Church to face formal apology for forced adoptions scandal
After decades of campaigning
, the Church of England is preparing to issue a formal apology for its complicity in the horrific system of forced adoptions and mother-and-baby homes that scarred generations of British families.
A legacy of shame and silence
The announcement, expected imminently, follows a 2021 parliamentary inquiry revealing a staggering 185,000 adoptions involving unmarried mothers between 1949 and 1973 – a figure likely to be significantly higher given incomplete records. The state, undeniably, bore a substantial responsibility for the suffering inflicted within these institutions, many of which were operated by the Church alongside the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army.
Early drafts of the apology, reported by the BBC, acknowledge ‘lifelong impact’ and the church’s role in a system rooted in outdated and demonstrably harmful attitudes. But campaigners, including Phil Frampton, a survivor born in an Anglican home, are demanding more than just carefully worded remorse. Frampton, whose father was exiled after a mixed-heritage relationship, described the need for genuine accountability: ‘It will not be good enough for the church to say they were guided by the morality of they time – they were supposed to set the morality of the time and they did that by their actions.’
The revelations extend beyond simple neglect. Evidence now points to the systemic use of diethylstilbestrol, a drug linked to increased cancer risk, within some of these homes. And ITV’s investigations have unearthed unmarked graves across England, hinting at the premature deaths of countless infants. The government’s protracted inaction – a stark contrast to apologies issued by Ireland, Scotland, and Wales – further fuels the call for complete transparency and access to records for survivors seeking to trace their families.
Josh MacAlister, the Children and Families Minister, has conceded the state’s ‘role’ and acknowledged the compelling case for a formal apology, a position now actively being considered. However, the scope of the issue demands a far more profound reckoning than mere acknowledgement. The Church’s influence was not simply peripheral; it was a principal driver of this deeply unethical and damaging practice.
Frampton insists that compensation is paramount, arguing that the church and state should bear the burden of rectifying the immense harm inflicted. ‘If the church is fully open on this, under the new archbishop of Canterbury, then this part of the pressure on the UK government to apologise.’
This isn’t simply about historical semantics. It's about confronting a dark chapter of British history and offering a measure of closure to those who have endured unimaginable trauma. The belated response underscores a fundamental failure of accountability – a failure that demands a decisive and unequivocal resolution.