial resources.

A child 1 year of age was placed in a modest but satisfactory middle-class
home, where she remained for 6 years. Her mother was mentally retarded and
psychotic, and because of this undesirable family background the adoption was
not approved. The foster parents had grown fond of the child and were willing to
accept her with all her limitations. For this reason the court should not be criti
cized for permitting the adoption and terminating the guardianship of an unstable
and uninterested mother, who at any time might take the child away.

A child placed by a doctor through an advertisement at the age of 3% months
had been in the home of the petitioners for 4^ years when they petitioned for her
adoption. After investigation, the State department advised against the adoption
because two members of the child’s own family were mentally deficient and the
income of the foster family was too low to provide adequate care. The petitioners
had the child examined at the school clinic and apparently were satisfied with the
results of the examination. The home was one that a good child-placing agency
would never have selected as a foster home, but for a child who had been a member
of the family for so many years, refusal to permit adoption would have worked a
decided hardship.
A friend of the petitioners was responsible for the placement of a baby girl,
aged 3% months, in the home of a substantial middle-class skilled workman.
After the child had been in the home 7^ months, the family petitioned for her
adoption. The child was reported as “ a lovely child to look at,” but an examina
tion at the psychology laboratory resulted in a prediction that she would probably
not progress much beyond grammar school. This report was the basis for the
disapproval of the State department. Both petitioners were willing to take this
risk, although they knew that this was the mother’s third child born out of wedlock
and that the father was dull mentally and had been in frequent conflict with the
law. It was unfortunate that this family had not obtained .a child who could
profit by the opportunities it had to offer, but only an unusual judge would have
refused to permit the adoption when, knowing all the risks it was taking, the family
wished to make the child legally its own.

The records of the remaining 23 cases in which an adoption was
granted despite disapproval of a State department gave no evidence
that the court was justified in overruling the recommendation of the
department. The reports of the social investigations in many of these
cases showed serious situations that would vitally affect the welfare
of the child, and the granting of an adoption in these cases showed
failure of the judges to recognize the full significance of establishing
a new family relationship for a child. The following case histories
illustrate some of these situations.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

'TH E GOUHTB

105

The parents of a 9-year-old boy, who had been adopted by his paternal grand
father at the age of 4, petitioned for his readoption. Both the father and the
mother had long court histories. The boy did not wish to return to them be
cause they were abusive when intoxicated. The natural parents had not estab
lished a home and were reported as unfit mentally and morally as well as finan
cially to care for the child. The mother started divorce proceedings while the
adoption was pending. The petition was granted, however, because its dismissal
would have meant further service on the father. It was planned to give custody
to the mother when the divorce case was heard, but meanwhile the child returned
to the home of his grandfather.
A child was placed in the home of her maternal grandparents by her father
after her mother’s death. The father then remarried and took his other children
into his home, but this child had remained with the grandparents, who did not
maintain a friendly relationship with the father. He regretted giving his con
sent to the adoption and felt that through adoption the girl would be cut off
completely from her brothers, who were in his home. The State department
disapproved the adoption by the grandparents, but in spite of this it was allowed.

A child of 9 years who had been in the foster home only 5 months was adopted
by a family not related to him. The adoption had been disapproved because of
the mental condition of the foster father and the general atmosphere of the home.
A year after the adoption unfavorable reports about the home were received
by the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

A child adopted when she was 4 months old had been placed by her mother
at the age of 4 days in a home that had proved unsatisfactory for another child
placed by a private child-placing agency. The first child had been unduly
punished and was finally removed from the home, but in spite of this known
situation the court granted the decree.

A child had been brought into the home of her maternal grandmother by her
mother when she was almost 2 years of age. The mother died' from pulmonary
tuberculosis shortly after, and the father was in the State prison. The grand
mother’s husband had deserted his first wife and two daughters and had lived
with the grandmother for more than a year before her marriage to him. The
child was reported to be “ anemic, fragile, and nervous.” The report to the
court brought out the fact that both the petitioners had unsavory reputations.
It was suggested that the child would have a better chance with the paternal
grandparents, who had joined the father in protesting the adoption, but in spite
of this the decree was granted 3 days after the report was sent to the court.

A mother placed her 4-month-old baby for boarding care in the home of a
woman more than 65 years of age. The child remained in this home for nearly
5 years, the mother paying regularly for her care. As the time for the child to
enter school approached, the mother was disturbed about the birth certificate
and accordingly the boarding mother agreed to petition to adopt, with the under
standing that the mother would continue to pay $5 a week board. An attempt
was made to have the mother recognize the mistake she was making, and a strong
disapproval was sent to the court, but nevertheless the adoption was granted
6 days after the report to the court.

Although a decree of adoption was not granted in 50 of the cases
in which adoption was disapproved by the State department, only 16
of these were formally dismissed by the court. A review of these
dismissed cases showed that the decision of the court had been sup-

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

106

PROBLEM S AND PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION

ported by some evidence of the undesirability of adoption in addition
to that of the State department. The special factors influencing
dismissal in these cases are shown in the following list:
Consent of parents withdrawn--------------------Petitioners disappeared______________________________________
Two petitions filed for the same child-----------------------------------Subsequent juvenile-court action for neglect--------------------------Petitioner’s attorney recommended withdrawal----------------------Protests of persons in the community------ _---------------------------More desirable plan for care by other relatives--------- -----------Legal ineligibility of the petitioner. --------------------------------------Adoption unnecessary------------------------------------------------------------

4
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1

No action had been taken by the court on 34 petitions and no
information was available for 2 others. In most of these cases, as
in the approved petitions, decisions had been made to give up the
plan or no effort had been made by the petitioners or their attorneys
to complete the adoption. In a few cases court action had been
deferred, presumably to obtain more facts concerning the advantages
or disadvantages of the adoption. Advice given to the petitioners by
the representative of the State department at the time of making the
investigation had been a factor in many of the decisions to give up
the plan for adoption. One of the great values of a social investiga
tion is the opportunity that it affords for giving sound advice to
persons contemplating an adoption that would be undesirable either
for themselves or for the child.
The fact that adoption petitions which had been disapproved some
times were not brought to the attention of the court indicated that
attorneys hesitated to present petitions which did not have the ap
proval of the State department. The lack of protection to the child
under such circumstances was recognized in Minnesota, and accord
ingly in 1927 the adoption law was amended to permit the State
Board of Control to take the initiative and move for the dismissal of
a disapproved petition.56 A similar provision was included in the
Alabama adoption law enacted in 1931.57 In Minnesota it was
reported that from 1930 through 1934 the State Board of Control had
moved to dismiss the petition in only three cases. However, the
adoption supervisor thought it doubtful that such action would be
taken again, because the motion to dismiss made a special hearing
essential and the procedure was therefore expensive. It was her
opinion that other methods could afford equal protection to the
child.
No report on the desirability of the adoption.

As has been brought out in the discussion of table 23, many of the
cases for which there was no report to the court on the desirability of
the adoption were those in which a decision had been made to give up
the plan for adoption. A decree was granted in slightly less than half
of these cases, 51 cases were dismissed, and no action was taken or no
report made in 116 cases.
The 160 petitions for adoption which were granted without a report
to the court included 28 adoptions sponsored by the Minnesota State
School for Dependent Children, 36 adoptions of children in the care of
private agencies in Massachusetts, and 22 adoptions of children born
m
n

Minnesota, Laws of 1937, ch. 170, N o. 1.
Alabama, Gen. Acts 1931, N o. 405, sec. 1: B, p. 505.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TH E

COURTS

107

out of wedlock in Wisconsin, to which consent had been given by the
State department. Another group consisted of 51 adoptions granted
by the courts after formal waiver of the investigation or before the
investigation was completed. An investigation had been made in
many of the remaining cases, but the report made to the court gave
no clear indication of the opinion of the State department about the
adoption, although in some cases problems associated with the
adoption had been called to the attention of the court.
ANNULMENT OF ADOPTION

