Hubbry Logo
Baby farmingBaby farmingMain
Open search
Baby farming
Community hub
Baby farming
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Baby farming
Baby farming
Baby farming
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Baby farming is the historical practice of accepting custody of an infant or child in exchange for payment in late-Victorian Britain and, less commonly, in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. If the infant was young, this usually included wet-nursing (breast-feeding by a woman not the mother). Some baby farmers "adopted" children for lump-sum payments, while others cared for infants for periodic payments.

Description

[edit]
An advertisement that baby farmers John and Sarah Makin AKA The Hatpin Murderers responded to (from the Evening News 27 April 1892)

The use of foster care in 18th-century Britain by middle-class parents was described by Claire Tomalin in her biography of Jane Austen, who was fostered in the 1760s in this manner, as were all her siblings, from when they were a few months old until they were toddlers.[1] Tomalin emphasizes the emotional distance this created.

Important historical context for the practice is the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which denied the poor the right to subsistence. In particular, single mothers were then forced to work in prison-like workhouses.

In late-Victorian Britain (and, less commonly, in Australia and the United States), baby farming was the practice of accepting custody of an infant or child in exchange for payment.[citation needed] Though baby farmers were paid in the understanding that care would be provided, the term "baby farmer" was used as an insult, and improper treatment was usually implied.[2] Illegitimacy and its attendant social stigma were usually the impetus for a mother's decision to put her children "out to nurse" with a baby farmer, but baby farming also encompassed foster care and adoption in the period before they were regulated by British law in the mid 19th century.[citation needed] Wealthier women would also put their infants out to be cared for in the homes of villagers.[citation needed]

An advertisement that baby farmers John and Sarah Makin AKA The Hatpin Murderers responded to (from the Evening News, 4 May 1892)

Particularly in the case of lump-sum adoptions, it was more profitable for the baby farmer if the infant or child she adopted died, since the small payment could not cover the care of the child for long. Some baby farmers adopted numerous children and then neglected them or murdered them outright (see infanticide). Several baby farmers were tried for murder, manslaughter, or criminal neglect and were hanged. Margaret Waters (executed 1870) and Amelia Dyer (executed 1896) were two infamous British baby farmers, as were Amelia Sach and Annie Walters (executed 1903).[3] The last baby farmer to be executed in Britain was Rhoda Willis, who was hanged in Wales in 1907.[4]

The only woman to be executed in New Zealand, Minnie Dean, was a baby farmer, although in 1926, a male baby farmer, Daniel Cooper, was executed for the death of his pregnant first wife and two subsequent infants. In Australia, baby-farmer Frances Knorr was executed for infanticide in 1894.[5] Although John and Sarah Makin were also convicted of infanticide, only John Makin had been executed a year earlier (1893) in Sydney for this crime.[6][7]

In Scandinavia there was a euphemism for this activity: änglamakerska (Swedish, including Hilda Nilsson)[citation needed] and englemagerske (Danish, including Dagmar Overby),[8] both literally meaning a "(female) angel maker".

Decline

[edit]

An undercover investigation of baby-farming, reported in 1870 in a letter to The Times, concluded that "My conviction is that children are murdered in scores by these women, that adoption is only a fine phrase for slow or sudden death".[9]

Spurred by a series of articles that appeared in the British Medical Journal in 1867, the Parliament of the United Kingdom began to regulate baby farming in 1872 with the passage of the Infant Life Protection Act 1872.[citation needed]

London coroner Athelstan Braxton Hicks gave evidence in 1896 on the dangers of baby-farming to the Select Committee on Infant Life Protection Bill.[10] One case that he cited was that of Mrs. Arnold, who had been "sweating" infants legally by doing so one at a time.[11] At another inquest, the jury were of the "opinion that there has been gross neglect in the case" but were unable to allocate responsibility. They added the rider that "The jury are strongly of opinion that further legislation in what are usually known as baby farming cases is greatly needed, and particularly that the required legislation should extend to the care of one infant only, and that the age of the infant should not be limited to one year, but rather to five years and that it should be an offence for any person undertaking the care of such infant to sub farm it."[12][13]

The Infant Life Protection Act 1897 finally empowered local authorities to control the registration of nurses responsible for more than one infant under the age of five for a period longer than 48 hours.[14]

A series of acts passed over the next seventy years, including the Children Act 1908 (8 Edw. 7. c. 67), under which "no infant could be kept in a home that was so unfit and so overcrowded as to endanger its health, and no infant could be kept by an unfit nurse who threatened, by neglect or abuse, its proper care and maintenance."[citation needed]

The Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act 1939 gradually placed adoption and foster care under the protection and regulation of the state.[15]

Postwar Britain

[edit]

In the 1960s and 70s, thousands of West African children were privately fostered by white families in the UK in a phenomenon known as 'farming'. The biological parents were usually students in the UK who also had a job. They placed ads in the newspapers looking for foster families to care for their children.[16][17]

Known baby farmers with criminal convictions

[edit]

The following is a list of baby farmers with criminal convictions associated with their operations, categorized by country and Number of Victims:

Australia

[edit]

Canada

[edit]

Denmark

[edit]

Germany

[edit]

Italy

[edit]

Japan

[edit]

Mexico

[edit]

New Zealand

[edit]

Portugal

[edit]

Sweden

[edit]

United Kingdom

[edit]

United States

[edit]
[edit]
  • The title character in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist spends his first years in a "baby farm."
  • The eponymous heroine puts her newborn "out to nurse" with a baby farmer in George Moore's Esther Waters (1894).
  • The main character in Perfume, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, is orphaned shortly after birth and brought up in a baby farmer style orphanage.
  • The character of Mrs Sucksby in Sarah Waters's novel Fingersmith is a baby farmer.
  • In the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta H.M.S. Pinafore, the character of Buttercup reveals that, when a baby farmer, she had accidentally switched two babies of different social classes. This is part of a satire of class hierarchy in Victorian England.
  • The book Mama's Babies by Gary Crew is the story of a child of a baby farmer in the 1890s.
  • The silent film Sparrows (1926) with Mary Pickford was set in a baby farm in the Southern swamps.
  • In The Fire Thief trilogy of novels, a baby farm figures prominently.
  • The plot of Emma Donoghue's Frog Music is initiated by the protagonist retrieving her son from a baby farm.
  • Australian musical The Hatpin features a mother's experience with baby farmers and was inspired by the true story of Amber Murray and the Makin family.
  • Australian poet Judith Rodriguez has written a series of poems based on Melbourne baby farmer Frances Knorr in The Hanging of Minnie Thwaites.
  • The BBC TV soap opera EastEnders features an evil character called Babe Smith, who is exposed as a baby farmer along with Queenie Trott. It is revealed that while in Ramsgate, they took young pregnant women in and sold their babies to the highest bidder. In a 2024 plotline involving George Knight, it is revealed by his adopted parents Eddie and Gloria that they were paid to adopt him.[18]
  • In a March 2013 episode of Syfy's Haunted Collector, John Zaffis and his team discovered that a Boston cigar bar was used to house a baby farm in the 1870s. Ms. Elwood, who ran the farm, was found to have abused and even killed some of the infants there. They also found a syringe buried in the building's foundation dating to the time period of the farm.[19]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Baby farming

