Adoption 1911

[Trees]

I am trying to sort out the background of a child born in the Loveday Maternity Hospital in 1911.
He was registered 57 days after the birth by the matron not his mother,His name on the birth certificate has the surname of his adopted family as the third fore name and his mothers surname He was baptised before the registration by his "adopting " parents, they gave him the first two names as on the birth certificate and the added forename being his mother's surname and now his surname is that of the adopted family. They continue to use his birth surname as part of his name (its on military papers and on his death registration) His mother married by banns three months after his birth.
There is a family story that the mother was raped at her employment. Surely if the child was her fiance's they would have kept it, the fact she did not register the child seems to indicate the mother did not want to know the child. Do others think it does point at a rape?
Would the hospital have arranged the "adoption" Is it possible she never saw the child? Would potential adoptive parents go straight to the hospital? We know the adoptive parents had four children three of which died in infancy  but they added two more natural children after the adoption.
Oddly their oldest child who grew up and married was not on the father's military papers but the child in question and their two younger sons were The missing son would have been 14 was that considered old enough not to be listed as a dependent?
Looking forward to your ideas about this situation
Many thanks Trees
added the address of the family on the baptism was Farm RD and her address on her marriage was Wheeler St these roads adjoin so was the "adoption"arranged between the families before the birth? would this point to the adoptive father being the actual father?

[Jebber]

There was no formal adoption procedure before 1927 following the adoption act on 1926. usually it was a private arrangement between families, or perhaps arranged through the local church. Sometimes a doctor would know of a couple wanting a child, but again it would have been an informal arrangement.

[Trees]

why do you think the registration was informed by the matron and so long after the birth? would there have been a penalty for not registering the birth in the 32 day period?

[stanmapstone]

It was 42 days not 32 days. Under the 1874 Act you had up to three months, and a maximum of twelve months to register the birth. See Section 2 of the Act at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1874Act.htm There was no penalty for late registration.
A penalty not exceeding £2 was introduced in Section 39 of the 1874 Registration of Births & Deaths Act, for the non-registration of a birth (the wording of the Act is actually for “failing to give information concerning the birth…….. as required by the said Acts”).
Stan

[Trees]

I wonder who collected the fine and was it widely imposed? The registration was well within the twelve months maximum. Probably she thought it up to the adopting family to register the child as it was given up at birth.  I wonder if she ever held the child its so sad but we know he had a long and happy life and she married and also had a family. Would she be expected to name the father when she was admitted or agreed to the "adoption"Is there likely to be a record anywhere naming the father/ I have found earlier parish records where the father has been named and charged with the child's upkeep or face a prison sentence but these are at a far earlier date.