Between 1924 and 1950, Georgia Tann placed more than 5,000 children—many of them seized from their parents without permission—with wealthy families across the U.S. Tann operated an illegal black-market business, selling more than 5,000 children to wealthy families across the country between 1924 and 1950. Some parents willingly left their children behind, but many were forcibly separated from their babies and stripped of their parental rights.Tann was heralded as the 'Mother of Modern Adoption' even as she built an intricate network of corrupt politicians and civic leaders who shielded TCHS from legal interference. She popularized adoption. She commercialized it. She imbued it with secrecy. Despite these findings, nobody was ever criminally charged in the scheme, and a proposed federal investigation into TCHS never materialized.
pull down to refresh
related posts
She was also a lesbian.
And adopted an infant girl.
Interesting.
I think @SHA256man may be on to something.
There was a lot of weird crap that happened in these decades that's been buried in history. On the one hand, we can compare what she did to modern times and go, "Wow, that's horrible." On the other hand, there were no social safety nets, child protective services or similar in those days. There were just lots of poor people floating around the country and orphanages stuffed with kids no one wanted. My father-in-law was one of them. He ended up being adopted by his uncle and aunt in Washington after his mother had him out of wedlock. She felt it was better to place him than try to care for him when she had no support. It assumed she drifted off somewhere in Chicago and starved to death at the time. Early 1930s reality.
You're right that there was no safety net, no child protective services, just poverty and orphanages full of kids nobody wanted, your father-in-law's story is real and that reality was brutal, but that's not what Tann was, she didn't place kids because there was nowhere else for them, she took kids who had families, falsified birth certificates and sold them for profit, the context explains why the system allowed it, it doesn't explain why she walked away with a million dollars and an invitation to Truman's inauguration, that wasn't survival, that was business.
Agreed. She's an indicator of how crazy it was then in the vacuum. People hate big government but, if done right, there are some things that we have now that were the wild, wild west back then.
Agreed, but nothing guarantees the state isn't already in the pocket of a few
I know nothing about this case nor am I trying to defend Tann, however I'm willing to bet the story is more nuanced then presented.
I had a friend who worked for CPS for a year or so out of college, she said that a good 50% or so of the cases she worked the parents actively didn't want / ignored the children. She said one of her first cases she went to a house who were reported to CPS because the children (toddlers) were seen wandering the streets alone at night.
When she confronted the mother she said "lets see how we can resolve this, because if we don't we will have to place them in protective custody" to which the mother instantly shot back "take them now...I never wanted them..."
It wouldn't surprise me if a large percentage of those 5000 children had similar parents.
nuanced cases will be used to defend the harvesting rituals; the "wealthy families" with certain fetishes/desires (as old as humanity itself) are often the ones desiring the pristine young flesh; hiding the less-than 1% of young flesh harvesting is easier in large numbers; registering humans makes it convenient to distribute the flesh like meat with barcodes; it is well-known that millions of kids go missing around the world annualy, since the desire seems unquenchable... alas, the judgement day will come for those psychos also 🗡
https://m.stacker.news/158690
💩🙈🙉🙊💩
https://m.stacker.news/158692
📯🔊👁🔊📯
https://m.stacker.news/158691
Thats tragic and insane. Scary