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Baby farming was a pernicious system operative primarily in late 19th-century Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of the United States, in which women accepted custody of infants—often illegitimate—from desperate parents in exchange for lump-sum or periodic payments, but systematically neglected, starved, or murdered the children to retain fees without sustaining ongoing care costs. This practice preyed upon the social stigma surrounding unwed motherhood and the era's limited welfare options, enabling operators to profit from high child mortality rates that were concealed through hasty burials or false adoptions. The phenomenon gained notoriety through sensational trials that exposed its brutality, such as that of in , who was hanged in 1896 for strangling infants after receiving payments from mothers, with evidence suggesting she may have killed hundreds over decades of operation. Similar cases in , including Charlotte Rees and — the latter executed in 1895 for smothering babies—involved caregivers advertising in newspapers to solicit children, only to dispose of them via opium dosing or burial in gardens. These revelations, documented in medical journals and parliamentary inquiries, highlighted how inadequate nutrition and deliberate poisoning contributed to infant deaths, prompting causal links between unregulated payments and incentivized killings. Baby farming's defining controversy lay in its role as institutionalized , where economic incentives—receiving full payment upon "" without verifiable outcomes—fostered a of disposal, ultimately catalyzing legislative reforms like Britain's 1897 Infant Life Protection Act, which mandated registration of caregivers receiving multiple infants. While some operators provided genuine care, empirical patterns from exhumed bodies and survivor accounts underscored widespread abuse, challenging narratives of mere negligence by revealing premeditated profit motives rooted in the era's bastardy laws that burdened mothers disproportionately.

Definition and Practices

Core Practices and Methods

Baby farming involved the commercial taking-in of infants, predominantly illegitimate ones, by women or couples who advertised services for boarding, , or adopting children in exchange for payment, a practice that arose in Britain during the mid-19th century amid and limited welfare options for unwed mothers. Operators typically solicited clients through advertisements, often phrased euphemistically as offers from "respectable married couples" or "widows" to "adopt" or "nurse" infants on moderate terms, with placements arranged via lump-sum premiums ranging from £5 to £30 or weekly fees of 2s 6d to 5s—rates frequently insufficient to cover sustained care costs. These arrangements commodified infants, treating them as short-term financial assets rather than dependents requiring long-term investment. Core operational tactics prioritized through minimal expenditure on sustenance and supervision, commonly employing via chronic underfeeding—providing scant rations such as diluted or contaminated alongside negligible solids—to induce rapid decline and death, thereby avoiding ongoing outlays. Sedation with opiates like , , or proprietary mixtures such as (a laudanum-based marketed as a aid) was routine to suppress and signals, suppressing vital functions and contributing to fatalities from overdose or . In cases where proved inefficient, direct occurred through methods including strangulation, smothering, , or blunt force, with bodies disposed in waterways, wells, or concealed sites to evade detection. Some operators augmented income via , securing low-premium life policies on entrusted infants—enabled by affordable industrial assurance schemes introduced in the 1840s—and engineering deaths to claim payouts, a practice critics linked to heightened incentives for amid high baseline risks. Empirical records from urban operations reveal rates often surpassing 80-90%, far exceeding general illegitimacy death rates of around 263 per 1,000 live births in locales like , underscoring the systemic embedded in these profit-driven custodial models. Such outcomes stemmed causally from economic pressures on custodians, where lump-sum receipts depleted quickly against care demands, rendering sustained viability improbable without fatal shortcuts.

Economic Incentives and Operations

Baby farmers operated as an unregulated market response to demand for childcare among unwed mothers, advertising in newspapers offers to adopt or nurse infants for upfront payments typically ranging from £5 to £20, with promises of a "good home" or ongoing care. These lump-sum fees, often the entirety of a mother's available resources, were collected immediately upon handover, shifting all subsequent costs to the farmer while eliminating further financial obligations from the parent. Operations relied on high volume, accommodating multiple infants—sometimes dozens simultaneously—in low-overhead setups such as rented rooms with shared, unsanitary bedding and minimal sustenance like diluted milk or paregoric to suppress cries and reduce feeding expenses. Profit maximization centered on minimizing per-infant expenditures after fee collection, with many farmers providing substandard and that accelerated mortality rates exceeding 50% in some documented operations, allowing quick turnover for new paying clients without long-term investment in survival. Some enhanced returns by securing policies on entrusted children, often through industrial assurance companies offering low-premium coverage for infants; upon , payouts—frequently equaling or surpassing adoption fees—provided additional income, as seen in cases where farmers insured batches of babies for sums like £3 to £6 each. This practice turned infant mortality into a direct financial gain, with historical records indicating policies were easily obtained due to lax verification of parental claims. While a subset of operations functioned semi-legitimately by charging weekly fees of about 5 to 10 shillings per and delivering basic care sufficient for partial , the predominant illicit model prioritized extraction of initial payments over sustenance, evidenced by post-mortems revealing systematic neglect like and opium dosing across multiple 19th-century cases in Britain and . Scaling depended on repeat and word-of-mouth among desperate networks, with low —requiring only nominal housing and no formal qualifications—enabling widespread proliferation in urban areas lacking state oversight.

Historical Context and Causes

Socioeconomic Pressures and Illegitimacy

In industrializing Victorian England, illegitimacy rates rose to approximately 7% of all births by the early to mid-19th century, reflecting disruptions from and shifting labor patterns that strained traditional structures. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 intensified pressures by restricting for unwed mothers, requiring identification and contribution from the alleged father before aid could be granted, thereby denying many the means to sustain their children independently. This policy vacuum forced reliance on private arrangements, as state support was withheld to deter perceived moral hazards and control parochial expenditures. Poverty among working-class women, who often migrated to urban centers for , compounded ; isolated from rural networks, they faced acute economic barriers to childcare, with low wages and long hours rendering care untenable. Illegitimate children, numbering over 42,000 births annually by 1856 in alone, were particularly vulnerable, as mothers prioritized survival in precarious labor markets over dependent rearing. These socioeconomic dynamics drove demand for alternative solutions, channeling infants into informal markets absent comprehensive welfare provisions. Baby farming thus functioned as a privatized response to systemic childcare deficits, enabling mothers to resume work by outsourcing rearing for fees, yet the lack of regulatory safeguards exposed infants to high mortality risks from and in profit-driven setups. This emergent trade-off underscored the causal link between welfare restrictions and unregulated provisioning, where economic imperatives supplanted state intervention, often at the expense of infant welfare.

