Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPimm-Smith, R
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-07T12:53:03Z
dc.date.issued2019-12-02
dc.description.abstractThis article investigates the empirical backing for the claim that poor law officials needed legal authority to refuse poor parents' right to the custody of their children in order to stabilise children's welfare institutions during the nineteenth century. Although workhouses were capable of accommodating children, Victorian lawmakers feared children would model themselves on adult paupers to become permanent burdens on the state. To tackle this problem, a system of children's welfare institutions called 'district schools' was introduced to train children to become industrious adult labourers. Children were usually classified as orphans or deserted so they could be sent to district schools without fear of family intervention. However, children with ambiguous parental circumstances were labelled as 'other' and considered a problematic class because they were perceived to be at risk of having on-going contact with their birth families. Lawmakers feared parents of 'other' children would undermine reformation efforts by asserting their custody rights, and passed the first laws in English history to allow the state to restrict parental rights on this basis. This article explores the claim of unwanted parental involvement, and in doing so, seeks to contextualise the origins of public law interference in the family sphere within a narrative of imposed citizenship rather than protection.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 34 (3), pp. 401 - 423en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0268416019000353
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/40289
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherCambridge University Press (CUP)en_GB
dc.rights© Cambridge University Press 2019en_GB
dc.titleDistrict schools and the erosion of parental rights under the Poor Law: A case study from London (1889-1899)en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-01-07T12:53:03Z
dc.identifier.issn0268-4160
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Cambridge University Press via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalContinuity and Changeen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-12-02
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-01-07T12:51:07Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2020-01-07T12:53:15Z
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record