Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us
Black and white photo of woman standing with two children on the pavement in front of a terraced house. The children are girls in skirts with long white socks. All wear outdoor coats. There is one window with white lace curtains and a dark door with a glass pane above it.

Who’s Responsible? ‘Illegitimate’ Children in England and Wales

Throughout time, the concept of ‘the family’ has had a variety of—often politicized—meanings in different parts of the world. In twentieth-century Britain, the nuclear ‘male breadwinner family’ remained the ideal, consisting of a father who provides for the family and a mother who raises the children and takes care of the household.

Prior to the Divorce Reform Act 1969, divorce was unattainable for most couples—a complicated and expensive legal process—and could only be granted upon proof of adultery, abandonment, cruelty, or insanity, as set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937:

A petition for divorce may be presented to the High Court . . . either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent—
a. has since the celebration of the marriage committed adultery; or
b. has deserted the petitioner without cause for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or
c. since the celebration of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
d. is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; and by the wife on the ground that her husband has, since the celebration of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality.1

These tight regulations allowed marriage to become a site of government regulation of ‘the family’, ensuring parental responsibility for children and encouraging economic stability. Indeed, until the end of the century, a father’s relationship to his child was legalized directly through marriage.2

My PhD project focuses on questions of ‘family’, parental responsibility, equality, and children’s rights in England and Wales post-1945. I take an intersectional approach to the research—that is, I also consider factors such as race, class, and age. As Steven Saxonberg highlights, despite significant feminist work on family policies, intersectionality has ‘taken a backseat’ in much of this scholarship—a gap that I aim to address.3

When I arrived in London for a month of research at the start of August, I did not expect to find so much material and left feeling overwhelmed by ideas and different possible avenues. I felt my research focus broadening rather than narrowing. Once I had returned to Berlin, gathered my thoughts, and begun to analyse the sources I had collected, I was reminded of a theme that surfaced consistently during my time in both The Women’s Library at the London School of Economics and at The London Archives: parental responsibility. This theme can reveal much about the ways in which family, motherhood, and fatherhood were viewed during the second half of the twentieth century in England and Wales, and by focusing on an outlier of ‘family’—the ‘illegitimate’ child—clear yet contradictory understandings of responsibility arise. In this post, I elaborate on these themes, illustrated through a range of 1960s archival sources, and point out where I plan to take the research further.

‘Illegitimate’ Families

The male breadwinner was of course an ideal rather than a reflection of reality, and a diverse array of families existed outside the ‘norm’ both before and after divorce law was liberalized. ‘Second’ families were not uncommon prior to 1969, and in fact many ‘illegitimate’ children were born into stable families in which the parents were cohabiting long term, unable to legally marry.4 Between 1955 and 1966 ‘illegitimate’ births approximately doubled, from 31,445 (4.66 per cent of all live births) to 67,056 (7.9 per cent),5 and this was often used to justify various ‘moral panics’ about the erosion of British family values. Policy gradually shifted over the century, incorporating different forms of ‘family’, and yet parental responsibility in cases of ‘illegitimate’ children remained a constant challenge for British governments.

Black and white photo of boy in casual clothes standing on a wall and looking over the metal railing to the other side. In the background, a block of council flats.
Fig. 1: In 1966, just under 8 per cent of all live births in England and Wales were ‘illegitimate’. Unknown Photographer, ‘Out of school—into trouble on his own’, n.p., n.d., Gingerbread, in The Women’s Library, London School of Economics, 5 GNB 6 3 (Box 15). Photo courtesy of Gingerbread.

Non-marital children were automatically considered filius nullius (child of nobody), and it was not until the Family Law Reform Act 1987 that all remaining legal differences between the rights of ‘illegitimate’ and ‘legitimate’ children were abolished. Mothers were automatically the responsible parent in illegitimacy cases and, for much of the century, it was difficult for fathers to claim any legal rights over their non-marital child. Yet, within the male breadwinner paradigm, the father is expected to be financially responsible—a responsibility ‘enforced’ through marriage. In the case of the non-marital child, it was hence much more complex. Attempts to get fathers to pay towards the maintenance of their ‘illegitimate’ children were largely unsuccessful throughout the period.

Responsibility of the Mother?

Unmarried mothers were often villainized, viewed as outsiders to the family norm and a threat to British moral values. Of course, this did not mean that they were never accepted in society, and there were many helpful and understanding individuals, but as a group, lone mothers often experienced extreme hardship and social exclusion. The National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child (NCUMC) was a voluntary organization established in 1918 in response to this. It provided legal advice, help with claiming benefits, assistance in finding housing and work, as well as short-term financial relief for those in great need. The organization changed its name in 1973 to the National Council for One Parent Families and, after merging with another charity in 2007 to become Gingerbread, is still in existence today. Its original name, however, underscores where parental responsibility for an ‘illegitimate’ child was seen—or expected—to lie. An extensive collection of its records is held at The Women’s Library, where I spent much of my time.