Cultural Stigma and Family Breakdown

In Victorian England, unwed motherhood incurred severe social rooted in religious and communal norms that equated illegitimacy with moral failure and familial dishonor, prompting mothers to pursue clandestine solutions such as baby farming to avoid public exposure. This stigma, intensified by Protestant emphases on individual accountability and for sexual transgression, drove women to board out infants with farmers under of temporary care, as public acknowledgment risked employment loss, familial rejection, and lifelong reputational damage. Empirical patterns in Anglo-Protestant societies, where baby farming proliferated amid rising urban illegitimacy—reaching approximately 5-7% of births by the mid-19th century—contrast with lower outsourcing rates in Catholic regions like , where institutional alternatives like foundling homes absorbed more cases without equivalent market-driven neglect. The practice underscored a erosion of traditional family cohesion, as biological fathers frequently absconded without legal or social repercussions, unburdened by the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act's Bastardy Clause, which shifted full custodial and financial liability onto mothers while easing paternal proof requirements. Pre-industrial norms, prevalent before widespread around 1750-1850, had enforced paternal involvement through community surveillance and kin networks that deterred evasion, fostering stable two-parent households even amid economic hardship; industrialization fragmented these structures, amplifying paternal rates and leaving mothers isolated in their desperation. Social stigma functioned causally as a restraint on premarital by elevating the perceived costs of extramarital conception—encompassing not just economic ruin but communal —thereby preserving broader familial in eras without reliable contraception or welfare buffers. Yet, once norms were violated, this same mechanism intensified crises by foreclosing open support, channeling vulnerable women toward unregulated baby farmers rather than communal resolution, without the retrospective framing of stigma as arbitrary oppression; rather, it reflected adaptive social controls against behaviors undermining lineage and stability. In high-stigma contexts, such as rural Protestant enclaves with lower baseline illegitimacy, the deterrent effect was evident in sustained family-centric reproduction patterns persisting into the early .

Absence of State Welfare and Market Responses

In Victorian England, the absence of comprehensive state welfare systems placed the full economic burden of illegitimate children on unmarried mothers following the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act's Bastardy Clause, which largely absolved fathers of financial responsibility and restricted mothers' access to parish relief unless they entered workhouses. This policy vacuum, coupled with limited employment opportunities for women outside domestic roles, prompted entrepreneurial responses in the form of baby farming, where women established low-capital businesses to board infants for fees ranging from 5 to 10 shillings weekly or lump sums equivalent to several months' payments. These operators advertised in newspapers, promising care or adoption, filling a market niche born of necessity rather than regulation. Mothers, facing and economic hardship, voluntarily contracted these services, often paying upfront despite awareness of elevated risks, as alternatives like separation from children or outright abandonment offered little appeal. The unregulated market incentivized neglect or worse, as farmers profited from initial payments without ongoing subsidies tied to infant survival, leading to practices like overdosing with to suppress cries and reduce care costs. General hovered around 150 deaths per 1,000 live births throughout the century, but baby-farmed children experienced far higher rates, with cases revealing rapid fatalities that evaded scrutiny due to lax registration and common acceptance of early deaths. The Margaret Waters case of 1870 exemplified these dynamics: Waters, operating as a baby farmer in Brixton, received multiple infants whose parents paid for supposed adoption or care, yet nine of fourteen under her charge died within weeks from starvation and opiates, highlighting how the high-risk, reward-skewed model without state oversight enabled abuse while underscoring mothers' agency in selecting such arrangements amid constrained options. This private market response, while innovative, demonstrated the perils of informal systems lacking accountability, where individual choices intersected with perverse incentives to yield systematically poor outcomes for vulnerable infants.

Geographical Prevalence

United Kingdom

Baby farming emerged in Britain during the mid-19th century, coinciding with accelerated and the expansion of industrial centers, which intensified socioeconomic strains on working-class families. The practice concentrated in densely populated areas such as and provincial cities, where impoverished unmarried mothers, burdened by the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act's restrictions on relief for illegitimate children, sought to offload infants to avoid workhouse separation or destitution. This system relied on private arrangements advertised in newspapers, with caregivers receiving lump-sum payments insufficient for long-term sustenance, incentivizing neglect over viable rearing. The phenomenon peaked between the and , fueled by high illegitimacy rates—estimated at around 6-7% of births in urban —and limited state welfare alternatives, leading mothers to entrust children to unregulated "nurses" in slums. Early public awareness arose through press exposés in the , including investigations by the British Medical Journal that documented widespread infant endangerment via improper feeding and medication. These revelations highlighted the practice's ties to urban poverty, where workhouses offered no comprehensive , prompting market-based but often lethal responses. Official inquiries in the late 1860s and early , spurred by mounting infant deaths, exposed systematic in London's East End and similar provincial districts, where boarded infants faced mortality from starvation, diarrhea, and opium-laced pacifiers disguised as to suppress cries. Parliamentary scrutiny revealed that caregivers frequently accepted multiple children beyond sustainable capacity, with survival rates plummeting due to nutritional deficits and overcrowding in squalid conditions. Such empirical findings, drawn from coroners' reports and medical testimonies, underscored causal links between economic desperation, inadequate oversight, and elevated death tolls, far exceeding general urban of approximately 150-200 per 1,000 live births.

Australia and New Zealand

Baby farming practices transplanted from Britain to and during the late , driven by colonial patterns that included unmarried mothers seeking in frontier societies. In , cases proliferated in urban centers like and amid high rates of illegitimacy and limited family support networks. Advertisements in newspapers, such as one placed by Clara Risby in 's Evening News on 4 May 1892 offering to adopt or care for infants for a , exemplified the commercial solicitation common to the trade. Similar notices appeared frequently, preying on desperate parents unable to provide for children born out of wedlock. Prominent Australian cases highlighted the lethal risks of these operations under sparse regulatory oversight. In , operated a baby farming scheme in the early 1890s, accepting s for payments ranging from £3 to £6. In December 1892, police discovered the remains of four s in trunks buried in the backyard of a Redfern house they had vacated, with further investigations uncovering additional bodies at prior residences in Macdonaldtown and elsewhere. The were convicted in March 1893 of murdering Horace Amber Murray, entrusted to them on 29 June 1892; was executed by hanging on 15 August 1893, while Sarah's death sentence was commuted to . In , (née Thwaites) ran a similar enterprise, murdering at least one by and before her execution on 15 January 1894. In , isolated rural conditions exacerbated vulnerabilities, with baby farmers often operating undetected in small communities. , a Scottish immigrant, managed a baby farming business in from 1895, receiving infants for fees up to £5 and allegedly killing them via opium-laced dummies or smothering to conceal deaths and collect repeat payments. Convicted in November 1897 of the murder of infants Eva Gisborne and Clara Neal, Dean was hanged on 12 December 1897, the only woman executed in history. Earlier incidents, such as the 1895 Winton case involving suspicious infant deaths, underscored the pattern, with convictions relying on imported British evidentiary standards like post-mortem examinations revealing neglect-induced causes. Sparse populations delayed detection, as families were often distant, mirroring but amplifying British practices in a colonial context lacking dense institutional monitoring.

