Adoption in America: Historical Perspectives

A Historical Comparison of Catholic and Jewish Adoption Practices in Chicago, 1833–1933

A Historical Comparison of Catholic and Jewish Adoption Practices in Chicago, 1833–1933 As the nation’s population diversified in the nineteenth century, benevolent work in the United States began to develop along sectarian lines. This fact led to the common assumption that Roman Catholics and Jews differed both from one another and from the dominant Protestant group in the handling of their social welfare needs. In studying the way that Chicago’s Catholics and Jews coped with the problem of adoption, however, the similarities in their responses are more striking than the differences. Both religious groups suffered from being considered despised outsiders, and as immigrants, they went through similar experiences in their acculturation to American society. They can thus be compared in terms of their treatment of newer immigrants of their religious group, their attitudes regarding welfare in general and adoption in particular, their fund-raising methods, their connections with government, and the relationships prevailing among their professional and volunteer agency personnel.1 Like all sectarian social welfare providers, both Catholic and Jewish adoption workers have primarily been concerned with how to retain their distinctive religious identities and those of their agencies while integrating into mainstream American society. Prior to the passage of the Illinois Adoption Act of 1867, the state did not recognize a legal theory of child adoption. Before then, privately sponsored orphan homes, many of them affiliated with religious institutions, took in the increasing numbers of homeless children created by a burgeoning population and a series of cholera epidemics. One of the early ways of solving the problem of homeless children was binding them out by indenture as apprentices or servants for a specified period, without their consent. This practice became even more widespread after the revised statutes of Illinois defined the laws governing apprentices in 1845. Indenture remained the favorite means of providing for the custody and instruction of orphaned or otherwise destitute children until about 1875.2 101 Paula F. Pfeffer The recurrence of cholera epidemics, however, encouraged some families to seek children to take the place of lost loved ones. Without legal adoption procedures, a kind of guardianship developed. Distinct from indenture because it did not include service but instead provided for inspection of the receiving home, guardianship lasted until the child came of age. The rules of both indenture and guardianship dictated that the natural parents must never be told the whereabouts of their child, and the wishes of the child were not considered. Privately sponsored orphan homes, many of them affiliated with Protestant religious institutions, also took in increasing numbers of homeless children. Only a small percentage of these children were adoptable; most waifs were half orphans, destitute as a result of desertion or illness of the family breadwinner. Illinois first recognized a legal theory of child adoption with the passage of the Adoption Act of 1867. Formulated to provide greater safeguards for homeless children, the act borrowed liberally from other states’ legislation and set forth the principles of the theory of adoption, proposed a procedure, and placed it under the jurisdiction of the court. While claiming to place primary importance on the welfare of the child, the court alone determined the reputability of the adopting parents. Furthermore, to qualify as a resident of the state, the petitioner needed only temporary residence in Illinois, a provision that had the unforeseen consequence of encouraging some prospective parents to enter the state solely for the purpose of adopting a child. In 1854 Reverend Charles Loring Brace of the New York Children’s Aid Society began an experiment, sending “orphan trains” of homeless, dependent , or delinquent children from the streets of New York City to Illinois and other rural Midwestern locations. Brace did not attempt to support the youngsters’ natural families, which would have enabled the children to remain at home. Instead, he preferred breaking up poor biological families to “save” the children. Brace also did not investigate the receiving homes either before or after placement. Rather, he assumed that farm homes and fresh air were better for children than overcrowded cities, even though the children had to labor in exchange for room and board. Nevertheless, Brace was an early promoter of placing out as opposed to institutional care for dependent children. The Catholic Church, however, became alarmed: although the majority of these children were Catholic, they were being sent to Protestant homes, where the Church fathers thought they would be proselytized since, as one observer noted, “Every Country district affords evidence of the...