Editing Adoption (section)

====Adoption and commoners====

[[File:Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller 003.jpg|thumb| ''At the monastery gate'' (''Am Klostertor'') by [[Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller]]]]
The nobility of the [[Germanic peoples|Germanic]], [[Celts|Celtic]], and [[Slavic peoples|Slavic]] cultures that dominated Europe after the decline of the [[Roman Empire]] denounced the practice of adoption.<ref>S. Finley-Croswhite, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3686/is_199708/ai_n8758613/print?tag=artBody;col1 Review of Blood Ties and Fictive Ties, Canadian Journal of History]{{dead link|date=May 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, August 1997</ref> In [[medieval]] society, [[bloodline]]s were paramount; a ruling dynasty lacking a "natural-born" [[heir apparent]] was replaced, a stark contrast to Roman traditions. The evolution of European law reflects this aversion to adoption. English [[Common Law|common law]], for instance, did not permit adoption since it contradicted the customary rules of inheritance. In the same vein, France's [[Napoleonic Code]] made adoption difficult, requiring adopters to be over the age of 50, sterile, older than the adopted person by at least 15 years, and to have fostered the adoptee for at least six years.<ref name="books.google.com">Brodzinsky and Schecter (editors), [https://books.google.com/books?id=7WQp2uEnogoC The Psychology of Adoption], 1990, page 274</ref> Some adoptions continued to occur, however, but became informal, based on ad hoc contracts. For example, in the year 737, in a charter from the town of [[Lucca]], three adoptees were made heirs to an estate. Like other contemporary arrangements, the agreement stressed the responsibility of the adopted rather than adopter, focusing on the fact that, under the contract, the adoptive father was meant to be cared for in his old age; an idea that is similar to the conceptions of adoption under Roman law.<ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 224</ref>

Europe's cultural makeover marked a period of significant innovation for adoption. Without support from the nobility, the practice gradually shifted toward abandoned children. Abandonment levels rose with the fall of the empire and many of the foundlings were left on the doorstep of the [[Catholic Church|Church]].<ref name="The Kindness of Strangers">John Boswell, [https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers], 1998, page 184</ref> Initially, the clergy reacted by drafting rules to govern the exposing, selling, and rearing of abandoned children. The Church's innovation, however, was the practice of [[oblation]], whereby children were dedicated to lay life within monastic institutions and reared within a [[monastery]]. This created the first system in European history in which abandoned children did not have legal, social, or moral disadvantages. As a result, many of Europe's abandoned and orphaned children became [[alumni]] of the Church, which in turn took the role of adopter. Oblation marks the beginning of a shift toward [[institutionalization]], eventually bringing about the establishment of the [[foundling hospital]] and [[orphanage]].<ref name="The Kindness of Strangers"/>

As the idea of institutional care gained acceptance, formal rules appeared about how to place children into families: boys could become apprenticed to an [[artisan]] and girls might be married off under the institution's authority.<ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 420</ref> Institutions informally adopted out children as well, a mechanism treated as a way to obtain cheap [[Child labor|labor]], demonstrated by the fact that when the adopted died their bodies were returned by the family to the institution for burial.<ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 421.</ref>

This system of [[apprenticeship]] and informal adoption extended into the 19th century, today seen as a transitional phase for adoption history. Under the direction of social welfare activists, orphan asylums began to promote adoptions based on sentiment rather than work; children were placed out under agreements to provide care for them as family members instead of under contracts for apprenticeship.<ref>Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC A Good Home]'', page 29.</ref> The growth of this model is believed to have contributed to the enactment of the first modern adoption law in 1851 by the [[Commonwealth of Massachusetts]], unique in that it codified the ideal of the "best interests of the child".<ref>Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC A Good Home]'', page 37.</ref><ref name="Topic: Timeline">Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/timeline.html Topic: Timeline] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100415010417/http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/timeline.html |date=15 April 2010 }}</ref> Despite its intent, though, in practice, the system operated much the same as earlier incarnations. The experience of the [[Boston Female Asylum]] (BFA) is a good example, which had up to 30% of its charges adopted out by 1888.<ref>Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC A Good Home]'', page 44.</ref> Officials of the BFA noted that, although the asylum promoted otherwise, adoptive parents did not distinguish between indenture and adoption: "We believe," the asylum officials said, "that often, when children of a younger age are taken to be adopted, the adoption is only another name for service."<ref>Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC A Good Home]'', page 45.</ref>