CHILD CHANGING.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 54, 5 March 1898, Page 3 (Supplement)

CHILD CHANGING.

A MOTHER KEEPS THE WRONG

CHILD THREE WEEKS.

Another scandalous jumble on the part of officials of the Metropolitan Asylums Board has been brought to light, whereby two afflicted children were returned to wrong homes. Mr Frank W. Gilbert, of Diamondstreet, Peckham-rye, has made the folloAving statement:— 'In May, 1893, two of my children were stricken with small-pox—Frank, aged three-and-a-half, and Elizabeth, aged nearly two years. The case of Frank was reported to the medical officer. The authorities ordered his removel to the hospital hulks at Dartford, under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. As my wife was ill, and unable to nurse the child, I raised no objection. The lad was taken away on May 6. 'Then the girl sickened, and although the authorities declared that the hospitals were full up, I insisted on her removal, not caring to run the risk of infecting the district. She was taken away on May 12. . 'Once or twice I wrote asking as to the condition of the girl. [The boy does not come into the story. He was returned all right.] I received formal replies that the girl was doing well. After the lapse of ten weeks or three months, I had an intimation that my daughter had recovered, and would be returned to us at Rotherhithe Wharf. My wife went, and a child was handed over to her. 'My wife had her doubts as to the identity of the infant. It was of the same size as her own, but it had broAvn eyes, my child had grey eyes. For another thing the ways of the child were strange, and not at all familiar to us. I joined in my wife's doubts. But we had had no experence of small-pox. We expected some alteration of features. My wife had been told that sometimes even the eyes changed in tint. We accepted the child, and treated it as one of our own. 'Three weeks afterwards a cab drove up to tho door. One of the doctors from the Dariford Hospital alighted, and ask d if Aye were sure we had our own shil.l. Instantly my doubts returned. I called my Avife. She brought down the Child in its nightdress. A nurse, a woman and another child came from the cab ' The woman at once claimed the child we had had for three weeks. My wife claimed the other. There was no doubt then as to the identity of either of the children. It was proved further by the fact that the second child had A'accination marks, while the first had none. Our child had been vaccinated three days before she had been taken away. 'The nurse explained that both children had been removed from the hospital hulks1 to the convalescent home of the Board at Gore Farm, near Dartford, and that in the transfer the labels were

ACCIDENTALLY CHANGED.

This imolied that all the letters as to the condition of the children had been sent to the Avrong parents. 'The doctor apologised for the mistake, and next day sent me a letter of esplana'They drove away with the child we had been keeping and left our OAvn. The other mother was a widow of Limehouse, with a large family. She had refused our child, who thereupon was sent to tbe workhouse, and thence back to Dartford.

'And had you any doubt, Mr Gilbert, of receiving- the right child in the end?'

'Not the slightest.' • 'Why was it, then, that you made no complaint or discloseure of the matter until now?'

T went to a member of the Camberwell Board of Guardians—a clergyman— who regarded it as a great joke that we accepted the wrong child. I took no furtheir action because the nurses had treated the children handsomely, and nursed them with such care and skill that I did not want to get them into trouble. But when I saw another case in print, I determined in the interests of the ptolifi that the time for such consideration had gone.',