Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Child Custody Dispute - Victoria, c.1920
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Graham
Jan 20, 2012, 10:20:16 PM1/20/12
to
Can anyone suggest how a child custody dispute might have been handled
c.1920 in Victoria?
The scenario is as follows:
1917 - child is born out of wedlock. Mother is 18, father 21. Parents are
not given permission to marry due to religious and social differences.
Child is given to mother's married sister.
When mother turns 21 (well 20 actually; she fudged her age) they marry and
attempt to get their baby back. They have 9 more kids.
After adoption becomes legal c.1926, mother's sister adopts child. and all
live happily ever after.
The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100 year
rule) lists the birth twice. Once under the mother's maiden name and once
under the father's name. I'm thinking that the young couple, desperate to
get their baby back might have tried to re-register the birth as if they
were married at the time.
Would there have been any legal avenues for them to pursue and are there
any records available?
--
Please reply to group or
reply "off-group" by removing the two "z"s from my e-mail address.
Graham Coward
Melbourne, Australia
=====================
Coward Family History Web Site
http://www.cowardfamilyhistoryaustralia.info/
c.1920 in Victoria?
The scenario is as follows:
1917 - child is born out of wedlock. Mother is 18, father 21. Parents are
not given permission to marry due to religious and social differences.
Child is given to mother's married sister.
When mother turns 21 (well 20 actually; she fudged her age) they marry and
attempt to get their baby back. They have 9 more kids.
After adoption becomes legal c.1926, mother's sister adopts child. and all
live happily ever after.
The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100 year
rule) lists the birth twice. Once under the mother's maiden name and once
under the father's name. I'm thinking that the young couple, desperate to
get their baby back might have tried to re-register the birth as if they
were married at the time.
Would there have been any legal avenues for them to pursue and are there
any records available?
--
Please reply to group or
reply "off-group" by removing the two "z"s from my e-mail address.
Graham Coward
Melbourne, Australia
=====================
Coward Family History Web Site
http://www.cowardfamilyhistoryaustralia.info/
Robert G Eldridge
Jan 24, 2012, 12:44:39 AM1/24/12
to
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:20:16 +0000 (UTC), Graham
<cow...@zmelbpc.org.au> wrote:
>The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100 year
>rule) lists the birth twice.
Your use of the phrase "the 100 year rule" is I trust not meant to
<cow...@zmelbpc.org.au> wrote:
>The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100 year
>rule) lists the birth twice.
imply that there is a general rule in these matters.
I am aware of administrative decisions made by some States and past
moves to formulate an Australia wide policy but thank goodness it's
far from an Australia wide universal decision.
--
Robert G. Eldridge Toronto NSW Australia
http://www.eldridgegenealogy.org
Now researching ELDRIDGE families world wide
1000s at my Web site *Wanted* Any Eldridge related information
This newsgroup post is not an invitation to reply by email.
Graham
Jan 24, 2012, 1:58:57 AM1/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:44:39 +1100, Robert G Eldridge wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:20:16 +0000 (UTC), Graham
> <cow...@zmelbpc.org.au> wrote:
>
>>The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100
>>year rule) lists the birth twice.
>
> Your use of the phrase "the 100 year rule" is I trust not meant to imply
> that there is a general rule in these matters.
>
> I am aware of administrative decisions made by some States and past
> moves to formulate an Australia wide policy but thank goodness it's far
> from an Australia wide universal decision.
In Victoria a few years ago (about 2000 I think) our Government in it's
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:20:16 +0000 (UTC), Graham
> <cow...@zmelbpc.org.au> wrote:
>
>>The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100
>>year rule) lists the birth twice.
>
> Your use of the phrase "the 100 year rule" is I trust not meant to imply
> that there is a general rule in these matters.
>
> I am aware of administrative decisions made by some States and past
> moves to formulate an Australia wide policy but thank goodness it's far
> from an Australia wide universal decision.
wisdom decided that birth records should not be released to the public
until 100 years after the event. Before that it was 80 years. The Great
War Index that had been published a few years earlier contained some of
these records so it was removed from sale. Copies that are "out there"
were not recalled however.
Doug Laidlaw
Feb 1, 2012, 10:17:18 AM2/1/12
to
Graham wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:44:39 +1100, Robert G Eldridge wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:20:16 +0000 (UTC), Graham
>> <cow...@zmelbpc.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>>The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100
>>>year rule) lists the birth twice.
>>
>> Your use of the phrase "the 100 year rule" is I trust not meant to imply
>> that there is a general rule in these matters.
>>
>> I am aware of administrative decisions made by some States and past
>> moves to formulate an Australia wide policy but thank goodness it's far
>> from an Australia wide universal decision.
>
> In Victoria a few years ago (about 2000 I think) our Government in it's
> wisdom decided that birth records should not be released to the public
> until 100 years after the event. Before that it was 80 years. The Great
> War Index that had been published a few years earlier contained some of
> these records so it was removed from sale. Copies that are "out there"
> were not recalled however.
>
Why "thank goodness?" Because diversity is a good thing? Perhaps the
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:44:39 +1100, Robert G Eldridge wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:20:16 +0000 (UTC), Graham
>> <cow...@zmelbpc.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>>The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100
>>>year rule) lists the birth twice.