Adoption laws state that upon adoption a child becomes the legal
child of the person adopting him, and many laws further clarify the
situation by stating that the relationship between the adoptive parents
and the child is that of a natural parent and a legitimate child. Adop
tive parents have the right to give consent to a child’s adoption; they
may appeal to the authority responsible for commitment to a State
institution if the child is feeble-minded, insane, or epileptic; and their
rights may be terminated by a juvenile court in accordance with the
existing provisions for dependent, neglected, or delinquent children.
But although a natural parent cannot repudiate his minor child if the
child is feeble-minded, insane, epileptic, or afflicted with a venereal
disease, this privilege had been given to the adoptive parent in Ala
bama, Minnesota, and Wisconsin at the time of the study, and a
similar law was enacted in California in 1937.58
These laws closely resembled the act passed in Minnesota in 1917,
which permitted annulment of an adoption if within 5 years after adop
tion the child developed feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, insanity, or
venereal infection as a result of conditions existing before adoption
and of which the adopting parents had no knowledge or notice. The
Alabama law also authorized annulment if at any time the adoptive
parents failed to perform faithfully their obligations to the child. The
California law did not permit annulment because of venereal disease,
and the Wisconsin law authorized action to be taken any time before
the fifteenth birthday of the child.
Provision had been made in each of these States to protect the rights
of the child in annulment proceedings. In Alabama it was the duty of
the court hearing the petition for annulment to make proper disposi
tion of the child, either by commitment to a State institution or by
referral to the juvenile court, and to notify the State department of the
action taken. The clerk of the court in California was required to
notify the State department when an action to annul an adoption was
brought, and it was the duty of the State department to appear before
the court within 60 days to represent the adopted child.69 The county
attorney in Minnesota was responsible for representing the child in an
action to annul an adoption, and if annulment was allowed, the court
hearing the petition had authority to commit the child to the guardian
ship of the State Board of Control. The court hearing the petition for
annulment in Wisconsin was authorized to make the State Board of
Control the legal guardian of the child after the adoption had been
ss Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 506, sec. 9302D; Minnesota, M ason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 8631; Wisconsin, Stat.
1939, sec. 322.09 (2) ¡ California, Deering’s Civil Code, 1937, sec. 227b.
59 A law enacted in California in 1939 (Laws of 1939, eh. 1102) required the court “ to direct the district
attorney or a psychopathic probation officer, or any suitable person” to make future plans for the child.

249071°— 41------8

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

108

PROBLEM S A N D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION'

revoked. That the provisions of the adoption law and other laws were
not always coordinated is evidenced by the fact that some of the courts
hearing adoptions in Minnesota and Wisconsin did not have juris
diction to commit a child to the guardianship of the State depart
ment. These inconsistencies had been overcome in practice, how
ever, by referring cases to the juvenile court, which had authority
to take jurisdiction in such matters and to plan for the child.
Undoubtedly the early annulment laws were intended to protect
foster parents from the consequences of ill-advised adoptions. The
investigation before adoption and the required residence period in the
foster home have greatly reduced the possibility that foster parents
will be ignorant of physical and mental weaknesses in the child. Fos
ter parents in Wisconsin were asked to sign a statement to the effect
that they had been informed of the child’s liabilities if the investigation
uncovered any history making this procedure advisable. In the other
States the foster parents were usually told of any undesirable history
in order to remove possible grounds for annulment.
Wisconsin was the only State visited in which annulment of adoption
apparently had been used to any extent. Even in this State most of
the annulment proceedings involved adoptions granted before the
passage of the annulment provision. No adoptions were annulled in
Alabama in the 5 years its law had been in operation, and the single
petition for annulment filed in Minnesota was denied, possibly because
the adoptive father was the natural father of the child.
Of the five petitions for annulment filed in Wisconsin from the time
the law was passed in 1929 until August 1, 1936, two were granted.
Most of these actions were based on the mental deficiency of the child,
although one petition alleged that the child had developed “ insanity,
feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, and venereal disease.” The following
cases illustrate the possibilities of abuse of annulment laws.
A girl who was committed to a local public institution when she was 2 years
old was adopted the next year after being in the foster home about 5 months.
Eight years later the probation office received a report that the child was being
mistreated. The investigation showed that the foster parents were using poor
judgment in handling the child, but mistreatment could not be proved and the
case was closed. Two years later the foster parents came to the detention home,
complaining that the child was uncontrollable and they feared she was mentally
ill. The county hospital to which the child was sent for observation decided
she was not committable, although it was agreed that the foster parents were
incapable of taking care of her. The foster parents then filed a petition asking
that parental rights be terminated. While the hearing was pending on this
petition the child was temporarily committed to a county institution and the
foster parents were ordered to pay $3 a week for her support. A month later the
juvenile court decided that parental rights could not be terminated since the
only reason for the action was the antagonism of the foster parents toward the
chiid. A petition was filed asking that the adoption be annulled because the
child had developed insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, and venereal disease.
The mental-hygiene clinic reported that the child was neither feeble-minded nor
mentally unbalanced but was the product of unusual social and physical experi
ences. The petition for annulment was denied because of insufficient evidence,
but parental rights were terminated shortly after by the juvenile court and the
child was recommitted to the local public institution which originally had placed
her in the foster home.
A boy who was found to be neglected and dependent after the separation of
his parents and who probably was placed by the county probation officer was
adopted 2 weeks after placement. Some 3 years after the adoption the foster

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T H E COURTS

109

parents had a child of their own. The adopted child had difficulty in school,
and after 2 years in the first grade he was transferred to the opportunity room,
not because he was mentally defective but because he presented behavior problems.
Later it was reported that the child was disobedient; that he ran around the streets
and failed to come home; that he attempted to disrobe girls; that he struck his
foster father and threatened him with a knife; that he was still in the second grade
after 4 years of school attendance; that he told lies, ran away, stole, smoked,
swore, and was ambitious to become a bandit. The school reported that the boy
had an intelligence quotient of 93. Later tests gave him intelligence quotients
of 82 and 89. The child was committed to the State school for the feeble-minded,
and a petition for annulment of the adoption was filed 10 days later. The foster
father was a county official, and the judge apparently had made his decision before
the hearing. The State department made an extensive investigation before the
hearing but the judge ruled that the report of a recent mental test could not be
used as evidence; that the child was insane if not feeble-minded; and that the
testimony of the worker from the State department was hearsay and therefore
not admissible. The adoption was annulled, but the Board of Control sitting as
a commission of lunacy found the child neither insane nor feeble-minded and asked
that the case be taken back to court. At a second hearing, at which the board
was represented by a member of the staff of the attorney general’s office, the child
was found not to be feeble-minded, but the order annulling the adoption was not
vacated. Instead, a finding of dependency and neglect was made, and the child
was committed to the State public school. Here it was found that a peculiar
eye condition made it impossible for him to see the blackboard from any position
in the schoolroom and that his retardation was due largely to his inability to see,
although he was dull-normal in intelligence. At the institution it was reported
that he was doing fair work in the second grade and that it was expected he would
do much better the next year. The institution had had no trouble with him and
reported that he got along well with other boys.
This case illustrates the abuse possible in the administration of a provision for
annulment of adoption. Because of the antagonism between parents and child
the best interests of the child required that a plan for him be made outside the
home. Nevertheless, a natural parent of similar economic standing probably
would not have been permitted to disclaim all financial responsibility under
corresponding conditions. Greater care at the time the original petition for
adoption was filed might have disclosed the liabilities of the child and the foster
parents, with the result that the plan to adopt could have been discouraged and
the persons concerned would have been spared much unhappiness.

A thorough investigation of all the circumstances makes it difficult
for an unfit person to adopt a child, but if an adoption should be
granted the court would have the inherent right to set it aside, even
though the statutes did not have a provision permitting annulment.
An example of such an action was reported in Minnesota.
A child was placed in a foster home through the efforts of two doctors and an
attorney. A petition for adoption was filed about a month after the placement.
The judge who regularly heard adoptions was having his summer vacation, and
his substitute was persuaded to waive the investigation and residence period and
to grant the adoption immediately. As soon as his action became known, a
petition was filed to have the order set aside because the foster mother had deceived
the court. Testimony was presented to show that she had been arrested and
convicted for drunkenness and was not a satisfactory person to be awarded the
care of a child. The evidence against the foster mother was so damaging that
the court annulled the order of adoption, and steps were taken immediately to
remove the child from the home.