United States and Canada

In the late nineteenth century, baby farming practices took root in major cities like New York and , where urban growth, , and anonymity among transient populations enabled women to board infants for fees, often resulting in or higher mortality rates than in legitimate care settings. These operations paralleled British models but featured fewer high-profile, centralized scandals, instead manifesting as scattered, small-scale enterprises advertised in newspapers or through word-of-mouth among unwed mothers and working-class families unable to care for illegitimate or excess children. Economic incentives included lump-sum payments for "" or weekly boarding fees, with caregivers sometimes insuring infants' lives to profit from deaths, though verifiable cases of deliberate for payouts remain less documented than neglect-driven fatalities. A notable early instance occurred in New York in February 1877, when authorities investigated a house at 149 Charles Street after six infants died there within four weeks, attributing the deaths to suspicious conditions in what was alleged to be a baby farming operation; Deputy Registrar of Vital Statistics Dr. Nagle alerted the Board of Health, highlighting inadequate oversight of private nursers. In Philadelphia, historian Sherri Broder documented widespread baby farming among immigrant and native working women from the 1870s onward, where caregivers housed multiple infants in substandard tenements, leading to elevated death rates from malnutrition, disease, and poor sanitation—conditions often rationalized as economic necessity rather than criminal intent, though coroners frequently ruled deaths as "overlaying" or convulsions to avoid scrutiny. By the early twentieth century, Chicago emerged as another hub; a 1917 survey by the Juvenile Protective Association uncovered uncertified "baby farms" with wretched, unsanitary environments fostering epidemic diseases and mortality rates far exceeding city averages, including cases where children were commercially sold for up to $100 to evade regulation. In Canada, baby farming appeared in urban areas like and amid similar socioeconomic pressures from industrialization and illegitimacy stigma, though records indicate smaller scale and less sensational exposure than in the U.S. or U.K. 's provincial government responded to unregulated operations—where infants boarded with nurses often suffered lethal neglect—by enacting licensing requirements for baby farms in , aiming to curb anonymous placements that concealed high death rates. In , mid-nineteenth-century infanticide trials referenced baby farming as a premeditated extension of abandonment practices, with caregivers accepting fees for infants who frequently perished from or exposure, exacerbating concerns over insurance-linked motives in some nurse-child arrangements. Overall, North American variants declined with progressive-era reforms, including state-level bans on commercial child-placing by the , driven by child welfare advocates who prioritized foster oversight over private profit-driven care.

Europe and Other Regions

In , operated an unlicensed and fraudulent service in from around 1907 to 1920, soliciting illegitimate infants from unmarried mothers for payments of 200 to 1,000 Danish kroner while promising suitable placements but instead killing them via , starvation, or in her home's stove. She confessed to 16 murders upon her 1920 arrest, though police investigations suggested up to 25 victims, including one of her own children; Overbye was convicted in December 1921 of and , receiving a life sentence and dying in in 1929. This case highlighted vulnerabilities in Nordic , where illegitimacy stigma persisted despite emerging state support, prompting public outrage and calls for stricter oversight of private child placements. Baby farming manifested less frequently in other continental European nations, where traditions of foundling wheels and church-run orphanages in Catholic regions like and institutional alternatives in mitigated reliance on private wet-nurses or farmers, though isolated scandals occurred amid and . In non-Western contexts, adaptations reflected local norms: Japan's Shige Sakakura, with accomplices Tsuta Oki and Naka Ikai, ran a Tokyo-based operation from 1898 to 1913 targeting illegitimate children from geishas and impoverished families, killing an estimated 200 infants through and for profit before exposure via a denied parental visit in 1913 led to their 1915 convictions and executions by hanging. In , Felícitas Sánchez Aguillón accepted infants for purported care in , murdering at least eight by or strangulation; arrested in 1940 after skeletal remains were discovered, she was convicted and executed by firing squad on June 16, 1941. These outliers underscore how economic desperation and weak regulation enabled the practice globally, albeit with regionally varying scales and methods tied to cultural attitudes toward illegitimacy.

Notable Criminal Cases

High-Profile Convictions in Britain

One of the earliest high-profile convictions for baby farming occurred in 1870 with , who operated a baby-farming establishment in , . Waters advertised in newspapers to take in illegitimate infants for a fee of five to six shillings weekly, promising care but instead dosing them with -laced mixtures to induce sleep and suppress cries, combined with severe neglect and starvation that led to multiple deaths. Autopsies on recovered bodies, including that of four-month-old John Walter Cowen, revealed emaciation, traces in the stomach, and signs of deliberate weakening rather than natural illness, supporting charges of wilful . Tried at the Central Criminal Court alongside her sister Sarah Ellis, Waters was convicted on September 23, 1870, of Cowen's and sentenced to death, while Ellis received penal servitude for conspiracy; Waters was executed by on October 11, 1870, at Horsemonger Lane Gaol. Her ledgers and correspondence evidenced a , as she collected upfront payments from desperate mothers while failing to provide sustenance, illustrating the commercial exploitation inherent in such operations. The most notorious case emerged in 1896 involving Amelia Dyer, dubbed the "Ogress of Reading," who had previously been convicted in 1879 of neglect and sentenced to six months' hard labor. Dyer, aged 57, ran multiple baby-farming addresses in , advertising in Yorkshire Post and Bristol Times for "adoptions" at fees up to £12 per child, then systematically killed infants through strangulation with dress tapes, starvation, and laudanum dosing to minimize costs and maximize turnover. The case broke when a bargeman found a parcel-wrapped corpse of four-month-old Helen Marmon in the River Thames on March 30, 1896, traced via a label to Dyer's home; police searches uncovered six more strangled infant bodies in her residence and garden, with autopsies confirming violent deaths by compression of the windpipe and decomposition consistent with rapid disposal. Tried at Reading Assizes on May 22, 1896, Dyer was convicted of Marmon's despite her insanity plea, receiving a death sentence; she was hanged at on June 10, 1896, with suspicions of over 400 victims based on her frequent relocations and pawned baby clothes, though only seven bodies provided direct forensic evidence of her methods. Recovered telegrams from mothers and Dyer's notepads detailing payments underscored the financial incentives, as she retained fees without incurring expenses. These convictions highlighted recurring patterns in British baby farming, where operators like Waters and Dyer preyed on socioeconomic vulnerabilities for profit, using chemical or physical elimination to dispose of charges, as corroborated by postmortem findings of , , and ligature marks across cases. Public trials exposed the ledgers and advertisements as tools for systematic deception, prompting scrutiny of unregulated markets without attributing broader societal causation here.

Cases in Australia and Colonies

In late 1892, the discovery of thirteen infant skeletons concealed in trunks beneath a rental house in Redfern, , exposed the operations of , who had advertised as childless couple seeking to adopt babies for a fee. The bodies, wrapped in fabric and stored amid household refuse, were unearthed during the Makins' eviction for non-payment of rent on December 19, 1892, prompting police investigation into their history of taking in illegitimate infants from unwed mothers. John Makin (born February 14, 1845) and Sarah Makin (born December 20, 1845), both with prior experience in and laboring, had moved residences frequently, disposing of deceased children at each site to evade detection. The Makins were charged with the murder of one infant, Horace Amber Murray, handed over by his mother on January 8, 1891, for £3; Murray's body was identified among the remains via clothing remnants. At their trial in March 1893, prosecutors presented evidence of systematic and possible smothering or , though rested on the inference from multiple concealed bodies indicating intent to kill rather than mere . John was sentenced to death and hanged on August 15, 1893, while Sarah's death sentence was commuted to ; she served until 1911 and died on September 13, 1918. The case, emblematic of baby farming practices exported from Britain to colonial amid rising illegitimacy rates, highlighted how economic desperation among single mothers fueled demand for such services in urban centers like . In Victoria, Frances Lydia Knorr (born November 6, 1867, in ), operating from a Brunswick nursing home, was convicted in December 1893 for the murders of two infants she had accepted for adoption fees between April and November 1893. Knorr, who emigrated to in 1888 and advertised for "childless couples" to take babies, strangled the victims—unidentified as "Infant No. 1" and "Infant No. 2"—and buried them in backyard graves, as revealed by suspicious odors and witness testimonies from mothers who paid her up to £3 per child. She was hanged on January 15, 1894, at Gaol, becoming one of the few women executed for baby farming in the colonies. Local newspapers, such as Sydney's Evening News and Melbourne's Argus, played a pivotal role in amplifying these scandals through sensational reporting of autopsies, trial testimonies, and advertisements for baby minding, which fueled public outrage and scrutiny of unregulated childcare in the colonies. Coverage often detailed the gruesome findings—such as the Makins' trunks containing decomposed remains—to underscore the perils of informal markets, though some accounts sensationalized details without verifying causation beyond official inquests. These exposés reflected the transplantation of British baby farming to , where sparse welfare options exacerbated vulnerabilities in settler societies.