Black and white photo of a man taking a telephone call and making notes by the window of an office. He sits at a large desk which is covered in papers, stationery, files and rotary-dial telephones.
Fig. 2: The National Council spent much of its time answering calls and letters from unmarried mothers and providing advice and information. Unknown Photographer, n.p., n.d., National Council for One Parent Families, in The Women’s Library, London School of Economics, 5 OPF 11 2 b (Box 119). Photo courtesy of Gingerbread.

Lone mothers received limited sympathy from British governments, and this was reflected in the ongoing need for the NCUMC, which formed a vital link between the state and the individual. In the immediate post-war period, the British welfare state was established, bringing benefits that were also accessible for mothers of non-marital children. Yet significant legal and social discrimination persisted. When Joan Lestor put forward questions on illegitimacy to the House of Commons 1968, she emphasized that ‘although social and welfare services are available to all mothers equally, whether or not they are married’, the single mother experiences ‘greater financial and social difficulties’ due to starting at a ‘tremendous disadvantage’ without the father of her child. Housing issues were one of the most common reasons why mothers turned to voluntary organizations for help. Even in the 1950s, as council housing was rapidly being built across Britain, married couples were generally prioritized over single mothers, and Black mothers were the most disadvantaged in these cases.6 This exclusion speaks to the concept of ‘family’ itself: who were considered ‘real’ families, and who were considered deserving of help? These are questions that I will take up further as my research develops.

Black and white poster with slogan 'Demand the "Beveridge" Plan'.
Sketch of a white building displaying the name 'Social Security Centre'  with a black flag displaying the words 'Single Security Payout' . The building wall displays two columns: the first contains black lettering on white and presents a list of benefits; the second features white lettering on black and presents the amount of benefit for each item. There are also icons for each benefit, e.g. baby in a basket, old man with stick, hearse.
Maternity grant £4 plus 36/- Weekly; Children's allowances 8/- Weekly for all children after the first; Marriage grant - Up to £10; Health - comprehensive medical service for everyone; Disability - Benefit unlimited in duration 56/-; Workman's compensation - Payment of disability benefit - legal costs to cease; Unemployment - 56/- Benefit unlimited in duration; Widowhood - 40/- per week (reduced by part of earnings); Age pensions - Reaching 40/- man and wife, 24/- single; Industrial insurance - State service; Funeral benefit - £20 adults (smaller for children).
Beneath the wall is the statement:
Social security benefits shown are for man, wife & two children. 
Beneath this statement:
Campaign for the Beveridge Plan with SOCIAL SECURITY LEAGUE, 51 Tothill Street, London SW1
Fig. 3: Poster for the recommendations of William Beveridge, whose report formed the foundations of the post-war welfare state in Britain. It refers to social security for ‘man, wife & two children’, emphasizing the norm of the ‘nuclear family’.
‘Demand the Beveridge Plan’, page from Joan S. Clarke (ed.), Beveridge on Beveridge: Recent Speeches of Sir William Beveridge (London, 1944). Photo by LSE Library. Licensed under the terms of No known copyright restrictions.

The London Archives holds the records of the Southwark Diocesan Moral Welfare Association, which carried out the majority of its social work with unmarried mothers and ‘illegitimate’ children, often referred by the NCUMC. The archives also hold documents on Mother and Baby Homes, one of the most common services accessed by pregnant unmarried mothers through voluntary organizations. These homes provided accommodation during confinement and after the birth, the exact period depending on the mother’s circumstances and the home itself. The homes were not punitive, as earlier in the century, and instead were intended to give the mother time to rest and decide the future for herself and her baby. Improving unmarried mothers’ agency and choice, which was often limited by the blame and stigma they faced, was one of the main aims of the NCUMC.

Nevertheless, Mother and Baby Homes did vary in terms of rules, quality, and flexibility. One key difference in the rules was the attitude towards the putative father, and this underscores differing expectations of parental responsibility. A survey on these homes in 1968 reported that:

It was perhaps surprising to find the putative fathers so firmly excluded from so many Homes in view of the common belief that if the mother was to develop any sense of responsibility towards her child she must spend some time living with her baby.7

Reflected here is the societal expectation that the mother was solely responsible (and also often to blame) for an ‘illegitimate’ child. Even in cases where the father wanted to take responsibility, he may not even have been allowed to visit.

Who Pays?

The financial support of extramarital children was a difficult and ongoing issue for the state throughout the century. The legal rights of the father were tenuous throughout the period, difficult to secure even when desired. It was not until the Legitimacy Act 1959 that fathers of ‘illegitimate’ children were even able to apply for custody or access rights. This change was supported by many, including the Church of England and the NCUMC, who hoped ‘it may change the attitude of men towards their illegitimate children’, encouraging ‘more sense of responsibility’.8 Within a democratic understanding, duties (for example, paying maintenance) should be accompanied by rights (for example, having access to the child) and are negotiated between the respective parties.9 My research has so far highlighted the difficulties of navigating this balance in cases of ‘illegitimacy’.