The Wisconsin law made the State department a party to the
proceedings in any action in which the validity of an adoption was
an issue and provided that action could be taken only within 2 years
after the decree was granted. Notice had to be served upon the State
Board of Control in the same manner as upon an adverse party.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

110

PROBLEM S A N D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

The infrequent use made of the provision for annulment in the
States visited can probably be accepted as an indication that there
is little need for such a provision, particularly when an investigation
precedes each adoption order.
COURT PROCEDURE

The information about court procedure was obtained by interviews
with 69 judges in the 9 States included in the study and with the clerk
of court or an employee in the clerk’s office in 61 jurisdictions in
these States.
THE PETITION

New Mexico was the only State in which the form for the petition
used in an adoption was required by statute to be furnished by the
State department, although this plan was used in a few other States.60
In the other States visited some degree of uniformity was achieved
only because commercial firms preparing blank forms sometimes con
sulted the State department about a suitable form for an adoption
petition. Even when a printed form was available, however, attorneys
often drafted their own petitions.
The lack of essential information in some of these petitions fre
quently handicapped the State department when the investigation
was undertaken. On the other hand, it was apparent that the unusual
circumstances in some adoptions would make the use of a standard
form difficult unless it was supplemented by additional information.
USE OF AN ATTORNEY

The technical rules and practices followed in a court of law have
resulted in the general use of legally qualified attorneys for actions
presented for the court’s consideration. Accordingly, when statutory
provisions for adoption were first enacted in the States it was probably
expected that the petitioners would employ legal counsel. As long as
the adoption procedure was new and untried the use of an attorney
may have been advisable, but as legal formalities were simplified, the
need for an attorney’s services in uncontested adoptions has been con
siderably lessened.
The adoption laws of the States visited made no mention of the use
of an attorney, but in Wisconsin it was reported that a conscious effort
had been made to draft the adoption law so that the petitioner could
decide whether to retain the services of an attorney.
The judges of the courts in three counties in Alabama, four in Wis
consin, and two in New Mexico reported that attorneys were not
required and were not generally employed. The county worker fre
quently prepared the petition in two of these Alabama counties, and
in one the petition often was made out in the judge’s office under his
general supervision. The court of one urban county in Wisconsin
employed an attorney to assist in drawing up legal papers, and
petitioners in adoption cases were referred to him for help, although
no attempt was made to discourage the use of private attorneys.
The judges in two other counties in Wisconsin made out the necessary
papers, and in the fourth county the judge said that although he pre
ferred to do this he did not always have time. The adoption forms
«o N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-107.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

'TH E COURTS

111

were kept in the office of the clerk of court in one county in New Mex
ico, and the clerk assisted the petitioners in making out the necessary
papers when an attorney was not employed. The clerk of the court
and the local worker making adoption investigations in another New
Mexico county reported that it was unusual to have an attorney in
adoption cases, although the judge said an attorney was required.
The staff member making adoption investigations for the local publicwelfare agency in this county customarily assumed the responsibility
for preparing the petition and for making up the order of adoption
for the judge’s signature.
All the judges interviewed in California and Rhode Island required
that the petitioners be represented by an attorney. Fifteen judges in
the remaining States said an attorney was ordinarily used, although
not definitely required; in the other States the judges preferred to
have the petitioners represented by an attorney, the preference of two
of these judges being so strong as to amount to a requirement. Ap
parently the precedent for using an attorney was so strong in these
localities that it was rarely suggested that the proceeding could be
handled satisfactorily without legal counsel.
The usual reason for requiring an attorney was to assure the court
that the papers were properly prepared. Occasionally legal assistance
was apparently essential to insure the observance of all technicalities
in the law; but, on the whole, this did not seem necessary. It was
clear, however, that the courts were relieved of much work when an
attorney was employed. The attorney for the petitioners often prac
tically conducted the hearing, and the order for adoption was often
made up by the attorney before the hearing so that it would be ready
for the judge’s signature.
HEARINGS

Character of the hearing.

In addition to the general use of hearings in court procedure, the
need for a hearing in each adoption case doubtless grew out of a pro
vision in the early adoption laws making it the duty of the court to
determine whether the petitioners were “ of sufficient ability to bring
up the child and furnish suitable nurture and education.” 61 At the
time these laws were enacted it was only through the hearing that the
court had an opportunity to obtain information on these questions.
The need for a hearing is greatly reduced when the court has the
report of an investigation made by the State department. However,
when an adoption is contested, a hearing permits the petitioners to
have their day in court, and testimony taken at that time may serve
to supplement the report to the court.
Pressure of other legal business and the lessening need for a hearing
probably explained why adoption hearings had become more and more
routine. Many courts continued them because it was the accepted
practice or because the statutes required a hearing, but it was doubtful
whether the few minutes given to each case had any value for the court,
the petitioners, or the child. In one court visited less than 10 minutes
was spent on each adoption case heard, and this was probably typical
of the amount of time spent on such hearings elsewhere.
The laws of all the States visited had some provision for a hearing,
although the California law did not use this term but required the
61 Massachusetts, Laws of 1851, ch. 324, sec. 5.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

112

PROBLEM S AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

appearance of the petitioners and the child before the court. Except
in the California and Wisconsin laws a hearing attended by specified
persons was not required. For example, some of the laws merely
stated that “ if upon hearing” the judge is satisfied as to the desirability
of the adoption he may grant a decree. Other laws referred to the
procedure of the court at the time appointed or the day set for the hear
ing but did not require that a date be set.62
Seven judges in Alabama, 1 in Massachusetts, 4 in Oregon, and 1 in
New Mexico reported that ordinarily they did not have a hearing in an
uncontested adoption case. One of these judges had dispensed with
hearings because he resented the responsibility which had been given
to the State department for investigating adoptions; the others thought
the report from the State department produced much more information
than a hearing and they therefore granted the adoption as soon as
they had received a favorable report. The remaining 56 judges held
hearings in all adoption cases.
Thirty-five judges heard adoption cases in open court, although a
definite effort was made by some of the judges to have the hearings at
a time when the courtroom was relatively empty. This was usually
accomplished by holding the hearings at odd hours— 9 a. m., noon, or
late afternoon. One judge never set other hearings at the same time
as adoption hearings. At an adoption hearing attended in one State,
the petitioners and their witnesses went up to the bench, where the
conversation with the judge was carried on informally and in such a
low tone that it was inaudible to other persons in the courtroom. In
this State the report from the State department was sent to the court
in a sealed envelope, which was not opened until the time of the
hearing.
It was the practice in some of the urban areas to have adoption
hearings at the same time each week, when, as a rule, the only people
in the courtroom were those waiting for adoption hearings. Rarely
was any general plan followed in the rural counties. Instead, the few
adoption hearings coming before the court were held at any time con
venient for the court, the petitioners, and the attorneys. In the
Rhode Island towns in which the town council sat as a probate court,
the meetings were open to anyone wishing to attend. It was reported,
however, that ordinarily not more than 10 or 12 persons in addition
to the council were present at these sessions, and the procedure was
quite informal. The report from the State department was read
aloud. If witnesses were present they were questioned, but other
wise the petition was granted after the reading of the report.
In explaining why adoption hearings were held in open court one
judge said that he thought the purpose of the court’s participation
would be defeated if closed hearings were held; another judge said he
wished to make the proceedings formal in order to impress the foster
parents with the seriousness of their undertaking.
Regular juvenile-court procedure was followed in the two counties
visited in which adoption petitions were heard in the court hearing
juvenile cases. In one of these counties the judge and the interested
persons sat around a table in the courtroom, but the room did not
62 California, Deering’s C ivil Code 1937, sec. 227; Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 322.03 (1); Alabama, Laws of
1931 p 505, sec. 9302B; Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, secs. 4, 6; Minnesota, M ason’s
Stat 1927, secs. 8628, 8629; N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-113; North Dakota, Supp. 1925 to Comp.
Laws 1913 sec. 4447; Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, sec. 33-410; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1938, ch. 420, sec. 5.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TH E

COURTS

113

have the appearance of a court. The procedure was somewhat more
formal in the second county. The judge wore a robe and was seated
behind a long table. A few rows of chairs on a level with the judge’s
table were reserved for those having an interest in the case under
discussion. These persons waited in an outer room until their case
was called. All who were to give testimony were sworn at the same
time. A witness usually remained seated when giving his testimony.
Sixteen judges generally heard adoption petitions in their chambers,
but four others said that although the hearings were held in their
chambers, this was considered to be in open court. A few judges
explained that they adjourned to their chambers if there was any
reason for doing so. Five judges had the hearings in their offices,
which sometimes also served as the courtroom.
Attendance at the hearing.