American and Continental Examples

In late-nineteenth-century , baby farming operated as an informal, neighborhood-based system where poor women accepted infants from unwed mothers or destitute families for weekly payments ranging from $1 to $3, often leading to widespread and extraordinarily high mortality rates estimated at up to 90 percent among boarded ren by the . Authorities conducted raids and investigations throughout the , uncovering overcrowded homes with malnourished infants subjected to inadequate feeding, unsanitary conditions, and minimal medical care; while operators faced charges of or , systemic tolerance prevailed due to the lack of specific regulations, distinguishing these cases from more punitive British responses. Similar practices appeared in other American cities, such as , where early twentieth-century probes revealed commercial baby farms profiting from and boardings, resulting in at least one operator's conviction for -related deaths amid concerns over trafficked ren. On the European continent, analogous schemes involved taking in illegitimate infants for fees and hastening deaths via , dosing, or exposure, often termed Engelmacherei in German-speaking regions. In 1890 Vilna (modern ), a group of Jewish women was indicted for operating a baby-farming network that hired out unwed mothers as wet nurses while ing or killing the boarded newborns to maximize profits, highlighting ethnic and economic tensions in the Russian Empire's . German cases mirrored this pattern, as with Hamburg resident Frau Feddern, arrested in 1898 for accepting multiple infants for payment and suspected of murdering them through deliberate or poisoning, reflecting a profit-driven model where caregivers insured children against death for additional payouts. Convictions in such instances typically hinged on autopsies revealing or toxic substances, though enforcement varied by locale, with rural French wet-nursing scandals in the same era exposing comparable tactics that inflated without always yielding criminal trials. Italian records from the period document foundling wheels and private boardings prone to abuse, occasionally linked to where operators collected on deceased infants' policies, though high-profile convictions remained elusive amid decentralized oversight.

Legislative Reforms and Decline

Early Scandals and Public Awareness

The 1865 case of Charlotte Winsor in , , marked an early exposure of baby farming's lethal potential when the body of a 15-month-old boy, Timothy Harding, was discovered abandoned and starved on the town's outskirts, leading to Winsor's arrest and conviction for willful and . Winsor had taken in the child from his unmarried mother for a fee of five shillings weekly, but revealed severe and of prior , prompting local inquiries into unregulated child nursing arrangements. Though Winsor received a two-year sentence rather than execution, the trial's details—publicized in regional press—drew initial scrutiny to the practice's risks, where caregivers accepted infants for payment without oversight, often resulting in high mortality from or deliberate harm. The 1870 trial of escalated public awareness dramatically, as prosecutors presented evidence that Waters and her associate Sarah Ellis had systematically starved and dosed at least 10 infants with —a laudanum-based —to secure payments from mothers while minimizing care costs in their operation. Waters was convicted of murdering 13-month-old John Walter Cowen and executed by hanging on October 11, 1870, at Horsemonger Lane Gaol, amid testimony from surviving children and mothers detailing deceptive advertisements promising adoption or nursing. Ellis received a lesser sentence for concealment, but the case's revelation of an estimated 20-30 child deaths under Waters' care fueled sensational reporting in outlets like and , framing baby farming as a commercialized form of preying on illegitimacy's . British journalism amplified these scandals by embedding reporters in investigations, such as the British Medical Journal's exposés on opiate overuse in care from 1860 onward, which linked baby farming to broader patterns of covert child disposal and prompted parliamentary questions on mortality rates exceeding 50% in some foster arrangements. Public revulsion manifested in widespread condemnation, with the Waters execution drawing crowds of thousands and editorials decrying the of disposable illegitimate children, shifting perceptions from private vice to systemic peril without yet quantifying outrage through formal petitions. These events collectively transitioned baby farming from obscure exploitation to a national crisis, evidenced by increased coroners' reports on suspicious deaths in urban poor districts post-1870.

Key Legislation and Enforcement

The Infant Life Protection Act 1872 was enacted in response to publicized baby-farming scandals, mandating that local sanitary authorities register any premises receiving more than one infant under one year of age for payment exceeding 5 shillings weekly, with provisions for oversight and penalties up to £50 for non-compliance or fines for neglect leading to death. The Act aimed to enable inspections and deter systematic neglect by professional child-minders, though it applied unevenly across districts due to reliance on voluntary local enforcement. Amendments via the Infant Life Protection Act 1897 broadened protections to children under five years, requiring notification of any such custody arrangements to local authorities within 48 hours and mandatory reporting of deaths to coroners for if under five, with expanded powers and penalties including up to two years' imprisonment for willful neglect causing death. These changes empowered proactive searches for unregistered minders, addressing gaps in the 1872 framework where registration was often evaded. Enforcement faced systemic hurdles, including underfunding of local sanitary inspectors—who prioritized infectious diseases over child welfare—and inconsistent application, with many authorities appointing inspectors only after scandals or failing to conduct regular visits due to resource constraints. Prosecutions remained sporadic pre-1900, averaging fewer than a dozen annually in despite persistent reports of neglect. Post-1908 consolidation under the Children Act, conviction rates for baby-farming-related offenses dropped sharply, from 18 cases in 1900-1905 to under five per decade by 1920, correlating with stricter notifications and declining practice. Similar measures echoed internationally in British colonies; Australia's states, such as Victoria, adopted registration requirements by the influenced by UK scandals, while New Zealand's Infant Life Protection Act 1892 mirrored mandates for oversight of paid infant care amid high extramarital . In the United States and , enforcement drew partial parallels through emerging child welfare statutes, though without centralized registration, relying instead on anti-cruelty laws sporadically applied to private minders into the early . European jurisdictions, like , implemented analogous controls via decrees on wet-nursing registries, curbing parallel abuses.

