Blogging the Newspaper – Leaving Kids Loveless

I read this article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday (22 Jul 2015) with both mixed emotions and beliefs. The article by Kerry Chikarovski, Lobbyist & Political Commentator, outlines the decline in adoption in Australia, and ways in which the declining statistic could be changed – to the benefit of both the child and prospective parents. Ms Chikarovski also looks briefly at the negative impact that multiple out of home care (foster care) placements can have on a child, and I think that we would all agree that a child does in fact need and deserve a stable and loving environment in which to thrive.

Having been removed from my own natural parents and placed into a home at an early age, but never having been formally adopted, I believe I am uniquely qualified to make comment on such a topic. I was one of a select few that were lucky to have been loved by the people that were my guardians, but the truth is I would not have had the love, stability, opportunities or happiness had I not been removed from natural parents and put into a type of foster care. If there is even a question that staying in the care of natural parents is not in the best interest of the child  – then that child should be removed immediately.

Adoption is a far greater issue than standardising adoption laws and screening processes for easier adoption ability as suggested by Ms Chikarovski, however I am not suggesting for one moment that this is not a wonderful way in which to move forward with this process.  What I would say though, is that the same process should be applied to applicants of the out of home care/foster care system.  Adoption laws in our country are very strict when considering the type of applicant and the environment prospective parents can offer a child, but in my opinion, the same rules do not seem to apply to placement of a child into foster care.

On the face of it, becoming a foster parent appears to be quite a regulated process, with many levels of screening, however I have seen some extremely inappropriate behaviour from foster parents towards a child in their care. How a child could be removed from one difficult situation and dumped into something that can be almost or  equally as difficult, is beyond me.  I have been witness to some appalling behaviour by foster carers toward their “charges”, and I have wondered long in to the night how some children survive at all, how they could possibly find any self worth which would enable them to succeed in life.  In my opinion no child needs to be sworn at, hit and physically thrown around – that is not discipline!

Adoption rates have decreased in Australia for many reasons – two of which would be acceptance by society of pregnancy for anyone, at any age regardless of personal circumstances, and the opportunity for people to try for their own biological children through IVF programs. I believe that there is room for both adoption and foster care in our society, but please Ms Chikarovski, look at both sides of the equation, not just provide a headlining topic for publication.  If you feel the need to look at standardising adoption laws between our States and Territories, then surely you should also be looking at standardising foster care rules and regulations.  I would think that you would understand that children put up for adoption these days are in a vastly different category to those that need to be removed from harmful home situations, therefore they have an equal need and right for reviewing of regulations to ensure that they also are provided with a stable and loving environment in which to grow.

Mary Whiteman’s Fatherless Children – Part 4

After all the hardship and stress of the previous months Mary’s world was turned upside down yet again, when in early March of 1863 Edward’s wife  Matilda had another baby, a daughter named Elizabeth Ann. Matilda died just a few days later leaving Edward with three young children to look after.

Mary fully expected that Edward would marry her now, no matter what his parents said. She would be a good mother to all of Edward’s six children, knowing within her heart that she could easily love and care for his children by Matilda. Once again though the couple were not to marry, as Edward was far more interested in his social standing in the community and being cut off from his father’s fortune.

It seems that Mary and Edward were apart for some time as Mary’s next child, Caroline Ada Whiteman wasn’t born until the 5^th February, 1866. Even though Mary named her daughter Caroline she felt the name didn’t fit well with the babe, and forever after called her little girl Ada. Ada was soon followed by the last of Mary and Edwards children – John Vinal Whiteman, who was born on the 12^th August, 1868.

Mary with daughter Caroline Ada

The hardships that Mary had to faced in the previous years had been very difficult and on the whole she had had to face those times alone. Mary had no illusions about her future with Edward, he was a womaniser and she had continued to allow him to use her. It was about this time that Mary started to “fall out of love” with Edward and really see him for what he was.

Edward married Mary Sophia Fitzgerald in 1869  and in 1870 they had their first child together, a boy named William Cullen Browne.  Edward ceased paying any child support to Mary making it very difficult for her to support her family. Mary Whiteman saw red.  This was the last straw and she would not put up with Edward’s heartless ways a moment longer. She took him to court for child desertion and the following article appeared in The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River General Advertiser on Tuesday 31^st January, 1871.