The person giving consent was not required to appear at the hearing
in any of the States visited. The New Mexico law, however, required
that if persons whose consent was necessary for an adoption were
residents of the State, they must appear either at the time the petition
was filed or at the time set for the hearing.63
The petitioners.— The presence of the petitioners at the adoption
hearing was required by the laws of California and Wisconsin, and
none of the judges in these States reported any exceptions to the rule.64
However, a requirement in the California law that the court “ examine
all persons appearing before it pursuant to this section, each sepa
rately” did not always receive the same interpretation. Only 2 of
the 10 judges interviewed in this State reported that each petitioner
was questioned separately. One of these judges thought that only
by such procedure could he determine to his own satisfaction whether
both petitioners were equally anxious to adopt the child. A third
judge did not question the petitioners separately unless he had reason
to believe they were not in harmony about the adoption. The 7
remaining California judges either made no comment on the provision
or considered that directing separate questions to each of the peti
tioners was compliance with the provisions of the law.
Eighteen judges in the 7 States where the statutes were not specific
on this point required both petitioners to be present; 14 preferred both
petitioners to be present but would hear a case with only one petitioner
present; 2 required the presence of only one petitioner; and 15 either
had no hearing or did not require the presence of either petitioner,
although several of them reported that the petitioners were usually
seen at some time during the proceeding. Apparently no policy had
been adopted about this procedure in the 3 towns in Rhode Island
where adoption petitions were heard by the town council, but it was
explained that the councilmen were usually acquainted with the
petitioners.
The philosophy behind the practice of the judges regarding the pres
ence of the petitioners at adoption hearings was not learned. Some
judges apparently followed the procedure set by their predecessors on
the bench. Others wished to make the hearing as impressive as pos
sible and therefore wanted the petitioners present. Still others had
apparently accepted general court procedure and accordingly de« N ew Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 2-110.
m California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, sec. 227; Wisconsin, Stat. 1939, sec. 322.03 (2).

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

114

PROBLEM S AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

manded the presence of persons petitioning the court. The fact that
a judge did or did not require the presence of one or both petitioners in
an uncontested adoption was in no way indicative of his interest in
adoption. For example, one judge explained that in his opinion the
investigation of the petitioners by the State department was worth far
more than his casual observance of them in court and that accordingly
he did not require their presence.
Without exception, the judges interviewed said that they would
require the petitioners to be present if the adoption was contested, and
as a rule they agreed that the petitioners should be present when the
report to the court explicitly questioned the advisability of granting
the petition.
The child.— The presence of the child at the adoption hearing was
required by statute in California, and it was the duty of the court to
question him “ separately.” Apparently, the courts had interpreted
this provision liberally and practically. A child who was old enough to
comprehend the proceeding and respond intelligently was generally
asked if he wished to be adopted by his foster parents. At an adoption
hearing attended in this State, the child was questioned in the presence
of the foster parents, and probably this was the practice followed by
the courts elsewhere in the State.
The Wisconsin law required the child to be present if he was more
than 14 years of age. All the judges visited adhered to this require
ment and two judges specifically required children under 14 years of
age to be present. One judge usually requested that the child be
brought to the hearing; two judges preferred the child to be present
but did not demand this if it appeared impractical or the petitioners
objected to it; and the five remaining judges did not request children
less than 14 years of age to attend the hearing.
In the 7 other States only 11 judges always wanted the child to be
present. One judge required the child to be present in order to deter
mine whether he had jurisdiction. Another considered the appear
ance of the child helpful in deciding whether he had been well treated
and was happy in the home. A judge in one jurisdiction explained
that he usually insisted that the child be present at the hearing but that
he dismissed him from the courtroom if the testimony to be taken was
such that it seemed unwise for him to hear it. Five judges sometimes
required the child to attend the adoption hearing, particularly if he
was old enough to understand what was happening; 4 judges pre
ferred the child to be present but did not definitely require it; 27 judges
had never required the child to be in court; and 2 had no preference.
In all the States the judges reported that the child was frequently
brought to the hearing, and it was possible that both the judges and
the foster parents derived a good deal of satisfaction from the child’s
presence.
Without doubt, the attitude of the child toward the adoption should
be taken into consideration if he has reached the age of discretion.
One judge interpreted the age of discretion .as being the legal age at
which a child has the right to nominate his own guardian, so that in his
court a child more than 14 years of age presumably was given the
opportunity to express his preference, whereas no questions were
asked of a child less than 14 years of age even though he was old

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TH E

COURTS

115

enough to know his own mind and to have decided ideas about the
proposed adoption.
There might be some doubt about obtaining a frank statement from
a child at the time of the adoption hearing because of the strange sur
roundings and the presence of the foster parents. However, the desires
of the child himself, unless he is too young to have a preference, should
not be overlooked at the time of the investigation, and a definite effort
should be made to learn his wishes before a final decision is reached.
Even the child who seemingly has become satisfactorily adjusted to a
stepfather or to a home that is not his own may have an emotional
conflict over entering into a legal relationship which will sever his
connection with his own family, and when this is true the court should
be made aware of it.
The advantages and disadvantages of the child’s presence in court
are sometimes difficult to measure. The experience may help to give
the older child a sense of security in his adoptive home that he would
not otherwise have. On the other hand, when the court allows the
adoption proceedings to be used as publicity material, the child’s pres
ence may be disadvantageous to him, especially when his picture
appears in the newspaper with certain facts about him and his foster
parents. There is probably little value to the court in having the child
present when the results of a social investigation and of physical and
mental examinations are available, for these provide a much sounder
basis for action than a few minutes’ observation possibly can.
Representation of the State department.— The investigation and
report to the court afforded protection to children only insofar as
the findings were accepted. Although the study indicated that
relatively few adoption petitions were questioned in the reports to the
court, further interpretation of the report at the time of the hearing
might have resulted in more general acceptance of a State depart
ment’s recommendation.
When an adverse report is made to the court it is to be expected
that the attorney for the petitioners will try to prove at the hearing
that the recommendation of the State department is unfair to his
clients. Accordingly, there is an advantage in having a representative
from the department available to give direct testimony on the findings
and to interpret the facts presented to the court. This representative
may be a person who has made the investigation or the director of
the division responsible for the investigation of adoption petitions,
but he should be a person well fitted to give such testimony and
interpretation.
On the whole, the judges visited did not make a practice of having
a representative from the State department present at the hearing
on a disapproved adoption, although a few thought this might be
helpful. Others said that the State department received notice of
the hearing and was at liberty to send a representative. Several
judges discussed all cases, approved or disapproved, with the local
worker making the investigation, and they reported that these workers
frequently attended court at the time of the hearing. One judge
occasionally postponed the hearing in order to have an opportunity
to look up the record in the local child-welfare office and to obtain
additional facts on which to base his final decision.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

116

PROBLEM S AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

A judge who had never requested the presence of a representative
from the State department said that he could see a distinct advantage
in doing so in certain cases. He gave as an example a case in which
the maternal grandparents were the petitioners. On the day of the
hearing a letter was received from the child’s father, who was serving
a term in the State penitentiary, asking that he be given an oppor
tunity to be present at the hearing. After the hearing it appeared
to the court that the father and the grandparents were equally
unsatisfactory, but since the State department had approved the
adoption by the grandparents, they were permitted to have the child.
The judge was of the opinion that it would have been helpful to have
a representative from the State department in court to present
in greater detail the reasons for the recommendation approving
adoption by the grandparents, but apparently it did not occur to him
to postpone the hearing until further information could be obtained.
There was evidence of need for closer working relationships between
the State departments and the courts in the States visited. Too
frequently the courts had no personal contact with the representa
tives of the State department and accordingly had no interpretation
of the policies and principles underlying the recommendations ac
companying the reports of adoption investigations.
There was no way of determining whether this situation was in any
way responsible for the fact that many recommendations disapproving
adoptions were disregarded by the courts, but it is conceivable that
better understanding might have made the courts more willing to
accept the recommendations made or to ask for advice in difficult
situations.
Legal representation for the child.— A procedure by which the child
could have legal representation at the time of the hearing had not
been developed in any of the States included in the study. When an
adoption had been approved after careful investigation there was
probably little need for such representation, but when the investiga
tion indicated that the advisability of granting the petition was
questionable it was often difficult to get complete evidence before the
court. The attorney for the petitioners was naturally biased in their
favor and therefore presented evidence intended to prove that the
proposed adoption was in the child’s interest. The State department
in its written report had an opportunity to lay before the court its
reasons for opposition to the adoption, but supplementary testimony
might have helped the court to understand more clearly the facts
which influenced the State department in its decision. Theoretically
the State department represented the child, but when an adoption
petition was heard before a court in which strict adherence to the
rules of evidence was observed, the judge was sometimes unwilling to
question witnesses and decided the case on the evidence presented.
Unless the State department had legal standing before the court it
was often difficult to bring out supplementary information. Even
when the court was willing to question witnesses, their meager knowl
edge of all the circumstances might well handicap a judge in his
efforts to obtain information.
The State department should have authority to provide legal
representation, if necessary, to protect the interests of the child.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE

COURTS'