Factors Contributing to Suppression

The decline of baby farming was facilitated by evolving social norms that diminished the incidence of illegitimacy, thereby reducing the pool of vulnerable infants available for . In , the illegitimacy ratio, which hovered around 6-7% in the mid-19th century, fell to approximately 4% by 1900, driven by intensified moral campaigns from religious and philanthropic groups emphasizing premarital , alongside economic disincentives such as the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act's provisions holding fathers financially accountable, which discouraged abandonment. This trend paralleled a broader cultural shift toward family-centric child-rearing, where unwed mothers increasingly sought support from networks or charitable refuges rather than anonymous paid caregivers, eroding the demand for baby farmers' services. Parallel developments in welfare alternatives further supplanted informal baby farming arrangements. The expansion of institutional options, including foundling hospitals and maternity homes operated by organizations like from the 1880s onward, provided structured care for illegitimate infants under charitable or state-supervised conditions, offering mothers perceived safer outlets than unregulated private nurses. This transition was evident in regions like , where post-1890s scandals prompted a pivot toward certified foster systems, diminishing reliance on profit-driven individuals. Empirical data from regulated placements showed improved outcomes, with boarded-out infant mortality rates in Britain dropping from over 300 per 1,000 in the 1870s to around 150 per 1,000 by the 1910s, reflecting better nutrition, hygiene standards, and accountability in these alternatives. Urbanization contributed to heightened oversight, as growing city populations and infrastructure—such as denser housing, municipal health boards, and newspaper scrutiny—made clandestine operations more detectable and prosecutable. In late-19th-century urban centers like and , where baby farming had thrived amid anonymity, improved policing and community vigilance, bolstered by sensational press coverage of cases like that of in 1896, deterred practitioners by increasing the risks of discovery and legal repercussions. This environmental shift, combined with the aforementioned factors, fostered a causal chain wherein public wariness and institutional preferences rendered baby farming economically and socially untenable by the early .

Societal Impact and Debates

Effects on Child Welfare and Mortality

Baby farming practices were associated with mortality rates among placed infants that substantially exceeded contemporaneous general levels, which averaged approximately 150 deaths per 1,000 live births in during the late . In documented instances, , , and deliberate harm resulted in death rates approaching 90% for boarded infants, as evidenced by analyses of urban baby farming operations. Individual cases in Britain, such as that of operator convicted in 1896, involved at least six confirmed infant deaths with expert estimates attributing up to 400 fatalities to her methods of and disposal over two decades. These outcomes contributed to localized elevations in , particularly among illegitimate children whose mothers resorted to farming due to social and economic pressures, with such infants facing roughly double the mortality risk compared to legitimate ones in the same period. Autopsies in exposed scandals frequently revealed , , and infections attributable to inadequate feeding and , amplifying overall child welfare deficits in affected communities. Across Britain and its colonies, the cumulative scale involved hundreds to thousands of deaths, inferred from multiple convictions—such as the 1870 case of , linked to at least five infant fatalities—and unreported practices prevalent from the to early . Exposure of these high-mortality arrangements spurred regulatory advancements, including the Infant Life Protection Act of 1872, which mandated registration and oversight of caregivers handling multiple infants under two years old for payment, thereby institutionalizing minimum welfare standards and curbing unregulated neglect. Subsequent enforcement and expanded laws, such as the 1897 Act extending protections, facilitated a shift toward professionalized childcare norms, correlating with broader declines in from 153 per 1,000 in 1871 to below 100 by 1901 in . This transition reduced reliance on informal farming by promoting verifiable and institutional care alternatives, enhancing long-term child survival prospects.

Controversies Over Causation and Blame

Historians have debated whether the prevalence of baby farming stemmed primarily from the moral failings associated with illegitimacy—such as premarital sexual and subsequent personal irresponsibility—or from economic victimhood imposed by systemic factors like and inadequate legal support for unwed mothers. Victorian reformers, including the 1834 Poor Law Commission, attributed illegitimacy rates, which saw illegitimate children receiving disproportionate relief under pre-1834 systems, to individual vice among women, enacting the Bastardy Clause to absolve fathers and shift burdens onto mothers as a deterrent to immorality. This perspective emphasized causal agency in family formation, viewing extramarital conceptions as choices precipitating the need for baby farming, rather than mere oppression. In contrast, critics like in her Ruth (1853) portrayed unmarried mothers as societal victims of seduction and economic desperation, though such views faced backlash for excusing personal conduct. Evidence from mothers' decisions supports a stronger role for personal choice over pure victimhood: many paid lump sums—often £5 to £15—to baby farmers for purported adoption or care, continuing employment without ongoing involvement, despite emerging awareness of high mortality risks, as documented in parliamentary inquiries where mothers admitted selecting farmers via advertisements in outlets like the Daily Telegraph. The 1834 Poor Law's punitive regimes and limited parish aid exacerbated desperation but did not eliminate agency; urban working women, including servants, sought privacy and job retention by outsourcing infants, with limited alternatives like the rejecting 5 applicants per admission. Attributing causation solely to systemic failures, such as father absolution under bastardy laws, overlooks the preceding breakdown in traditional family structures and restraint, which empirical rises in illegitimacy—from increased eighteenth-century levels onward—linked to moral shifts amid industrialization. Baby farmers themselves bore direct blame through deliberate agency, as practices involved not mere from poverty but profit-driven methods like dosing infants with or , yielding incomes such as £800 annually for one operator, far exceeding subsistence. Contemporary media, including the Illustrated Police News (16 June 1870), highlighted emaciated infants in squalid conditions, framing farmers as commodifiers rather than passive economic actors. Critics have noted oversimplifications in blame attribution, including Victorian and later press tendencies to demonize working-class mothers for "disrupting" ideal caregiving by handing over children, as echoed in reports linking infant mortality (149 per 1,000 live births in affected areas) to maternal workforce entry rather than balanced causal factors. Such narratives, persisting into modern commentary, underplay farmers' culpability and mothers' complicity while rejecting broader chains from familial dissolution; parliamentary debates, like the 1871 Select Committee, grappled with shared liability but prioritized regulating farmers over excusing parental choices. This underscores a realist view: while laws like the 1872 Infant Life Protection Act addressed symptoms, root causation lay in individual decisions enabling the market for disposable infants, not undifferentiated structural oppression.

Perspectives on Personal Responsibility vs. Systemic Failure

Critics of systemic explanations for baby farming emphasized the agency of unwed mothers, who often knowingly selected private baby farmers over established alternatives like workhouses, which accepted illegitimate children and provided basic sustenance and rudimentary under the 1834 Poor Law Amendment. These mothers, motivated by desires for secrecy or convenience, paid premiums to farmers promising or care, despite awareness of high mortality risks documented in contemporary scandals, such as the cases where infants died from shortly after handover. Similarly, baby farmers themselves acted from calculated greed, securing multiple payments per child while underfeeding or dosing them with opiates to minimize costs, as revealed in trials like that of in 1896, where over 400 infants were linked to her operations through profit-driven advertisements. This perspective, advanced by Victorian medical professionals, attributed the practice primarily to moral failings among working-class women and entrepreneurs rather than irreducible structural , advocating punitive measures over welfare expansion to deter recurrence. Proponents of systemic failure countered that harsh Poor Law policies, which confined unwed mothers to punitive conditions and denied , exacerbated desperation by prioritizing cost deterrence over support, thereby funneling vulnerable families toward unregulated markets. The reforms, intended to curb rising illegitimacy rates—peaking at 6.8% of births in by —effectively penalized mothers while absolving fathers via weakened bastardy clauses, creating economic incentives for abandonment. However, such arguments have been critiqued for overemphasizing externalities at the expense of foresight; empirical records indicate that pre-reform parish aid and voluntary charities, including societies, offered viable if imperfect options that many mothers bypassed in favor of clandestine arrangements, suggesting choice amplified by cultural avoidance of institutional oversight. Conservative historical analyses further posit that societal stigma against illegitimacy functioned as a causal safeguard, correlating with lower out-of-wedlock birth rates prior to welfare expansions—dropping from 4% in the early 1800s—and incentivizing personal restraint through , which declined amid industrial anonymity and reformist leniency. This view holds that excusing individual decisions as mere symptoms of systemic gaps fosters dependency, as evidenced by post-reform spikes in abandonment despite available familial networks in rural areas, underscoring greed and irresponsibility as proximal drivers over distal socioeconomic pressures. Empirical realism thus favors models, where data on ignored alternatives reveals as the decisive factor in enabling lethal practices.