Child Desertion.-Edward Browne was summoned by Mary Whiteman for neglecting to support his illegitimate child. Mr. Waring for the complainant, and Mr. Gould for the defendant. Mary Whiteman deposed: I am a single woman, and have never been married ; the child was born on the 12th August, 1868; it is a male child; Edward Browne, the defend- ant, is the father of that child; I took proceedings against him when the child was 12 months old; it was settled out of court; through receiving money on behalf of the child I did not take further proceedings; defendant maintained the child up to the 14th July, 1869 ; I received the money from his own hands up to that time; defendant is well able to support the child ; wit- ness gave evidence as to the paternity of the child, and also stated that she had several other children by the same defendant. By Mr. Gould: I am a single woman; defendant paid me the money for the support of that child, and not for any other purpose; I have a son fifteen years old belonging to the defendant. (The witness was cross-examined at some length in reference to alleged intercourse with other men ) I have not stated that any other person was the father of this child; I never wrote to Mr. Richard Browne about this or any other child; I never alleged that the child belonged to Mr. Richard Browne. By the Bench: I received £13 in all for the twelve months, after I summonsed the defendant, being at the rate of 5s. Per week; previous to this, just after the birth of the child, I received various sums at the rate of about 7s. per week.-Dorothea Elbe gave evidence to the effect that she had seen the defendant in Mary Whiteman’s bedroom, three years ago, last November.-The complainant’s case having closed, Mr. Gould submitted that the case must be dismissed, as no evidence had been adduced that the child was living at the time the information was laid. The bench took the same view, and dismissed the case, and ordered complainant to pay £1 1s. Professional costs.

But Mary had the bit between her teeth, and she wasn’t giving up and the following article appeared in the same newspaper a week later on February, 1871:

CHILD DESERTION. — Edward Browne was summoned by Mary Whiteman, for neglecting to support his illegitimate child, two and a half years old. Mr. Waring appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Gould for the defendant. The case had been heard on the previous Tuesday, when it was dismissed, owing to a want of proof that the child was still alive. Fresh proceedings were then taken, and the evidence adduced was similar to that given on the former occasion, with the addition that since then an offer had been made to the complainant to accept £2 in payment for eight weeks’ support. Nothing was mentioned when the offer was made as to which child it referred to. This offer was refused by the complainant. The bench made an order for defendant to pay 6s. per week for twelve months, to be paid monthly, and ordered him to enter into two sureties.     The bench also ordered £1 1s. professional costs to be paid, and 5s. for two witnesses.

Mary did find happiness amongst all this turmoil.  She married Daniel Blunden in 1871 in Patricks Plain.  Mary, Daniel and Mary’s children moved to Tamworth at some point between their marriage in 1871 and the birth of their daughter Emily Jane in 1872.  Emily was to be the last of Mary’s children and the only one to have a documented father. Mary Whiteman Blunden lost her husband Daniel James Blunden in 1899 but lived a further 25 years.  She finally passed away at the age of 90 years (although her son maintained her age was around 95 years) on 26 May 1924.

Mary with Daughters Mary-Anne (L) and Harriet (R)

Mary-Anne Smith, Mary Blunden, Harriette Thevenet (seated) & Caroline Ada Leggo

Edward and Mary Sophia had two more children – Lilia b. 1872 and Mary Elizabeth b. 1875.  Edward Browne died on 4 Nov 1876, aged just 44 years.

Mary Whiteman’s Fatherless Children – Part 3

After the birth of little Mary Ann the old routine set in with Edward visiting Mary whenever he wanted, and supplying paltry support for her and the children. He had told her it was impossible to leave Matilda until she could at least take the children with her when she went.