>>
>> Your use of the phrase "the 100 year rule" is I trust not meant to imply
>> that there is a general rule in these matters.
>>
>> I am aware of administrative decisions made by some States and past
>> moves to formulate an Australia wide policy but thank goodness it's far
>> from an Australia wide universal decision.
>
> In Victoria a few years ago (about 2000 I think) our Government in it's
> wisdom decided that birth records should not be released to the public
> until 100 years after the event. Before that it was 80 years. The Great
> War Index that had been published a few years earlier contained some of
> these records so it was removed from sale. Copies that are "out there"
> were not recalled however.
>
States should allow cars to be driven on whichever side of the road they
think best. An Australia-wide standard is better than 8 different ones.
Apart from its individual Registrars' abbreviations, its abbreviated
forenames and its DOS-age GUI for searching, Victoria takes care not to say
prominently anywhere, what its cutoff dates are. You are expected to look
up its leaflet. Time has stood still in this State.
Doug,
Indexing for the Ryerson, now over 3.3 million entries from 199 newspapers.
Is your paper one of them?
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Lloyd Mitchell
Feb 2, 2012, 7:45:29 PM2/2/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
All
The so-called '100 years rule' is fairly ludicrous anyway and only makes
life slightly more difficult. Not being able to search the indexes
readily as for the NSW records is a major frustration in any case.
However, all the information is 'out there'. I live in the UK and use
the magical National Library Trove site to research births up to 1954.
With Google news I can take it even further as my newspapers of
interest, The Age, SMH and the Advertiser, are all scanned online up to
1985. In the latter case, you have to have some prior information as
there is no means of searching the editions as there is for Trove, but
the extra information including pictures and all the surrounding
articles more than make up for it.
Best!
Lloyd
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENANZ-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
The so-called '100 years rule' is fairly ludicrous anyway and only makes
life slightly more difficult. Not being able to search the indexes
readily as for the NSW records is a major frustration in any case.
However, all the information is 'out there'. I live in the UK and use
the magical National Library Trove site to research births up to 1954.
With Google news I can take it even further as my newspapers of
interest, The Age, SMH and the Advertiser, are all scanned online up to
1985. In the latter case, you have to have some prior information as
there is no means of searching the editions as there is for Trove, but
the extra information including pictures and all the surrounding
articles more than make up for it.
Best!
Lloyd
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENANZ-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Andrea Roberts
Feb 2, 2012, 8:00:02 PM2/2/12
to lloydm...@serieux.net, gen...@rootsweb.com
Hi everyone,
At 3/02/201211:45 AM, Lloyd Mitchell wrote:
>All
>
>The so-called '100 years rule' is fairly ludicrous anyway and only makes
>life slightly more difficult. Not being able to search the indexes
>readily as for the NSW records is a major frustration in any case.
>However, all the information is 'out there'.
Don't forget also that lots of cemeteries are online and they are up
to date as of 2012 for deaths.
Cheers
Angie
Some family trees have beautiful leaves, and some have just a bunch of nuts.
Remember, it is the nuts that make the tree worth shaking.
~Author Unknown
Andrea Roberts....in Melbourne, Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Searching for Pyke/Millsom/Goodman/McCann/Rorke/Presnell/
Moorhouse/Millard/Taylor/Toppin
http://www.1stopmedia.org/angieroberts/index.html
At 3/02/201211:45 AM, Lloyd Mitchell wrote:
>All
>
>The so-called '100 years rule' is fairly ludicrous anyway and only makes
>life slightly more difficult. Not being able to search the indexes
>readily as for the NSW records is a major frustration in any case.
>However, all the information is 'out there'.
to date as of 2012 for deaths.
Cheers
Angie
Some family trees have beautiful leaves, and some have just a bunch of nuts.
Remember, it is the nuts that make the tree worth shaking.
~Author Unknown
Andrea Roberts....in Melbourne, Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Searching for Pyke/Millsom/Goodman/McCann/Rorke/Presnell/
Moorhouse/Millard/Taylor/Toppin
http://www.1stopmedia.org/angieroberts/index.html
Lloyd Mitchell
Feb 2, 2012, 8:23:56 PM2/2/12
to Andrea Roberts, gen...@rootsweb.com
Angie
Oh yes, I was only talking about births in the newspapers - I didn't
even mention the marriages with what the attendants wore, the deaths
with home addresses and messages from work, football club or lodge
associates, the speeches on running for political office, the divorce
cases, the drinking charges and all the rest of life!
And you're right of course; some cemeteries are very useful - complete
with tombstone pictures (I'm thinking of Benalla here, which gave me a
lot of information on a branch of the family).
While I think of it: are any Mitchells here who are related to or
descended from Alexander Mitchell of Benalla (1879 - 1957)?
Best
Lloyd
Oh yes, I was only talking about births in the newspapers - I didn't
even mention the marriages with what the attendants wore, the deaths
with home addresses and messages from work, football club or lodge
associates, the speeches on running for political office, the divorce
cases, the drinking charges and all the rest of life!
And you're right of course; some cemeteries are very useful - complete
with tombstone pictures (I'm thinking of Benalla here, which gave me a
lot of information on a branch of the family).
While I think of it: are any Mitchells here who are related to or
descended from Alexander Mitchell of Benalla (1879 - 1957)?
Best
Lloyd
0 new messages