Legacy and Modern Analogies

Long-Term Influence on Child Protection

The revelations of widespread in baby farming operations during the 1870s prompted the enactment of the Infant Life Protection Act 1872 in Britain, which required local authorities to register and inspect individuals or institutions receiving more than one infant under age two for payment exceeding 5 shillings weekly, thereby initiating state oversight of private childcare to prevent neglect and profit-driven killings. This legislation, directly spurred by scandals like that of —who was convicted in 1870 for the deaths of at least five children through starvation and dosing—laid the groundwork for expanded regulatory frameworks that prioritized empirical monitoring over unregulated market arrangements. Amendments in 1897 broadened enforcement by increasing penalties for non-registration and mandating death notifications, while the Children Act 1908 consolidated these into national policy, prohibiting the reception of infants under nine months for lump-sum payments—a common baby farming tactic—and empowering voluntary societies like the , established in , to collaborate with state inspectors. These reforms effectively eroded private baby farming by the ; official records indicate a sharp decline in prosecuted cases post-1910, with illicit operations supplanted by licensed fostering and institutional care under monopolies, correlating with reduced extralegal placements as state welfare provisions expanded under the 1948 Children Act. In the , the baby farming legacy influenced the welfare state's assumption of primary responsibility for vulnerable children, evident in policies like the U.S. Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (modeled on Britain's after 1870s exposures), which by the 1920s integrated with boards to regulate boarding homes and lower illegitimacy-associated mortality rates through mandatory oversight. This shift toward centralized authority, however, engendered critiques of overreach, as early 20th-century commentators noted the potential for intrusive inspections to undermine family autonomy without proportionate evidence of , a tension persisting in debates over whether regulatory monopolies prioritize state control over targeted interventions despite verifiable declines in unregulated childcare fatalities.

Ethical Debates in Contemporary Contexts

Contemporary ethical debates invoke baby farming primarily as a cautionary historical precedent against unregulated markets in human reproduction, emphasizing the risks of commodifying infants or fetuses for profit without robust oversight. Proponents of stringent regulation argue that unchecked incentives in modern assisted reproductive technologies (ART) could mirror the neglect and mortality seen in 19th-century practices, where financial desperation and lax enforcement enabled exploitation. For instance, the potential for "embryo farms"—large-scale storage or production of human embryos for research or implantation—raises concerns about devaluing early human life and incentivizing quantity over quality, akin to how baby farmers prioritized payments over care. In discussions of , or technology, ethicists debate whether advancing partial or full outside the body could lead to factory-like systems that prioritize efficiency and scalability, potentially eroding parental bonds and fetal protections. A 2020 analysis highlights how such innovations might redefine viability thresholds, prompting questions about state intervention to prevent scenarios where gestating entities are treated as interchangeable commodities, much like infants in unregulated historical arrangements. Critics, including those wary of overreach, stress that while ectogenesis promises medical benefits like rescuing preterm infants, its without ethical safeguards could foster disparities, with wealthier entities accessing "optimized" while poorer ones face abandonment risks. These concerns underscore first-principles imperatives for causal : profit-driven incentives historically correlated with harm, necessitating preemptive legal frameworks to align technological progress with human dignity. Parallels extend to commercial and cross-border , where unregulated markets have enabled exploitation rings resembling baby farming's of care. In international surrogacy, ethicists like Elizabeth Anderson contend that treating gestational labor as a market good commodifies women and children, with reports of in low-regulation jurisdictions echoing past neglect for fees. Similarly, contemporary illegal networks, often masked as legitimate agencies, involve —falsifying documents to traffic infants for profit—prompting calls for global standards to curb mortality and identity erasure. Unlike direct revivals, these analogies highlight systemic lessons: from ART abuses, such as unmonitored IVF clinics discarding excess embryos, illustrates how absent enforcement amplifies personal vulnerabilities into widespread ethical failures. Debates thus pivot on balancing innovation with realism, advocating evidence-based to mitigate causal chains from to harm without stifling access.

Representation in Culture

Literature and Media Depictions

In , baby farming was frequently depicted with sensational elements, emphasizing neglect, , and moral decay among the lower classes. ' Oliver Twist (1837) portrayed a rudimentary baby farm where illegitimate infants received minimal care and were often starved, establishing an early of systemic child mistreatment tied to workhouses and . This influenced subsequent works, such as ' The Fallen Leaves (1879), which featured a baby farmer succumbing to amid class-based exploitation, and George Moore's Esther Waters (1894), linking the practice to wet-nursing failures and fears of shifting gender roles. Emma Caroline Wood's Sorrow on the Sea (1868) amplified drama through graphic scenes of by a "masculine" female farmer, reflecting press-inspired . Journalistic portrayals in the press further sensationalized the issue, using lurid details to stoke public horror and advocate reform. The 1870 trial of , convicted of manslaughter for neglecting multiple infants, garnered 19 articles in the Manchester Guardian alone, framing her as a "baby " and highlighting emaciated bodies to underscore criminal . Similarly, Amelia Dyer's 1896 conviction for strangling infants—estimated at up to 400 victims—dominated headlines with terms like "baby farming horror," contributing to one of the era's most notorious trials and expedited legislation. The British Medical Journal (1868, 1896) employed journalistic flair in pieces like "Baby-Farming and Baby-Murder," conflating paid childcare with systematic killing despite evidentiary gaps. Detective fiction and hybrid press narratives from 1867 to 1897 often centered "baby-farming detectives" probing suspicious infant deaths, blending real investigations with fictional intrigue to expose hidden networks. These depictions, while rooted in cases like Waters and Dyer, exhibited middle-class biases by overemphasizing working-class deviance and maternal failure, portraying farmers as unnatural predators while downplaying economic desperation or legitimate fostering arrangements. Later analyses critique such narratives as vehicles for class warfare , exaggerating prevalence to justify social controls on illegitimacy rather than addressing root causes like bastardy laws.