117

The department is in an excellent position to provide the legal counsel
with pertinent facts and with necessary witnesses. In such cases a
member of the staff of the attorney general of the State might be
preferable as a representative of the child to the local public attorney
or to an attorney especially appointed by the court, since a local
attorney, particularly in rural areas, might be prejudiced in favor of
the petitioners and therefore less likely to be an objective protector
of the child’s interests. In addition, the State department would
probably find it more difficult to work with local attorneys from the
several counties in the State than with a special representative from
the office of the attorney general, whose headquarters are in the same
city. It should also be much easier to interpret adoption policies
and philosophy to one or more members of the attorney general’s
staff than to a widely scattered and continually changing group of
attorneys.
An effort was made to obtain an expression of opinion from the
judges visited with regard to the advisability of legal representation
for the child. On the whole, the judges failed to see the necessity
for such a provision, explaining that they would not hesitate to ques
tion witnesses if necessary. Several judges were of the opinion that
it was the duty of the court to represent the interests of the child at
the hearing, but they did not seem to realize that this would be
impractical if an active contest developed.
A few judges could see certain advantages in a provision of this kind,
however. One judge thought it distinctly advantageous for the
child to have legal representation. He thought it improper for the
court to question witnesses and considered the written report of the
State department of no practical value in a contested case. Another
explained that a representative of the State department and a repre
sentative of the attorney general’s office occasionally appeared at the
hearing in his court when a disapproved case was under consideration.
He thought this an excellent proceeding because it made possible the
proper presentation of the State’s evidence. Other judges, although
they were less explicit in their approval, were generally in sympathy
with such procedure.
PUBLISHED NOTICE

The use of a published notice of a pending action when personal
service cannot be made is frequent in civil actions. It was, therefore
not strange that the adoption laws provided for notice by publication
to parents or guardians when their consent had not been obtained.
Provision for notice by publication was added to the adoption law
in Massachusetts in 1853, and with some slight changes this provision
has been retained.66 A general provision for published notice when the
parents of the child were dead or had abandoned the child and there
was no guardian in the State to give consent was found in the adoption
laws of Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, and Rhode Island.68 In
California published notice was necessary only in the case of a father
who could not be located, who had lost custody of his child through
**•Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, sec. 4.
«8 Minnesota, M ason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 8628; North Dakota, 1925 Supp. to 1913 Comp. Laws, sec 4444 as
amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 189; Oregon, Ann. Code 1930, sec. 33-404; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1938
ch. 420, sec. 4.
’

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

118

PROBLEM S AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

divorce, and who had “ willfully” failed to pay for the child’s support
when able to do so.67
Published notice had never been provided for in the laws of Alabama
and New Mexico. Provision for published notice was added to the adop
tion law of Wisconsin in 1895 and remained part of the law until 1929,
when it was decided that the need for published notice no longer existed.68
Theoretically, a published notice informs persons who can be reached
in no other way that legal action is about to be taken on a matter in
which they have a right to be represented. Actually it was found to
have little value in adoptions. Publication was often made in a local
newspaper of limited circulation; in one city, a newspaper whose 500
subscribers were mostly of a single European nationality group.
No case was reported in which persons having a rightful interest in
the adoption proceedings had been located through this procedure.
Instead, it was possible that such publication had the undesirable result
of making known information about the circumstances of a child’s
birth and his parentage.
On the whole, the judges interviewed were of the opinion that notice
of publication had little worth, but so long as the statutes required
its use under certain conditions it was sometimes necessary in order
to clear a case for further action. Several of the judges considered
that published notice should not be necessary when an investigation
had been made by the State department. If the investigation pro
duced no information about persons legally entitled to know of the
proposed adoption, it was safe to proceed on the assumption that no
obstacles to the adoption existed.
Publication of notice was reported in only 30 of the records available
in the offices of the State departments. Most of these residents were
in Rhode Island (13 cases) and in Massachusetts (11 cases), but
publication was reported in 4 cases in Oregon and in 2 cases in Minne
sota. In some of these cases one parent gave consent and publication
was used to locate the other parent. It was obvious that complete
information in regard to publication of notice of adoption was not
obtained, since some of the clerks of court interviewed reported that
it was their practice to publish a notice in every case of failure to
give consent.
If the adoption law wisely provides that the court hearing the
adoption petition should not be responsible for the decision by which
the rights of the parents are terminated, there would be no need for
published notice of the proposed adoption. Instead, notice to the
parents would be necessary only if personal service could not be had
in the court action involving the termination of parental rights.
RECORDS OF ADOPTION

Court records.

The early adoption laws did not always specify methods for recording
adoption proceedings, and the courts used the same methods for
keeping these records as for the records of all other actions. With
the growing appreciation of the need for protecting adoption records
from curious eyes, an increasing number of adoption laws have included
provisions designed to keep the records confidential and available only
to persons having legitimate reasons for knowing their contents.
«7 California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, sec. 224, as amended b y Laws of 1939, ch. 463.
68 Wisconsin, Laws of 1895, ch. 18.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE COURTS

119

The laws of Alabama, California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and
Wisconsin expressly stated that records in adoption cases should not
be open for public inspection, and Oregon enacted such a law in 1939.69
The Massachusetts law provided more limited safeguards by requiring
that the reports of investigation received from the State department
should be filed apart from other papers and open to inspection only
by the parties to the adoption or their attorneys, unless the court
ordered otherwise.70
Information regarding methods of recording adoption cases was
obtained from all the courts visited. Forty-five of these courts were
in States in which the statutes provided that adoption records were
confidential records, yet only 14 courts had developed methods of filing
adoption records that were entirely consistent with the law. A vault
or locked file case was used in 4 California courts. Two courts used a
separate index for adoption records, in which the names of the child
and the petitioners were entered but were not cross-indexed; in another
court the final order of adoption was entered in a special record book,
which was not open to the public; and in a fourth court, adoption cases
were listed in the general index by number only, although a separate
index containing the names of the child and the petitioners and the
number of the file had been prepared for the use of the employees in
the clerk’s office. In 2 Wisconsin courts all adoption records were
sealed, in 3 others they were filed apart from other records in a locked
file, and in a sixth court they were filed in the vault with all other
records to which only the judge or his clerk had access. A separate
index and a separate register for adoptions were maintained in a
Minnesota court.
The adoption records in 19 courts were considered confidential, but
certain practices defeated the intentions of the court officials.71 For
instance, adoption records were frequently filed with other court rec
ords, and attorneys or other persons having general access to the files,
therefore, had no difficulty in examining them unobserved. It was
not unusual to find adoption cases indexed with all other cases and to
have the order of adoption copied into the “ order book.” Both the
index and the “ order book” were public records and it was, therefore,
relatively simple to obtain a great deal of information without resort
ing to the files. In the 12 remaining courts visited in the States where
the statutes provided for confidential adoption records, there was little
evidence of any attempt to follow the intent of the law, although in the
courts of 1 State a few records had been sealed.
Adoption records were protected from public inspection only occa
sionally in the courts visited, in Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon,
and Rhode Island, where there was no legal provision for making them
confidential. Each report sent to the court by the Oregon Child Wel
fare Commission contained a recommendation that the records be
sealed, and in six of the eight courts visited in Oregon this had some
times been done.72 The clerk of court in one county in New Mexico
M Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 507, sec. 9302E; California, Deering’s Civil Code 1937, sec. 227; Minnesota
M ason’s Stat. 1927, sec. 8632; N orth Dakota, 1925 Supp. to 1913 Comp. Laws, sec. 4446; Wisconsin. Stat
1939, sec. 322.06; Oregon, Laws of 1939, ch. 321.
70 Massachusetts, Gen. Laws (Ter. E d.) 1932, ch. 210, sec. 5A.
71 California, 6 counties; Minnesota, 5 counties; N orth Dakota, 4 counties; Wisconsin, 4 counties
” Legislation enacted in Oregon in 1939 (ch. 321) provided that all files of adoption cases should be sealed
and that a separate journal, index, and fee book be kept, which should not be subject to inspection.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

120

PRO BLEM S A N D PROCEDURES IN

ADOPTION

had considered the advisability of requesting a general order from the
court to the effect that all adoption cases be filed separately and open
only to the parties in interest.
As a general rule, the laws protecting adoption records from the
general public permitted access to “ the parties in interest,” but it was
left to the clerk of the court or his assistants to decide whom to include
in this designation. This is an undesirable procedure, for the clerk may
consider that a parent whose rights have been terminated before the
placement is a “ party in interest’ ’ and harm may be done by permit
ting such a parent to learn the whereabouts of the child after adoption.
The term “ parties of record,” as used in Ohio, would prevent a
parent who was not a party to the adoption proceeding from seeing the
records unless he presented an order from the court.73 The court
might grant a parent permission to see the adoption records when a
sound reason was presented, but such permission should never be
granted without careful consideration of all the circumstances sur
rounding the request.
Vital-statistics records.

