We all had them the file at Barnardo's HQ, the file we were never meant to see. For most old boys and girls this all changed and we can all see our own records with third party information removed. In 1969 Frank Norman was able to obtain his files on his time in care.

Introduction

Frank Norman wrote: Apart from the omission of several names, this is the first page of my Dr Barnardo's dossier.

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

JOHN FRANK NORMAN. (Illegitimate) Admitted 24.3.I937.
BORN: 9.6.I930 at I55 Whiteladies Road, Bristol.
BAPTIZED: C.of E. No particulars. Mother C.of E.
LAST SIX MONTHS ADDRESS: c/o Mrs A. Prittlewell, Southend-on-Sea.
LAST SCHOOL ATTENDED: Barnes Private School, Church Road, Barnes.

Applicant: Lady W., 45 Onslow Square, South Kensington, London, S.W.7.

MOTHER: Beatrice Spence Smith née Norman (30)" health was good,. character indifferent, separated from her husband; last known address - I Hudds Vale, St George's, Bristol.

FATHER: (Putative): Frank Charles Booth (35),. Engineer; £800 per annum; M.; 'Netherleigh', Highfield, Llandaff, Cardiff, Wales. Not affiliated.

MOTHER'S HUSBAND: Vernon Leslie Smith; married the mother 23.I.3I. at Bristol Register Office; no other particulars.

HALF-BROTHER OR SISTER: Child of the mother's marriage, no other particulars .

The mother is described as an adventuress. At the time she met the putative father, she was a secretary at some works. She married in I93I, and her present address is unknown: When last heard of, two years ago, she was separated from her husband, and the child of the marriage was boarded out.

The putative father is the son of a managing director of an Engineering Works, and is very well off financially. After John was born, the putative father paid the mother through a solicitor the sum of £300 in order to clear his name. Later the mother made herself a nuisance, and in June I933, Mr Buttle, of the Church of England Adoption Society, was asked by the putative father's mother to get John adopted. For a short time the putative father paid £I per week, while John was in the Society's Home at Kingsbury. John was sent to several people, with a view to adoption, but each time he was returned with such excuses as being untruthful, dishonest and unintelligent.

Two years ago, applicant, who is Roman Catholic, made herself responsible, through the Adoption Society, for the maintenance of John, but did not legally adopt him. He was boarded out by applicant with Mrs A., at Prittlewell, Southend, for about eighteen months prior to last September. He was then brought to London and handed over to the care of a Mr and Mrs M., White Hart Lane, Barnes, who contemplated adopting him. On I2.2.I937 Mr M., took him back to applicant, as not being suitable. He has remained in her care ever since. Applicant states that she cannot afford to keep him, and there are reasons why she cannot keep him, but she wishes to keep in touch with him. When our officer called, the conditions in applicants home were not at all good, and it was reported that John should not be allowed to remain there a day longer than necessary.

John is a weak-looking child, and mentally backward, but he has never had a chance, being pushed about from pillar to post. At school he was said to be quite docile and friendly. The putative father should be persuaded to contribute regularly towards John's maintenance.
F.M.A.