Point 1.

The wording on the documents to be signed, because of it's legal terminology, was hard to understand for any layman let alone a young traumatised often sedated mother (often little more than a child herself) with no law degree and not having the vocabulary to know the meaning of words like `revoke', `redress', `Master in Equity'.

Request to make arrangements for the adoption of a child

Point 2.

1. The Request to Make Arrangements form was meant to be given to the mother sometime prior to signing a consent. However, this form was Always presented to the mother to sign at the same time and on the same day as the consent form was to be signed. Giving the mother no time to consider the meaning of signing the consent form.
   Tampering with a legal document

2. Although the officially legislated wording on The Request to make Arrangements for the Adoption of a Child document explains that:

   "I have also been informed and fully understand that I may revoke my consent for the adoption of my child only by giving notice in writing to the Master in Equity, Supreme Court, Sydney, before the day on which an Adoption Order is made or before the expiration of thirty days from the day on which I sign a consent, whichever is the earlier. "

The omission of the word Order gives an entirely different understanding to the meaning of the document.

Not only is it illegal to alter a legal document, but I believe this `error' was wittingly made to imply that the `interim' placement of the child with adopters meant that the adoption has already occurred. Whereas the adopters were only foster parents Until the adoption order was made through the Supreme Court.

An `interim' placement was not legally binding. The mother could reclaim her child within the 30 day revocation period. She was to have the child returned to her with 48 hours of revoking her consent.

I believe this error was made to imply that once the child had been placed with his adopters, it was then too late for the mother to reclaim her child.

I believe submissions to this inquiry by mothers who tried to revoke within the allowed time and failed, will bear testimony to my accusation That This Misinterpretation was used to prevent them from reclaiming their child.

NB By the 1960's the adoption order usually took around six months to be made through the Supreme Courts, to give the adopters time to adjust to the child and to return it if the child was deemed to be unsuitable, or if they were unsuitable.

It has become noticeable that the only exceptions we have discovered to date were mothers whose parents became personally involved in the recovery of the child and who had supported the mother in the revocation of her consent.

The mother had to sign the birth register as informant. But as mothers were either forbidden to see their child and/or forbidden to unwrap the blanket her child was wrapped in, is she was permitted to see it, she would not have known if she had had a boy or girl, or if the child referred to was in fact her child.

The mother had to rely on the honesty of the case worker to provide the correct information although it is well established that mothers were often told the wrong sex of the baby and shown the wrong baby after signing a consent to ensure she wouldn't bond with the child.

Most mothers were unaware of what they were signing. Many were forbidden to see the wording of any document they were expected to sign.

In many cases the baby's name has been typed out on the Consent and request forms.

It has to be acknowledged that unless the baby's name had been written in by hand, many mothers would have signed empty consent forms that would be filled in at a later date, as it was routine practice to allow the mother to give her baby a name only after the consent was signed, so it would have been impossible for the case worker to have known to type the baby's name in prior to consent taking - as she would not have yet known it.

Put simply: if a baby's name has been typed in, the mother has signed an empty document.

I believe this procedure would be illegal.

If an error was found to have been made in filling out the legal documents, the officer would simply cross it out and fill it in by hand. The officers would also add additional wording to the meaning of the document if they felt like it.

I believe this to be illegal.

So contemptuous were those in authority of the unwed mother, even the Supreme Court of New South Wales allowed these tampered with legal documents to be processed.