The reporting of adoptions to the division responsible for recording
vital statistics for the purpose of changing the birth record is a rela
tively new procedure. At a meeting of the vital-statistics section of
the American Public Health Association in 1930, several matters per
taining to birth records were called to the attention of the registrars.
It was reported that birth records were not changed after a decree of
adoption was granted, even though many of the children adopted had
been bom out of wedlock and the adoption presumably had removed
the stigma attached to the circumstances of their birth. The following
resolution was adopted:
Resolved, That in the opinion of this section, methods should be devised and
made legally effective for the correction of birth records of children legitimatized
and of adopted children, and also for the registration of foundlings; and be it

That a committee of five be appointed by the chair to consider and
report, at the next annual meeting of this section, the advisability of a uniform
“ standard” system for:
1. Acts correcting birth records of illegitimate children subsequently
legitimatized.
, , ,
2. Acts regulating birth records of children legally adopted.
3. Acts for the making of birth records of foundlings.

^ R e s o lv e d ,

Since 1930 about two-thirds of the States have enacted laws making
it possible to amend the birth record of an adopted child so that he may
be spared the embarrassment of explaining why his own name and the
names of his parents are not the same as the names on his birth record.
At the time this study was made only Alabama, California, Massa
chusetts, and Wisconsin, of the States included in the study, had
statutory provision for reporting adoptions to the division of vital
statistics and for changing the birth record, but Minnesota, North
Dakota, and Oregon enacted such laws in 1939.74 The Massachusetts
law applied only to “ a person of illegitimate birth” who had acquired
a new name by judicial decree,” but special mention was made of the
7» Throckm orton Ann. Code 1940, sec. 10512-18.
_
, , , T __ __ lno, , enQ.
74
Alabama, Laws of 1931, p. 506; California, Laws of 1933, ch. 489, as amended ^ ^aws oH935, ch. 608,
Massachusetts, Laws of 1930, ch. 169, as amended b y Laws of 1931, ch. 258 Laws of 1933, ch 280, and Law s
of 1938 ch 97; Wisconsin, Laws of 1931, as amended b y Laws of 1937, ch. 524; Minnesota, Laws of 1939, ch .
89; North Dakota, Laws of 1939, ch. 109; Oregon, Laws of 1939, ch. 316.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

THE COURTS

121

procedure for changes of name after adoption. In 1938 the law was
broadened to include “ a person of legitimate birth” who had been
adopted.
The procedures used in Alabama, California, and Wisconsin were
similar. A report of each adoption decree was sent by the court to the
registrar of vital statistics on a form provided for that purpose, and
a new birth record using the new name of the child and those of the
adopting parents was made out and substituted for the original birth
record. The original birth record, which was placed in a sealed pack
age, could be opened only upon the demand of the child himself or his
natural or adopting parents, or by order of a court of record. The
amended birth record made no mention of the child’s adoption.76
The procedures used in Massachusetts were slightly different.
Reports from the court were sent to the county clerk or to the State
registrar. Since at the time of the study the only birth records of
adopted children that were changed were those of children bom out of
wedlock, the provisions authorizing the impounding of all birth records
of children bom out of wedlock protected the original birth records of
these children in the same way as such records were protected in the
other States. The new certificate prepared for the adopted child was
designated as an affidavit and correction of a record of birth and
showed that the child had been adopted.
Some question has been raised about the advisability of substituting
an amended birth record for the original birth record, since the child
was not actually born to the adopting parents as the amended birth
record implies. It has been suggested that a certificate of adoption
be substituted for the original birth record to meet this difficulty.
The adoption certificate would contain a record of the date and place
of the child’s birth. The child’s new name would be used, and all
other information would relate to the adopting parents. Crossreference would be made to the original birth record, which would be
sealed and opened only on request of the child or his representative
or on order of a court. Certified facts from such an adoption certificate
should be accepted as prima facie evidence of the child’s birth. For
all practical purposes all that would be necessary would be a certificate
of birth showing the name of the child and the date and place of his
birth.
The provision for changing birth records after adoption as author
ized in California, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin made such changes
applicable to adoptions consummated before the law was passed. On
the other hand, the Alabama law applied only to adoptions granted
after 1931. Occasionally foster parents in this State who had adopted
a child before 1931 readopted him under the new law in order that his
birth record might be changed. Lack of clerical assistance in some of
the States had been a serious handicap in carrying out the full pro
visions of these laws.
The director of vital statistics in Wisconsin reported that upon
receipt of an adoption report for a child born in another State a record
of the adoption was made in Wisconsin and a copy of the report of the
decree was sent to the State of birth. Reports of adoption from other
States were accepted on the same basis as reports from Wisconsin
75 Similar procedures are outlined in laws enacted in Minnesota and North Dakota in 1939, but the Oregon

law, enacted in the same year, contains no statement regarding the disposition of the original certificate
and its subsequent availability.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

122

PRO BLEM S AN D PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

counties. It is highly important that State plans for reporting
adoptions to divisions of vital statistics be as nearly uniform as possible
and that there be reciprocity among the States.
No statutory provision had been made in Minnesota at the time of
the study for changing birth records after adoption, but an adminis
trative plan with a similar purpose had been developed through the
cooperation of the children’s division of the State Board of Control and
the vital-statistics division of the State Board of Health. In 1936 a
request was made to the clerks of court to send certified copies of
decrees of adoption to the State department, but the practice did not
become general because the State department could not pay the fee
charged for certified copies. Accordingly the plan was changed in
1938, and foster parents were advised to obtain a certified copy of the
decree from the clerk of the court. This was sent to the supervisor
of adoptions and placements in the children’s division of the State
Board of Control, who transferred it to the division of vital statistics.
A notation in red ink was made on the original birth certificate, giving
the child’s new name and calling attention to the fact that a record
of his adoption was on file. The adoption record was filed in a locked
confidential file and was not attached to the birth record. A certifi
cate of birth made out in the new name of the child and using the
names of the foster parents was then issued to the adopting parents.
Under this plan about 600 adoptions had been reported to the division
of vital statistics.
Unless equal protection of birth records is afforded to all children
regardless of the circumstances of their birth the provision cannot be
considered wholly satisfactory. The adopted child as well as the child
bom out of wedlock should be spared the embarrassment of having a
birth certificate which gives information of the circumstances of his
birth when only proof of age and place of birth are necessary.
ADOPTION FEES

In the past fees were charged in many types of cases, including
adoption cases, in order to meet the expenses of court actions to which
the State was not a party. However, in recent years the tendency has
been to pay stated salaries to county officials and to meet the expense
of an increasing number of services through tax funds.
No court fees were charged for adoptions in California, Massachu
setts, and Wisconsin. The adoption law of Alabama made no mention
of fees, but a previous law had set the fee for adoptions at $1, and this
was the accepted charge in seven of the counties visited.76 In one
county in Alabama an additional charge was made of 15 cents a hun
dred words for all papers copied in the record, and in another county
no charge was made for an adoption.
Adoption fees in four States were based on general provisions re
garding fees, and as a result the fee differed from county to county.
For example, the Minnesota statutes specified that the fee in a civil
action in which no answer or demurrer was filed should be $2.77
Ordinarily, $2 or $3 was charged for adoption cases, but in one
urban county the fee had been set at $5, of which $1 was applied to
the county library fund, and in another county a $3 fee was the rule,
76 Alabama, Code 1923, sec. 7285.
77 Minnesota, M ason’s Stat. 1927, see. 6988.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TH E

DOUBTS

123

50 cents of which was applied to the library fund. The regular fee
established in North Dakota was $3.78 An Oregon law had set $2.50
as the fee for instituting an action, and this was the usual fee charged
m adoption cases, although a library fee of 25 cents had been added in
four counties visited.79 One county charged $3, and in Multnomah
County the fee was $5. A New Mexico statute established $7.50 as
the fee “ for docketing each cause” in the district court.80 This was
the basic charge for adoption cases in the State, although an additional
$2.50 to be applied to the Capitol Building fund was collected in three
of the counties visited. Another county charged a $10 filing fee and
$2.50 for entering the order.
The fee set by the statutes of Rhode Island was $7, to be divided
equally between the probate judge and the clerk of court.81 This was
the basic charge in all but two of the probate courts in the State,
which were permitted by special legislation to hear an adoption petition
without charge. However, additional charges for recording or adver
tising were made in several of the towns. A town clerk reported that
the total court cost of one of the adoptions grantedin 1934 was $21.25__
$7 for the basic fee, $2 for recording, and $12.25 for advertising.
Another town clerk estimated the cost of an adoption at $11. No
charge for recording was made in one town visited and only an occa
sional case was advertised, whereas in some of the towns it was the
practice to advertise every adoption regardless of necessity.
_There seemed little relation between the fees charged in the juris
dictions visited and the amount of work involved. A State having an
accepted philosophy of public support for the courts and a well-regu
lated court system is likely to have an efficient administration at a
minimum of cost to the petitioners.
It was impossible to determine whether the fee for adoption was a
deterrent to petitioners who found it difficult to meet this added cost.
No evidence was found to indicate any appreciable difference in the
economic standing of petitioners in the States where no fee was
charged and in those requiring a fee. However, it is to be hoped that
other States will follow the example set by those that have given up
the fee system and have made the services of the courts generally
available at no extra cost to persons seeking to adopt children.
w North Dakota, Comp. Laws 1913, sec. 3498, sis amended b y Laws of 1927 ch 123
7» Oregon, Code 1930, sec. 27-3003.
,
so New Mexico, Ann. Stat. 1929, sec. 34-343.
8i Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1923, ch. 372, sec. 38.

