TORN APART.

NZ Truth, Issue 136, 25 January 1908, Page 5

TORN APART.

MR. COX OF THE RECEIVING HOME Prevents a Mother from Seeing Her ChUdren. Where are the Children and is Anything Wrong with Them? This. paper is unaware of the lines on which the Receiving Home at Christohurch is conducted, nor does it know whether Manager A. B. Cox is a fit and proper person to run such an establishment. As a matter of fact "Truth" can never bring itself to a way of liking any individual whose trade is the management of a public Orphanage, or Receiving Home or whatever it is called. Cox might be a genial, good-hearted kind of cuss, but then again all these chaps are Bumib'les at heart, and no one cani really think much of anybody who has "to be paid, and paid well, too, for being kind to children. It is not going to be said that Cox isn't kind to the waifs' and strays that he "manages," but what is here strongly objected to is the manner m which mothers of the poor kids are treated, and if Cox's treatment of mothers is any indication of the attention he bestows on the children, then one must feel sorry for the youngsters. Why should not a mother be allowed 'to see her offspring who might be dying, or are- being ill-treated ? A mother, no matter what she is m Society's eyes,, is a mother with maternal instincts and it is just as cruel to a child as it is to a mother that the Bumbles of these public institutions should decree that parents and child SHOULD BE KEPT APART, As "Truth" set out to remark, it doesn't know one thing good, bad or indifferent concerning A. B. Cox, manager of the Christchurch Receiving Home, whose, address is 30 Fitzgerald Avenue, but judging from correspondence before it from Cox, to a woman named Clark, Mr A. B.C. ought to be asked . what the devil does 'he mean by giving a mother permission to see her children m one Ictt-c" and m the next considering it inadvisable that motherland children should see each other. It does not matter what the circumstances were under which the Clark children were put m the Home. Mrs Clark might have, been considered an improper person to have the custody of her little ones, nevertheless, now that one can presume that the children are receiving kindness, and are being reared m a pure and undefiled atmosphere, it is difficult to preceive any reason why Mr A. B.C. should Consider it inadvisable for the woman to see her youngsters and the said Mr A. B.C. ought to be called upon by his superiors to give an account of things. No woman can be too bad m the eyes of her neighbor that she should' not have access to her children m a Home, and as far as Mrs Clark is concerned, this paper has no reason to doubt her assertion that, here m Wellington, she is earning an honest and industrious living. It seems that .1.8 months or more ago, Mrs Clark, who was then resident m Christchurch, had the children taken from her on grounds unnecessary to relate at this stage. Last May the woman wrote to the Receiving Home enquiring into the welfare and- health of 'her youngsters, and she was informed that, with the exception of one boy, Hector, and the baby. Frank. THEY WERE ALL WELL. The baby, it seems, was very delicate and had to receive careful nursing. The woman Clark was informed that all the children were m the one Home, ajid if she desired to see them it could be arranged that they should be brought to the Receiving Home at Christchurch.- Next, the .woman expressed a desire to see them, and was informed that she would have to give notice m writing. Whether the woman, who shortly after came to Wellington, was tired of this redtapeism, or could not afford the expense of a trip ajiid stay m Christchurch, "Truth" cannot .tell, because it doesn't know. Anyhow, recently the woman wrote from Wellington for permission to see her children, and Mr A. B. Cox's reply is significant. It ran :— In reply to your letter of the 13th January, I have to inform youthat it is not considered advisable to give you permission to see your children at present. They are improved, but, as you best know, are most unhealthy children. Why it is not considered advisable by Mr Alphabetical Cox - that Mrs Clark should not be given permission tb see her children, is something Mr Cox. might have further enlarged on. If it rests with Cox to consider whether it is advisable for any mother, unfortunate enough to be torn apart from her little ones, to visit those little ones, ' "Truth" feels afraid that the self same Mr Cox is given just too much power. What on earth he means by informing the mother m one letter that it can be arranged for her to see her children and, m the next scant and almost discourteous note, refuse that permission, is something capable of further explanation. WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN ? Have they been boarded out and Mr Cox doesn't know where to find them. Perhaps they are improved m health, but the assertion that the motherknew they were most unhealthy children is a strange statement compared with that one made ih May of last year that they were all well", excepting Hector and Frank. It is a rotten state of affairs, anyhow, when a mother, to all intents leading a respectable life, is debarred from seeing her poor little mites, who are said to be unhealthy children. Even if she was not a "respectable" woman she is their mother, and Mr A. B. Cox ought to recognise that fact and be just a little more humane m his management. If mothers are humbugged about like this, what sort of a guarantee is there that the children under his management are getting the treatment he is paid to see they get.