Mary had lost her hope of becoming Edwards’s wife, and her life became a little toxic. On the 9^th March 1862 Mary was involved in a very unseemly incident with a neighbour. The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River Advertiser carried a story relating to the event as follows:

ASSAULT -Margaret Love was charged with this offence by Mary Whiteman, who deposed I reside in Hunter street Singleton , the information read is true On last Saturday week, the 1st instant, a Mrs. Love (the defendant) came into my house and asked what I was doing in her house at one o dock the previous night. I denied having been in her house. She thereupon called me a b-   : w-   , and struck me with her fist on the shoulder. She also threw a plate at me, which struck against the wall and broke. She then took up a table knife and it stuck in the wall also; she also said she would have my life.   The defendant has threatened me every day since. She has also thrown brickbats at my house during several nights -Sarah Palmer also heard some of the abusive language. For the defense: Elisabeth Watson deposed that on Saturday week last about 3o’clock, she heard Mary Whiteman say, ‘There’s that common Irish w-, I shall have satisfaction of her, -meaning the defendant -John Love deposed: I am defendant’s husband. Last Saturday week I was at home. I am positive I heard no conversation between my wife and complainant until about half past five o clock in the evening, when I heard Mary Whiteman say, “There’s that common Irish w-, I shall have satisfaction of her I can swear that my wife did not go out of her house until half past ten that morning. Both the complainant and defendant were ordered to be bound over to keep the peace for three months, on their own recognizances of £5 each, towards each other.

Then on Tuesday 20^th May something truly awful happened – Mary was indicted for the manslaughter of three week old Sarah Jane Palmer. The following appeared in The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River Advertiser on page 3: Please note that the name in the newspaper report was wrong. Mary Ann was the name of her own infant daughter.

Child Murder Charge – Mary Whiteman

SINGLETON.

Monday, 5.10 p.m.    

At an inquest held on the body of  Mary Anne Palmer, three weeks old, before Dr. Glennie, to-day, the jury found Mary Whiteman guilty of administering poison to the child, which died yesterday from the effects of a dose of laudanum. She was committed on the coroner’s warrant, for manslaughter, for the Maitland Assizes.

The outcome of the trial was widely reported both at a local level and in other state newspapers. The following notice appeared locally in The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River General Advertiser on Saturday the 6^th September, 1862.

CHILD MURDER.

Mary Whiteman was indicted for that she did, on the 18th May, at Singleton, kill and slay Sarah Jane Palmer. Mr. Ellis appeared for the prisoner, attorney Mr. Briggs.  The following witnesses were called for the prosecution –   Sarah Palmer, Dr Glennie, Dr F Calov, and Agnes Morris.

Mrs. Palmer, a young married woman, was confined in April,   at Singleton and was assisted for several weeks after by the prisoner, who on several occasions administered to the infant a peculiar mixture containing a small quantity of laudanum. On the morning of Sunday the 18th May, the child appeared well, but restless. The mother told prisoner to give it some castor oil and peppermint. Prisoner mixed the medicine with some stuff out of a bottle of her own, which she had previously given to the child, and it began, soon after it had got it, to show signs of convulsions and to turn black in the face. Two or three other women were present, and the infant had three doses of castor oil, an emetic, some magnesia, peppermint, and brandy and water, administered to it, but it died in ten hours after it had the prisoner’s mixture. A small phial was produced, containing the mixture, of which a part had been given to the child, but there was no analytical evidence as to what it was. A written statement of the prisoner’s was read, that she had mixed a very small quantity of laudanum, with oil for the child. Medical evidence failed to show what quantity of laudanum might safely be given to a child in a dose, one drop being considered sufficient in some cases to kill. It appears the prisoner did not give any directions as to what quantity of the mixture should be given to the child. It was stated that castor oil would not cause the coma and stertorous breathing which the infant exhibited on the afternoon before death; and that the livid appearance of the body, the compression of the lungs, and the emptiness of the heart and stomach, indicated that the child died of the effects of laudanum. The child was three weeks and four days old at its death. No malicious feeling was known to exist towards the Palmers on the part of prisoner. Mr. Ellis addressed the Jury for the defense, and his Honor summed up.