Historical Analysis in Scholarship

Scholarship emerging in the post-1970s era has emphasized the causal linkages between baby farming and elevated illegitimacy rates in Victorian Britain, attributing much of the practice to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act's Bastardy Clause, which imposed sole financial responsibility on unmarried mothers for their children until age 16, incentivizing secretive outsourcing of infants. Empirical data from industrial centers like reveal illegitimacy comprising one in twelve births, with 263 of every 1,000 such infants dying before age one, often due to neglect in unregulated boarding arrangements rather than inherent maternal abandonment. These studies prioritize verifiable mortality statistics and legislative impacts over moralistic interpretations, highlighting how economic desperation—exacerbated by absent fathers and workhouses' punitive policies—drove mothers to baby farmers for short-term relief, frequently resulting in high death rates from and . More recent scholarship in the 2020s reframes baby farming through the lens of women's integration into wage labor markets, portraying it as one of the scarce entrepreneurial avenues for impoverished widows, deserted wives, and single mothers unable to sustain households otherwise. In contexts like Manchester's mills, where over 11,000 women labored in alongside domestic service roles, post-partum returns to employment within days compelled reliance on baby farmers, as traditional networks eroded under and demands. This underscores causal mechanisms rooted in and limited contraception, where personal decisions to engage in intersected with systemic barriers to childcare, yielding infant mortality rates up to 90% in some boarded cohorts due to substandard conditions rather than premeditated killing in all instances. Data-driven interpretations challenge victimological framings prevalent in earlier narratives, which often absolved maternal agency by overemphasizing societal stigma while downplaying individual choices contributing to illegitimacy and hasty placements. Cases like ' 1870 conviction for starving multiple illustrate deliberate culpability, yet aggregate evidence indicates many baby farmers operated legitimate neighborhood services amid poverty and pollution, with fatalities more attributable to environmental hazards than uniform criminality. Victorian sources, including the British Medical Journal, exhibit credibility issues stemming from class-biased and physicians' advocacy for regulatory expansion, which inflated perceptions of systemic predation over mundane economic survival strategies. Analogous U.S. examinations, such as in where working mothers paid $1.50–$3 weekly for boarding, similarly stress pragmatic wage-labor necessities against ideological condemnations, with citywide first-year deaths at 175 per 1,000 reflecting broader infrastructural failures.

References

  1. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/baby-farmers/fearful-slaughter
  2. https://sites.udel.edu/britlitwiki/baby-farmers/
  3. https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/babyfarming.html
  4. https://www.hgs-familyhistory.com/2013/01/baby-farming/
  5. https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/police-forces/thames-valley-police/areas/au/about-us/thames-valley-police-museum/the-baby-farmer/
  6. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/baby-farmers
  7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/036319900102600303
  8. https://web.viu.ca/davies/H321GildedAge/BabyFarming.GildedAge.1988.pdf
  9. https://cas.loyno.edu/sites/chn.loyno.edu/files/Bastardy%2520and%2520Baby%2520Farming%2520in%2520Victorian%2520England.pdf
  10. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/62866/27/Baby%2520Farmers.pdf
  11. https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/631628/1/Catherine_Elkin_PhD.pdf
  12. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13555502.2012.740847
  13. https://capitalpunishmentuk.org/baby-farming-a-tragedy-of-victorian-times/
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2778747
  15. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/421e/5a05af8503feb327e946750fe52f3fe39404.pdf
  16. https://www.populationspast.org/about/
  17. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17159966
  18. https://cas.loyno.edu/sites/chn.loyno.edu/files/Bastardy%20and%20Baby%20Farming%20in%20Victorian%20England.pdf
  19. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=mhr
  20. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/Lee_uncg_0154D_12827.pdf
  21. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228651895.pdf
  22. https://victorianweb.org/science/maternity/uvic/14.html
  23. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15677/revisions/w15677.rev0.pdf
  24. https://livingwithdying.leeds.ac.uk/2022/11/01/unloved-and-undisciplined-nineteenth-century-baby-farming-and-the-demonisation-of-working-class-mothers-across-the-ages/
  25. https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3176321/1/DX090280.pdf
  26. https://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/1st-october-1870/11/the-trade-of-murder
  27. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/continuity-and-change/article/infant-death-child-care-and-the-state-the-babyfarming-scandal-and-the-first-infant-life-protection-legislation-of-1872/B309B47188B9987FB185980D0543945E
  28. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/3513702
  29. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clara_Risby_advt_Evening_News_4May1892_p1.jpg
  30. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/101865421
  31. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/113317639
  32. https://www.oldtreasurybuilding.org.au/lost-jobs/in-the-shadows/sex-and-secrets/the-baby-farmer/
  33. https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/trials-notable/page-14
  34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/190492
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/1877/02/07/archives/case-of-alleged-baby-farming-six-children-said-to-have-died-in-a.html
  36. https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/archive/GuildBFC.htm
  37. https://www.heritagetoronto.org/explore/reform-city/child-welfare-movement/
  38. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/so-foul-a-deed-infanticide-in-montreal-18251850/F80AF91FBEC1AF6B7F94B0E892C9B96C
  39. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/jan/06/denmarks-oscars-girl-with-the-needle-serial-child-murderer-dagmar-overbye
  40. https://time.com/7200185/denmark-movie-the-girl-with-the-needle/
  41. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/05/movies/the-girl-with-the-needle-trine-dyrholm.html
  42. https://europeancorrespondent.com/r/the-serial-killer-who-made-welfare-a-reality
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383397625_Serial_Murderers_in_Japan_1882-2017_-_a_narrative_analysis
  44. https://www.serialkillercalendar.com/Margaret%2520WATERS.php
  45. https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/v/object-718109/confession-execution-of-m-waters-the-baby-farmer-at-horsemonger-lane-gaol-on-tuesday-october-11th/
  46. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-39330793
  47. https://www.serialkillercalendar.com/Amelia%2520Elizabeth%2520DYER.php
  48. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-39186837
  49. https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=solon
  50. https://www.prisonersofeternity.com/blog/amelia-dyer-baby-farming-and-murder/
  51. https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/makin-sarah-jane-13271
  52. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/2013/111.pdf
  53. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2013/29.pdf
  54. https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/knorr-frances-lydia-minnie-13030
  55. https://chineseaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Bagnall_Done-to-Death_History-Honours_1996.pdf
  56. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/13928902
  57. https://scholarworks.brandeis.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Liliths-Midwives-Jewish-Newborn-Child-Murder/9924027293601921
  58. http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2018/12/frau-feddern-professional-baby-killer.html
  59. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/childhood-in-modern-europe/lower-depths/D2EEDC649425DFD9891770616F68A0EE
  60. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2035/pba151p001.pdf
  61. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/infanticide-and-babyfarming-in-victorian-england-9781350532021/
  62. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1872-03-06/debates/6b667431-9474-43eb-aafc-2ce1a96610b5/InfantLifeProtectionBill
  63. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/036319900102600303
  64. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/60-61/57/contents/enacted
  65. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1897/mar/29/infant-life-protection-bill-hl
  66. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/62866/27/Baby%20Farmers.pdf
  67. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/146642403305400803
  68. https://www.findandconnect.gov.au/entity/infant-life-protection/
  69. https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/pstorage-wellington-7594921145/49486638/thesis_access.pdf
  70. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-care-the-american-history/
  71. https://www.academia.edu/6129888/Throwing_the_baby_out_with_the_bath_water_The_Infant_Life_Protection_Act_of_1905
  72. http://doc.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/4127/mrdoc/pdf/report.pdf
  73. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/1834-poor-law/
  74. https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=suhj
  75. https://www.encyclopedia.com/children/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/baby-farming
  76. https://www.heritage.org/life/report/why-the-ivf-industry-must-be-regulated
  77. https://www.theregreview.org/2021/08/10/verniero-wild-west-fertility-clinics/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7216952/
  79. https://www.news-medical.net/health/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Artificial-Wombs.aspx
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12535042/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7538442/
  82. https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=vulr
  83. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1016&context=jhcl
  84. https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3679&context=expresso
  85. https://academic.oup.com/jvc/article/27/1/15/6423846
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24232966_Wolves_in_Women%27s_Clothing_Baby-Farming_and_the_British_Medical_Journal_1860-1872
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.