Black and white photo of women walking with white banners and pushing babies and toddlers in  pushchairs. The participants wear short-sleeves and sandals.  A child wears a striped sun hat. The banners read e.g. 'Camden Single Parents' and 'One Parent Families'. A young boy walks holding on to a pushchair with twin babies, pushed by the mother in a long smock. They walk along a road with white lane markings and trees in the background.
Fig. 4: One-parent families campaigning for the implementation of the suggestions made in the Finer Report, which was an inquiry into one-parent families and how to assist them. Unknown Photographer, n.p., n.d., National Council for One Parent Families, in The Women’s Library, London School of Economics, 5 OPF 11 2 b (Box 120). Photo courtesy of Gingerbread.

One of the only possibilities of legally securing the father’s responsibility for an ‘illegitimate’ child was through an affiliation order. This court order could be applied for by the mother, and if approved, required the father to make weekly (but very limited) maintenance payments. This existed until 1987, yet the complicated process was rarely pursued by mothers, who were required to prove paternity in court (very difficult prior to the use of blood tests) before the baby reached 12 months, unless she could prove the father had already contributed towards the child’s upkeep. In 1964, for example, for the 46,844 ‘illegitimate children’ who were the sole responsibility of their mother, only 8,408 affiliation order applications were made and of these only 7,167 granted.10 The results of a survey by questionnaire conducted by the Moral Welfare Workers’ Association, asking ten Mother and Baby Homes about the parents’ relationship and the future of their nonmarital child, showed that upon the baby’s birth, 17 fathers were contributing to the child’s maintenance, whilst 30 were not and, after one year, only 7 fathers in 43 cases were contributing voluntarily.11 Additionally, only 8 affiliation orders had been made among a total of 46 mothers. Hence, attempts to encourage paternal responsibility and support lone mothers were limited and largely unsuccessful throughout the period; responsibility lay overwhelmingly with the mother.

Further Research

My archival research covered a large period of time, a wide variety of topics, and many different sources. I thus have a solid basis from which to continue an in-depth investigation into family law, equality, and changes in parental responsibility. My next step is to read through the archive material in more detail. I am focusing on the experiences of specific groups, such as West Indian mothers and mothers who were under sixteen years of age, in order to explore questions of democratic inclusion and who came within understandings of ‘family’ in Britain at different points in the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century.


Feature Image: Woman with two children in front of terraced house. Unknown Photographer, ‘Liverpool GB Trust 1988/9?’, Gingerbread, in The Women’s Library, London School of Economics, 5 GNB 6 3 (Box 15). Photo courtesy of Gingerbread.

  1. An extract from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937, section 2, outlining the limited grounds for a divorce. []
  2. Janet Fink, ‘Natural Mothers, Putative Fathers, and Innocent Children: The Definition and Regulation of Parental Relationships Outside Marriage, in England, 1945–1959’, Journal of Family History, 25/2 (2000), 178–95, at 180–1. []
  3. Steven Saxonberg, ‘Exploring the Alternatives to the Male-Breadwinner Model—The Implications for Social Policy Study’, Social Policy and Society, 24/1 (2025), 6–15, at 11. []
  4. Pat Thane and Tanya Evans, Sinners? Scroungers? Saints? Unmarried Motherhood in Twentieth-Century England (Oxford, 2012), 35. []
  5. National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, ‘Some questions and answers about the work of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child and the problems with which it deals’, May 1968, in The Women’s Library, LSE Archive, 5 OPF 10 4 a, Box 113, p. 1. []
  6. Thane and Evans, Sinners? Scroungers? Saints?, 112. []
  7. Jill Nicholson, Mother and Baby Homes: A Survey of Homes for Unmarried Mothers, National Institute for Social Work Training Series 13 (London, 1968), 79. The London Archives, ACC/2201/M2/4 (Sponsored by the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child). []
  8. Margaret Bramall, Illegitimacy and the Community Today: An Address given by Mrs. Margaret Bramall, M.A., A.I.M.S.W., J.P., at the Annual General Meeting of the Scottish Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child on 6th May 1966, National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child (London, 1966), in The Women’s Library, LSE Archive, 5 OPF 10 4 a 1, p. 8. []
  9. Anthony Giddens, The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies (Stanford, 1992), 187. []
  10. Margaret Bramall, ‘Communication: Some Aspects of the Legal and Financial Position of the Illegitimate Child in England and Wales. Seminar on the Problems of the Non-Married Mothers and their Children’, International Children’s Centre (Paris, 5, 6, 7 December 1966), in The Women’s Library LSE, 5 OPF 10 4 a 5, p. 3. []
  11. Moral Welfare Workers’ Association, ‘6 Consecutive New Maternity Cases from 1.6.1963 onwards. Questionnaire’, October 1964, London, The London Archives, ACC2201/B1/5/12-74. []

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Geena Carlisle (November 10, 2025). Who’s Responsible? ‘Illegitimate’ Children in England and Wales. German Historical Institute London Blog. Retrieved December 7, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/154cc


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.