The Jury immediately returned a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was disMrs. Palmer, a young married woman, was confined in April,   at Singleton and was assisted for several weeks after by the prisoner, who on several occasions administered to the infant a peculiar mixture containing a small quantity of laudanum. On the morning of Sunday the 18th May, the child appeared well, but restless. The mother told prisoner to give it some castor oil and peppermint. Prisoner mixed the medicine with some stuff out of a bottle of her own, which she had previously given to the child, and it began, soon after it had got it, to show signs of convulsions and to turn black in the face. Two or three other women were present, and the infant had three doses of castor oil, an emetic, some magnesia, peppermint, and brandy and water, administered to it, but it died in ten hours after it had the prisoner’s mixture. A small phial was produced, containing the mixture, of which a part had been given to the child, but there was no analytical evidence as to what it was. A written statement of the prisoner’s was read, that she had mixed a very small quantity of laudanum, with oil for the child. Medical evidence failed to show what quantity of laudanum might safely be given to a child in a dose, one drop being considered sufficient in some cases to kill. It appears the prisoner did not give any directions as to what quantity of the mixture should be given to the child. It was stated that castor oil would not cause the coma and stertorous breathing which the infant exhibited on the afternoon before death; and that the livid appearance of the body, the compression of the lungs, and the emptiness of the heart and stomach, indicated that the child died of the effects of laudanum. The child was three weeks and four days old at its death. No malicious feeling was known to exist towards the Palmers on charged – his Honor cautioning her as to the use of dangerous medicines.

Sources:

DISTRICT NEWS. (1862, March 13). The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser (NSW : 1843 – 1893), p. 3. Retrieved July 19, 2015, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article18687116

Discovering Dad – A Medal Arrives

My heart almost skipped a beat when I saw the card from the post office sitting on the kitchen counter when I came home from town this afternoon.  The card simply indicated that there was a parcel to be collected from the South Tamworth Post Office!  My husband and I could not get down to the post office fast enough, however the man behind the counter was not at all interested as to why this parcel was of such great importance to me. He was gruff in his service, went off to search the shelves out the back of the store with a huff, and all but threw the small, white, bubble wrap envelope across the counter to me. The funny thing is – his attitude could not stop the smile from breaking across my face, nor the lightness I felt in my heart as I read who the sender of the envelope was – Directorate of Honours and Awards – Dad’s medals had arrived.

I carried the envelope back to the car which Terry had parked a short distance away and during that short walk all I could think of was ripping open the parcel.  Terry watched as I withdrew  small white box with dads service number and name printed on it. Inside was an oblong blue box which I opened to find the Australia Service Medal 1939 – 1945.

The Australia Service Medal – R N Di Salvia N211765

Monday 20 July 2015 was the day that I first held a medal which, by rights, should have gone to my father just about 70 years ago.  The medal felt cool on my hand as I lifted the it from the box, and I marvelled at how polished and shiny it was. But as I sat staring at a side view of George VI which is on the front of the medal, I couldn’t help but feel sad that my dad, Ronald Norman Di Salvia, had never held the medal in his own hand.  The old question burned deep within – why didn’t dad claim this medal as his own all those years ago? 

For now though I would like my sisters to see and hold it so it looks like I will have to do some travelling over the next few months.  I want them to see how it shines, feel it’s cool beauty and take pride in what dad was able to do in the service of his country. There was only 1 medal in the box so it seems that there will still be a wait for the other, but I am sure that when the 2nd medal arrives it will be of as much significance and excitement to me as the arrival of the first.  Well done Dad – we’re proud of you.

Discovering Dad – The Colour Blind Investigation

12 July 2015

Sleuth on the job!!  Today I decided to do a little investigation into why my father was born colour blind, and how life would have looked through his eyes.  I’m really lucky as I have a multitude of doctors at work that I can go to with questions, so I did just that during this afternoon.

Just how Ronald Norman Di Salvia was born colour blind could have apparently happened in one of two ways.  There is a quite a high chance that, as a male child born colour blind, his mother Christina Lorna Di Salvia nee: Hastings was a carrier of the mutated colour blind gene but was not colour blind herself.  However, within this option the gene could have been lying dormant for any number of generations before re-surfacing in Christina.  Alternatively one, or both of Christina’s parents could have been colour blind, but this was probably never known at the time and would certainly be very difficult to prove in this day and age.

The other factor is that a male child, in this case my dad, can also be “the first of his line” (known as De Novo) to ever be colour blind, due to a gene mutation.  There may have been no family history of colour blindness at all, and although this option is less likely, it still carries a fairly high percentage of all sufferers.