249071°—41----- 9

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study clearly show the importance of the
provisions in the adoption laws of the States visited authorizing the
State welfare department to arrange for a social investigation and
to make recommendations to the court as to the desirability of the
adoption. The placement of such responsibility in the State depart
ment not only assisted in preventing undesirable adoptions but also
gave opportunity to the department to fulfill its further responsi
bility for safeguarding the placements of children and to develop
fuller understanding of the social aspects of adoption through general
education of the public and through its services to the courts.
The submission of reports to the courts showing the undesirability
of some of the proposed adoptions was only a small part of the service
given to children as a result of the investigation. The fact that many
of the petitions filed in the States were not completed because of
change in plan or withdrawal of the petitions was to a considerable
extent due to advice given in connection with the investigation.
Another value of the social investigation that was recognized in some
of the States was the opportunity it offered to advise and assist
prospective adoptive parents who had not had the benefit of agency
services in connection with the placement of the child in the home.
It was in States where particular emphasis was laid on service to the
petitioners and to the parents of the child that the results of the
investigations were most gratifying.
The advantages of using local public or private agencies for the in
vestigation becomes evident when the investigation is considered an
opportunity for service as well as a means of obtaining information
which will assist the court in arriving at a decision. A represent
ative of the local agency can make supplementary visits to the home
in order to make a complete study of the situation and he is in a
position to understand local attitudes and to explain to local persons
interested in the proceeding the reasons why a particular adoption
seems inadvisable. Several judges interviewed placed special reliance
on the advice of local workers in whom they had confidence and
whose judgment they respected.
One of the important responsibilities of State welfare departments
is to supervise institutions and agencies providing foster care for
children and to improve their standards of service in placements of
children in family homes. The need for improvement of the place
ment policies of child-placing agencies was evident in some of the
States. The fact that an agency was ‘ ‘ authorized’ ’ did not always mean
that the agency was equipped to give the skillful service necessary
in placements for adoption. Undesirable placements made by agencies,
though not large in number, revealed certain questionable practices,
such as the placement of very young children in adoptive homes.
It is extremely doubtful if the careful study of a child and his mental
124

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SU M M A R Y

AND CONCLUSIONS

125

potentialities which should be expected of an agency before place
ment for adoption can be completed for children placed when they
are only a few weeks old. Ordinarily an agency of recognized standing
hesitates before placing a child under 4 months of age, even when his
family background is favorable.
There was considerable difference in the States in the extent of
placements by agencies, especially placements of children bom out
of wedlock. The proportion of agency placements of children born
out of wedlock and placed in homes of persons not related to them
ranged from 38 percent to 71 percent in the different States. The
availability of agency services for unmarried mothers is a significant
factor in the use of agencies by these mothers for placement of their
children.
The possibility of extending agency services for children needing
placement in adoptive homes should be given careful consideration by
agencies and the State departments. Such questions as the following
will need to be answered: Are the child-placing agencies too selective
in the children they are accepting for placement? Does this mean
that the less promising children are being deprived of agency services
because they are not suitable for placement in homes offering superior
advantages? Is there anything inherent in the policies of child
placing agencies that is not compatible with the wishes of potential
adoptive parents? Is it because agencies have not interpreted their
services to the public that applicants for children fail to see the advan
tages in their services and that persons wishing to plan for a child’s
future do not request their assistance?
The study showed a need for clarifying the relationship between
the authorized child-placing agencies and the State department in
regard to adoptions sponsored by the agencies. Unquestionably
there is no reason for reinvestigating an adoption sponsored by a wellqualified child-placing agency. If the service provided by an agency
is inadequate or otherwise questionable, however, investigation of
its adoption placements may be valuable and helpful. The laws of
two of the States visited exempted from the State plan all agencies
placing children for adoption. The value of such exemption is debat
able, since it prevents State-wide information on the extent of adop
tions and may include in the agencies exempted some whose place
ment policies are undesirable. If for any reason it appears desirable
to authorize an agency to make its own reports to the court about
adoptions which it is sponsoring, such authorization should come from
the State department on the basis of a careful evaluation of its work.
The lack of essential information in many of the agency reports
submitted to the State department on children under agency care who
were subjects of adoption petitions showed that the differences be
tween an investigation made before placement and an investigation
of a prospective adoption were not clearly understood. State depart
ments need to give more attention to the reports received from agencies
on adoptions which they are sponsoring and to develop a plan for such
reports which will give the department the information essential for
preparing a report for the court and a recommendation as to the
desirability of the adoption.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

126

PROBLEM S AND' PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

A more enlightened public opinion on the subject of adoptions can
be developed more easily when the State department participates in
adoptions. The State department has a perspective which enables it
to interpret the needs of children on a State-wide basis and in relation
to other social programs in the State. Adoption is only one phase of
its interests in children. It is in a position to further understanding
of why the number of children available for adoption is limited and to
explain the wisdom of making application for a child to agencies
qualified to give sound service.
Study of the adoption laws in the States visited and of the changes
that had been made in these laws since their original enactment showed
that many of the features of the early laws often had been retained.
Some of the provisions which presented problems in the adoption cases
studied are to be found in the laws of other States. In order to provide
adequate protection of the rights of the child, his natural parents, and
the adoptive parents there is need for a reconsideration of provisions
of adoption laws that are not consistent with changed social conditions
and sound social and legal practices. The following points especially
should be considered:
1. The fact that a number of children were adopted without the con
sent of any person showed the undesirability of some of the provisions
relating to consent to adoption. Consent by a parent, a guardian, or
the State department should be required in all cases. The laws of
some of the States visited made such requirements. The appointment
of a guardian ad litem or next friend to give consent, as authorized by
the laws of many States, does not provide real protection of the rights
of the child and his natural parents. Previous court action committing
a child to the care, custody, and guardianship of an agency would
assure proper guardianship for a child lacking a competent guardian.
2. The provisions in some of the laws by which a parent loses the
right to consent to his child’s adoption are unfortunate, even though
only a small number of children are affected by them. In the drafting
of adoption laws consideration should be given to the elimination of
such conditions in order that the desirability of the adoption may be
the only issue before the court.
3. The requirement of publication of notice to inform an absent
parent or guardian of the pending adoption was found to be ineffective,
since no evidence was found in the records studied that a parent had
been located through the procedure. Previous court action for the
termination of parental rights of which the parent would have a right
to receive notice and at which he would be heard would prevent the need
for any publication of notice of adoption. Publication of pending
adoptions is not consistent with the provisions of more recent laws
requiring that all records of adoption cases shall be dealt with as con
fidential matters.
4. It is doubtful whether the provision found in some of the States
authorizing the court to waive the investigation is in accord with the
intention of modem adoption laws to afford complete protection of the
child. In the few cases in which the court waived investigation the
reasons given for the action were so inadequate that it seemed appar
ent that no real attention had been given to the purpose of the investi
gation; it was unfortunate under these circumstances to permit the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SU M M A R Y AND CONCLUSIONS

127

court to make an arbitrary decision in a matter so closely related to
the future welfare of the child.
5. A period of at least 6 months’ residence of the child in the
adoptive home seems essential to prevent the consummation of
adoption before the child’s development and adjustment are known.
A distinction should be made between a residence period and an inter
locutory period, since the primary purpose of requiring an inter
locutory period is to provide supervision of the child in the home.
Valuable as supervision is in cases where agency service has not been
available to the foster parents and the child, there seems little reason
for requiring such supervision when the residence requirement has
been fulfilled and supervision is not necessary. It would seem
desirable, therefore, in considering a provision for an interlocutory
period, to authorize the court at its discretion to grant a final decree
at any time during the interlocutory period on recommendation of
the State department or supervising agency that further supervision
is not necessary. Unnecessary visits to an adoptive home are a waste
of agency services, and the need for service should be given considera
tion in all cases.
6. The large number of adoptions by stepparents indicated a need
for a special provision in the adoption laws relating to the position of
the parent in such cases. In all the States included in the study,
except California and Wisconsin, the parent joined with the step
parent in the petition and thereby became an adoptive parent, since
legally the parental rights of the natural parents were terminated
by the adoption.
7. The few cases in which adoptions were completed outside the
jurisdiction of the petitioner’s residence, even in States where this was
legally permissible, led to the conclusion that there was little need for
alternative jurisdictional provisions in an adoption law. However,
the exceptional cases where there seemed justification for filing the
adoption petition outside the locality where the petitioners lived sug
gested a need for authorizing transfer of jurisdiction under extenuating
circumstances and after a recommendation from the State department
of public welfare.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPENDIX.— SAMPLES OF REPORTS ON APPROVED ADOP
TIONS SENT TO THE COURT BY THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF THREE STATES
REPORT 1
In D

S ta te o f ----------\
County o f -------:—J*8’
Petition of G----------S----------To adopt P------------- G--------

is t r ic t

C ourt

-------— Judicial District
, a minor child.

REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF CONTROL

The State Board of Control begs leave to recommend that the above-entitled
petition be granted. Upon investigation the allegations of the petition are found
to be essentially true. In the opinion of the Board the child is a proper subject
for adoption and the home of the petitioners a suitable one for this child.
A full report of the investigation is on file in the office of the Children’s Bureau.
St a t e B o ard of C o n t r o l,

B y ---------------------,

Chairman.

Dated this 3d day of June 1936.
REPORT 2
June

21, 1939.

To the Honorable the Judge of the Probate Court in and for the Countij o f t— -----:
REPORT IN RE THE PETITION OF

E----------J----------- and L----------- J----------for the adoption of
M----------B----------[Notice received by Department of Public Welfare. May 26, 1939.]
E. T. J--------- - was born i n ----- — , September 30, 1897. He is an orthopedic
surgeon a t ----------. L---------- J— ------was born a t ----------- , June 4, 1900. The
petitioners were married a t --- *— -, December 9, 1933 (verified). They have no
children.
M---------- B-------— was born in ---- -----, July 6, 1938 (verified). Her mother,
D----------B----------- , was born in — -------, April 24, 1918, and she resides with her
This mother completed
3 years
parents, two brothers, and two sisters in
_
of high school. She consents to the adoption of her daughter, who was placed in
the J----------home October 1, 1938. M----------- B----------has had all the medical
tests to prove that she is in good health. The baby has light hair and blue eyes.
The petitioners own a 10-room single house in an exclusive residential section
a t ----------. Within and outside, the house is in excellent condition. Financially,
the petitioners are well able to rear the girl, as Dr. J----------has a large income
from his profession and Mrs. J---------- has a large income from a ^trust fund.
References on the family are good. All of the interested parties are Protestants.
Respectfully submitted.
(For
128

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

-, Supervisor
— — -, Director).

APPEN D IX

129

REPORT 3
I n t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t o f ------------ C o u n t y , S t a t e o f ------------

In the matter of
1
the adoption of
I
A----------J----------- J----------- [
A minor
J

Confidential report of the
State Department of Public Welfare
Action N o .-----Hearing date — January 15, 1940
S u b j e c t o f A d o p t io n

A----------J----------- J----------- was born 3-7-39 at th e ----------- Maternity Home in
---------- (verified). She was born out of wedlock to M----------A----------- J----------- .
She has been in the home of the petitioners, F----------and G----------- L----------- , since
5-7-39. The mother’s family did not insist that she give up this child, and it
was on her own decision that she decided to relinquish the baby for adoption. She
felt that she would not be able to provide properly for a child and that her future
adjustment in life would be seriously complicated if she kept her child.
The child is apparently normal mentally and physically. This was a normal
birth. Weight at birth was 8 pounds and 8 ounces and the present weight is
close to 16 pounds. Wassermann on the child was negative.
N atu ral P arents

M----------A-------— J----------was born February 16, 1921, in E----------- K----------- .
The maternal grandparents are L---------- and L----------J----------- , who live on a
farm n ea r----------. The mother is the youngest of four children. The mother
is a graduate of high school, from which she won a scholarship to a business college
in ----------. She has continued her business education by earning her own way
doing various kinds of work from working as a maid in a private home to clerking
in a store. She was very upset emotionally by her pregnancy but has now ad
justed satisfactorily to her future plans in life.
The alleged father formerly worked i n ----------. He is between 22 and 23 years
of age and it was thought that he was bom i n ----------. The natural mother knew
very little of his family background; however, she said that the paternal grand
mother was not living and the paternal grandfather was a traveling man. The
family no longer retain a home anywhere. The mother knew the alleged father
approximately 3 months before she became pregnant. She described him as a
person she would never marry as she felt he was undependable and too heavy a
drinker. She does not know of his whereabouts at the present time.
P e t it io n e r s

F---------- and G---------- A---------- L---------- were married August 21, 1935, at
---------- (verified). This is the first marriage for each petitioner. They have no
children although they have wanted a child ever since they were married. Refer
ences and the atmosphere of the home indicate that the couple are compatible
and stable. All of their planning is done together.
G——---- A----------- L— ------was bom October 6, 1914, i n ----------- , ---------- . She
is of English descent. She completed high school and has attended night school
in P----------for 2 years. Previous to her marriage she taught school for 3 years.
For 2 years she taught at a country school i n ----------County and the third year
she taught at a country school i n ---------- County. She is the daughter of Mr.
and Mrs. S ----------A -----------, who live on a farm near---------- . She is the second
of their three children. She is a member of t h e ---------- Church and very active
and interested in the work of the church. There are no adverse hereditary traits
in her family, and her general health is good.
F—-------- L— ------ was bom March 16, 1913, at ----------. He is of SwedishAmerican descent. He is a high-school graduate and has had a year of post
graduate work. He has taken correspondence work from ---------- College and
attended night school i n ----------2 years, where he studied woodworking, photog
raphy, bookkeeping, and psychology. He is the son of Mr. and Mrs. W---------L— ----- , who live on a farm near---------- . He is the oldest of six children. Two
of his sisters are working in private homes in --------- . Mr. L---------- has high moral
and business standards. He, too, is an active member of t h e ---------- Church.
Health .— There are no adverse hereditary traits in either of the petitioners’
families and they are both in excellent health.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

130

PROBLEM S AND PROCEDURES IN ADOPTION

Home.— The petitioners live in a 3-room bungalow-type home i n ----------. The
exterior of the home is in excellent condition, and the interior has been newly
repapered and shows that the petitioners take an interest in their home. The
home is on the bus line and located within three blocks of the high school and
grade school i n ----------. Although this is called a 3-room house it has a long living
room, breakfast room, kitchen, bedroom, and bath. The rooms are comfortably
and tastefully furnished, and the entire home gives a cheerful effect. They are
buying their home, which cost $2,500 and they have paid between $800 and $900
in monthly payments of $21.38 to the ---------- Building and Loan Association.
Financial condition.— Mr. L---------- is employed as assistant foreman in one of
the departments of t h e --------— Co. He has worked for this plant 8 years and
receives a weekly salary of $32.50. Mr. L----------carries $5,000 in life insurance
and Mrs. L----------has a $500 policy. They put from $5 to $6 weekly in postal
savings. They have a car and furniture which is valued at $500. Their only
debt is $70 on their gas furnace.
Cultural interests.— Both Mr. and Mrs. Lr--------- are active in affairs of their
church. Mrs. L---------- is secretary of the missionary society. Up until this year
nearly every evening was filled because they were attending night school 2-nights
out of the week and studying together the rest of the time. There are numerous
books and magazines in evidence in their home.
Attitude toward child.— Mr. and Mrs. L----------have wanted to adopt a child for
some time and consider themselves very fortunate in being able to have this one.
They plan to tell the child that she is adopted, and it is certain that they will be
intelligent in rearing the child, as they have both done considerable reading on the
adoption of children.
References.— This couple was given the highest of recommendations. One
reference stated that she was happy to be able to recommend their home and that
the child was fortunate to be placed with such a fine couple. They are substantial,
hard-working people who make practical plans for their future.
R e c o m m e n d a t io n

The State Department of Public Welfare finds A----------J-----------J-----------eligible
for adoption, the home of the petitioners, F----------and G—---------L-----------, suitable
for a child, and believe that it is for the best interests of the child that the adoption
be consummated and recommends that the petition be granted.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Full text of Problems and Procedures in Adoption, Bureau Publication No. 262

FRASER