Just how accurate is Love Child?
It has raised issues faced by victims of forced adoption, but did midwives really behave like this?
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Love Child finished its first season run on Nine earlier this week, already renewed for a second season.
The ratings and reviews were encouraging for Nine.
But it was with some interest I read an article this week talking about real-life incidents of forced adoption in Australia during the ’60s and ’70s.
64 year old Lily Arthur, who lost her child in 1964, told News Corp, “It was nothing like the fun time you see the girls having on the show. We were locked up, forced to work and we had no contact with the outside world. These places were just full of young, depressed girls waiting to deliver children they knew they would lose. It was like waiting to get the guillotine.”
She resented any implication that the girls were “sl**s” or that they gave their children up willingly.
“I met someone the other day who said he was ashamed to say he was adopted because of how the girls in the program were portrayed,” she said.
Susan Ross, a midwife during the 70s, believes the show has captured the real life events well but had concerns over the portrayal by Jessica Marais.
“The only criticism I have is that the main midwife is very assertive which would not have been the case back then,” she said.
“We did not have the ability available to speak up no matter what we thought. There was so much fear so we would have been terrified to speak out on behalf of the mothers.”
The series was created by writer Sarah Lambert who told me she undertook extensive research to craft the drama. But of course dramatic license is required for modern audiences.
One of the things that struck me about the early episodes was that Marais’ character seemed to carry 2014 sensibilities in a 1970s setting. She was always questioning the rights of patients and provoking her direct seniors. In a hospital environment such a character would no doubt have followed a strict heirarchy. My mother was once a nurse, and I don’t ever remember her being allowed to wear such heavy make-up at work either.
But Ross is grateful the show has raised the issues surronding forced adoption and debunks some of the myths faced by many.
“It started the conversation for me,” says Ms Ross. “I hope it can for others, too.”
The Federal Government issued a national apology to victims of forced adoptions in 2013.
Share
- Tagged with Love Child
10 Responses
I found this show enjoyable enough to stick with it but the lazy Underbelly style directing & some of the cliches etc made it a bit of a chore to get thru the final eps, i probably wouldn’t have bothered if i wasn’t such a sucker for retro dramas. But i also didn’t think it potrayed the mums as having a good time etc. Being nine i thought most would have fairly low expectations of this, it would of course have been alot better if done by the ABC. Janet King has its fair share of cliches but the excellent production, direction, scripts & acting more than compensates. Quite honestly i was surprised when 9 announced this show as i didnt think they would tackle such a serious topic.
Pentinax, actually there was an ‘official system’ it was called the ‘Child Adoption Act 1939’ The laws were very clear with regard to the adoption process and the rights of the mother, and all the information and support she ought to have received before adoption was even discussed as an option. Love Child was produced purely for entertainment. It was poorly researched miss-mash, which might be all fine and dandy if so many people were not still living with the pain of the real life circumstances of forced adoptions.
I mean’t too
I agree @poida….a little to unreal for me
Look, I enjoyed how they watched the July 1969 moon landing in summer and Bandstand in broad daylight.
There was no official system so the experience would vary wildly. Minors (majority was 21) had next to no rights in any form and were required to do whatever their guardians (usually parents) said.
The Sydney Women’s Hospital took women for only the birth and adoption. The system was exposed and attracted criticism when they took short cuts with an adoption and a court case over-turned it, similar to the show.
Other welfare agencies ran homes for unmarried mothers.
These adoptions occurred when the father and parents refused to support the mother and child and the parents wanted the child adopted.
There were some women at Sydney Hospital who refused the adoptions. There were others who signed consent forms given to them immediately after birth, including when they were sedated.
If a women tried to raise the child that is when the State could officially become…
While I did enjoy the main storyline, the show was filled with cliches and preposterous situations involving the girls.
I thought the show was really good, and I never expected it to be a totally accurate depiction of the subject matter. In the show, the girls are not supposed to leave the grounds without permission, and Matron is very strict. I guess if they didn’t include a bit of fun and frivolity, it may have been quite boring.
I thought the masses of makeup Jessica Marais wore was just ridiculous, not just for the 60s, but for any time. A nurse’s shift is fraught enough without running around looking perfect.
It annoyed me so much I didn’t even last the first episode. While the theme of the show is good, the execution totally unrealistic.
I didn’t think there was any implication that the girls gave their children up willingly. and the show made very clear how out of line Joan was with her assertive-ness. I never expected it to be very accurate, but after reading this article I think it really was.
It’ll be interesting to see who returns next season. Annie & Martha’s storyline seemed to come to an end, would be good if they left it there and invited new characters in.