That is a very simplistic run down on the whys’ and wherefores’ of colour blindness.  All that said – the truth is that we will never know how or when the gene mutation for colour blindness started in the family, however it would be a very wise thing to start documenting cases within the family now, for future medical reference.

As a young girl learning to drive I remember dad telling me that he knew which stop light was red and which was green from the position of the light, not the colour.  He never mentioned the amber colour and this leads me to suspect that dad had Protanopia, which is red/green colour blindness.  This allowed him to see the amber light on the stop lights correctly.  Dad’s world consisted of blue hues, khaki, yellow shades, greys and black.

Colour pencils as seen by non colour blind person – Picture from Colour Blind Awareness

Colour pencils as seen through Dads eyes – Picture from Colour Blind Awareness

How absolutely marvellous is the human mind though?  Dad worked on display sign writing as part of his every day job, and he was quite clever at it.  The paints would be lined up – and dad simply knew what position the paint colour was sitting in when he needed it.  Humans adapt!

So, the mutated colour blindness gene may be generations old or it could have simply started with dad, but either way – it is now here to stay for generations to come.

Sources:

Colour Blind Awareness: http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/

Colour Matters: http://www.colormatters.com/color-and-vision/what-is-color-blindness

Mary Whiteman’s Fatherless Children – Part 2

As history shows, at the time of little Maria Whiteman’s death in 1857 her father Edward Browne was seeing a woman other than her mother Mary, and the new relationship was very much to Edward’s parents liking. After burying his tiny daughter and leaving Mary to mourn alone Edward arrived home to find Matilda Cook and her parents seated in the drawing room with his mother and father. Matilda’s eyes, red rimmed from crying, searched his face as soon as he entered the room but the glacial stare from Matilda’s father set the tone of discussion for the evening. Matilda was pregnant, and her father insisted on a marriage.

Edward and Matilda were married just weeks later, but Edward had not been to see Mary in that time, and so the news of the marriage reached Mary by word of mouth. She was in absolute turmoil having just lost her precious baby, and now losing the love of her life. How could she have been so stupid as to think Edward would ever take her as his wife? Mary’s heart hardened just a little the day she heard that Edward and Matilda had a brand new baby boy named John William Browne, just a short time after their marriage. She had done the math, Edward had cheated on her!  It had been a very big year for Edward Browne!

For roughly three years Mary worked hard at whatever work she could find to support her two beautiful children. She was employed as a wet nurse to families with new babies and cleaned people’s homes, among other things.

One evening, as Harriet and Spencer were playing on the kitchen floor and Mary was clearing up after the evening meal, there was a bold, loud knock at the door. Mary opened the door and her heart pounded with joy to see Edward standing there, but in that fleeting instant of joy, common-sense took hold so she slammed the door shut in his face, and held her breath. Edward knocked again, calling her name over and over, causing such a commotion that Mary again opened the door as he was upsetting the children. This time Edward was ready and stepped straight into the hall, pushing past Mary as he did so. “Okay, I did the wrong thing, I know it, but she’s a cow, and the kids are brats, and all I want is for us to be together – as husband and wife Mary, I swear – as husband and wife,” blurted Edward.

Mary was still holding her breath, could he be telling the truth? No, in her heart she knew he was still lying but she made him wait as she settled the children in their bed for the night. She made him wait yet again, whilst she finished in the kitchen, and all the while Edward sat on the hard, wooden chair by the fire, not uttering a word.

When Mary passed by him to put away the dish she was holding Edwards arms snaked around her, the kiss coming swiftly, and Mary’s heart melted. Mary’s defences dropped and she let him into her bed once again.

The result was a precious daughter; baby Mary Ann Whiteman was born on the 20^th July, 1861, again there was no father listed on the birth certificates.

Edward’s wife Matilda delivered a baby boy whilst she was visiting family in Tamworth, and she named him Edward after his father. Baby Edward was born on 20 September 1861, just two months after little Mary Ann.  Edward  had two women totally devoted to him, and willing to attend to his every need.  He also had two women bearing his children at the same times.

 

 

 

Mary Whiteman’s Fatherless Children – Part 1

Mary Whiteman
Taken 1860 approx

Unravelling the mystery surrounding the life of my Great Great Grandmother Mary Whiteman has been nothing short of a mammoth task!  She appears to have been a fiercely protective and devoted mother but I have not been able to find a marriage for Mary prior to 1872 when she married Daniel Blunden. 

I have created a fictional story around the known facts of Mary’s life.  The facts are in bold text.  This is one of my first attempts at creative writing so I would ask for tolerance of any obvious writing errors.

Augusta Jessie

Mary Whiteman was baptised on 14 April, 1834 in Udimore in Sussex, England, although there is a possibility that she was a couple of years old at the time.  Her son, John Vinal Whiteman, maintained that she died at the age of 97 years of age, which would have put her birth year at around 1827.    Mary, her father and mother John and Harriet Whiteman, her sister Maria and brother Spencer sailed from England aboard the “Augusta Jessie” on or about 6 June 1837, arriving in Sydney on 11 October the same year.  The Augusta Jessie was 3 masted Barque of 380 tons and made numerous trips to Australia sometimes brining convicts.

 In 1852, just three years after her mother’s death, when Mary was around 20 years old she delivered her first child, a little girl named Harriette after her beloved mother. But the name of Harriet’s father was not listed on her birth certificate and so began the story of Mary’s six “fatherless” children.

Mary worked hard to provide a life for Hariette but she was treated as a social outcast by many in the local community. Some of the womenfolk would cross the street so as not to be seen anywhere near a “fallen woman”.

Mary had fallen deeply in love with Edward Browne, son of the prominent John Browne MP, at some point in time between mid-1852 and late 1854. Although Mary’s family were undoubtedly hard workers, and had done reasonably well for themselves since emigrating, Mary was considered a most unsuitable match for him by Edward parents. It would appear that this fact troubled Edward much less than Mary.   Edward continued to visit Mary’s home whenever he had a mind to, promising her that they would marry just as soon as his parents saw what a lovely person she really was.

But then the unthinkable happened and Mary fell pregnant again. “Please Edward, this is your baby, their grandchild, please make them see that we have to marry,” implored Mary.

Spencer William Edward Whiteman as a grown man

Mary delivered a son to Edward on the 6^th September, 1855 and named the child Spencer William Edward Whiteman.   It is a telling fact that Mary named her son Spencer – after her Uncle, William – after her Grandfather, and – Edward. Mary’s heart broke with love for Edward as she held her tiny boy, however the couple were still not allowed to marry, and it never crossed Edward’s mind to run away with Mary and the children.“I will Mary, I will make them see, just come back to bed and we’ll see them tomorrow.” We will never know if Edward talked to his parents about Mary.

Just two years later on the 8^th August 1857 Mary delivered a baby girl, Maria Ann, a tiny babe that was very ill. Little Maria died shortly after birth, and as Mary placed her tiny daughter in the ground hot tears streamed down her cheeks. Later that evening when Hariette and Spencer were in bed Mary begged Edward to stay with her. “I can’t Mary, I’m expected at home, you know that,” replied Edward in a tight voice. “Please Edward, stay, we’ve just buried our daughter, I need you to be with me tonight,” begged Mary. But Edward left her crying in the dim lantern light to mourn their babe alone.

 

Sources:

• Photo of August Jessie from The Convict Ships by Charles Bateson. 2nd Edition 1974

 

The Unknown Soldiers of 2nd Australian Advanced Ordnance Corp

2nd Advanced Australian Ordnance Depot Men. L to R:
Ron Di Salvia, Ernie ?, Doug Grisdale, the rest unknown

Can you help identify any of the unnamed soldiers in this photograph?  These men would have been stationed at Bathurst at some point between 1941 and 1944 and served with my father, Ronald Norman Di Salvia, in the 2nd Australian Advanced Ordnance Corp.  The family history buff in me would like to put some names to faces, but also share this photograph with descendants of these men.

Ronald Norman Di Salvia is on the far left, next to him is a man named Ernie ?, and beside him is Douglas Hampton Grisdale.  I have just recently made contact with a descendant of Doug Grisdale, the man my brother Douglas Norman Di Salvia is named after, and I have been able to pass the photograph on to them.

Any help would be very much appreciated.