media review: Where’s Molly?
“Nearly 350,000 children were sent to institutions in the
Volume 17, Number 2, 2011
Author
Keri Cameron
School of Geography
and Earth Sciences,
McMaster University,
Hamilton, ON
Correspondence
camerkl@mcmaster.ca
Keywords
documentary film,
siblings,
institutionalization
© Ontario Association on
Developmental Disabilities
United States between 1950 and 1970. Today, many are still
alive with little or no family contact.”
Where’s Molly is an autobiographical documentary about Jeff
Daly’s quest to find his sister, Molly. Told primarily through
Jeff’s voice, the film chronicles the pair’s separation as children
and reunion 47 years later. Jeff’s purpose for creating Where’s
Molly is “to remind society of past mistakes, of segregating and
isolating individuals with disabilities” (Daly, 2007). This film
contributes to our understandings of disability by offering a
sibling perspective, a vantage point often absent in media rep-
resentations of disability and institutionalization or in family
portrayals more generally. Where’s Molly is a gentle introduc-
tion to disability rights, particularly for those un­familiar with
the topic. It has the potential to influence individuals to search
for institutionalized brothers, sisters, cousins and other rela-
tives. Despite its compelling and moving moments, the docu-
mentary suffers from several problems that blunt its potential
to avoid repeating “past mistakes.”
Jeff and Molly Daly were born in the early 1950s in Astoria,
Oregon, where they lived with their parents, Sue and Jack, until
Molly was three. At two years of age, Molly was diagnosed
as “profoundly retarded” and, shortly before her third birth-
day, was sent to The Oregon Institute for the Feeble Minded,
referred to as Fairview throughout the film. The siblings were
separated until Jeff began his search for his sister as an adult.
Where’s Molly adds to the stories about the consequences of
institutionalization on the family. Jeff Daly tells his story,
in part, through a series of photographs. The documentary
opens with black and white childhood photos of Jeff and
Molly, often with their arms wrapped around one another. To
emphasize the impact Molly’s absence had on the Dalys, the
images change from smiling family shots, to stark images of
objects that seldom include people. When people do appear in
photos, their faces betray few emotions. However, as Jeff and
Molly are reunited the imagery turns to cheerful, brightly col-
oured video footage of the pair spending time together. The
photographs, together with the accounts of family friends,
support persons, and Jeff himself, illuminate how institution-
alization not only affected institutionalized individuals, but
also greatly influenced families. Jeff, for instance, suggests
that with Molly’s departure, family celebrations dwindled,
certain conversations were no longer possible, and resent-
ments and secrecy among family members arose.
Perhaps the documentary’s clearest contribution is the insight
Jeff provides into the barriers encountered in his search for
Molly. Jeff felt he had to wait until after the death of both
84 Cameron
his parents before he could actively begin his
search. He discovered Molly’s name in his
deceased father’s wallet and later, while sorting
through his father’s belongings, found other
documents that enabled him to locate his sis-
ter. In sharing the story of the changes effected
by his reunion with Molly on his own family,
Jeff suggests to viewers that family orthodoxies
can be subverted and that kinship ties can be
re-forged even after decades. Jeff reinforces his
message by presenting stories of other families
affected by institutionalization. Layne DeLoff,
Jeff’s brother-in-law, for example, also had a
sister who was institutionalized as a child.
When Layne began a similar search, however,
he experienced significantly more challenges
because there was no public record of his sis-
ter available and privacy laws complicated his
search even further. In response, Jeff set out to
change the law in Oregon to make information
about previously institutionalized individuals
more accessible to family members. Molly’s Law
(2005), a law requiring the Oregon Department
of Human Services to notify previously institu-
tionalized individuals when family members
are looking for them, was soon passed and
enacted and other families have benefitted from
it. Jeff’s success in finding Molly may encourage
people to search for family members, even in
the face of significant obstacles. Certainly Jeff’s
efforts to remove legislative barriers to finding
‘lost’ kin offer viewers a template for creating
the conditions of hope.
Where’s Molly also documents some of the his-
tory of Fairview. Photographs and short pro-
motional film clips, produced by the state of
Oregon to educate the public about Fairview,
illustrate the experience of living in that insti-
tution. Images of cages and restraints and
annual numbered photographs of residents
mirror those of inmates in correctional facili-
ties, driving home the carceral character of
institutional life. It is clear in this film that resi-
dents of Fairview experienced neglect, were
overmedicated, and were often restrained with
shackles, leather straps, and other apparatus
that looked much like medieval torture devic-
es. Other experiences individuals likely faced
in Fairview in the 1950s, however, were miss-
ing. A quick internet search uncovers eugenic
laws; General Laws of Oregon (1917) that sug-
gests Fairview residents may have been steril-
ized. In fact, forced sterilization laws were not
abolished in Oregon until 1983 (Largent, 2002).
The documentary also provides insight into
the common practice of institutionalizing dis-
abled children in the 1950s. Attitudes towards
intellectual and developmental disability typi-
cally reflected notions of tragedy and feel-
ings of shame. Parents were often blamed for
the birth of a disabled child and, like many
others, Molly’s parents seemed to internal-
ize these messages; seemingly embarrassed to
admit their daughter was part of their family.
Melanie Panitch (2004) argues that a lack of
broader community awareness of, and minimal
supports available for, disabled children and
families exacerbated the isolation, labour, and
sense of failure associated with having a dis-
abled child. It was also clear in the film that the
initial suggestion for Molly to be institutional-
ized came from doctors. Parents, such as Jack
and Sue Daly, likely found it impossible to chal-
lenge these authoritative medical directives,
particularly in the 1950s when biomedicine and
science uncritically promised improvement to
all areas of human life.
Despite these broader social forces at play, Jeff
Daly narrows his focus to gendered explana-
tions. His implicit gender assumptions find
expression in two ways: the valourization of
his father and the pillorying of his mother.
Jack Daly presents as a benign, dedicated par-
ent through the film. Jeff describes his father’s
attempts to continue a relationship with Molly
after she was first sent to Fairview. Initially,
Jack was discouraged from visiting by Fairview
staff, however, he resisted. He continued his
visits surreptitiously, disguised as a clown! Jeff
heightens their father’s actions as admirable
by juxtaposing them with his mother’s osten-
sibly cold and chastising demeanour. Daly lays
blame on his mother for Molly’s absence. After
she was sent away, Daly would ask “where’s
Molly?” only to be re-directed and ignored by
his mother. According to Jeff, she forbade him
from asking any further questions, leaving him
with the impression that his queries would
result in punishment. As an adult, Jeff reflects
upon his family’s history and concludes,
I’m afraid my mother probably looked at her and said
“there’s something wrong with you but I don’t know
what it is,” and I think, worse yet, she probably said
to herself “why is this happening to me? (Daly, 2007).
JoDD

Daly layers the blame upon his mother, Sue,
through the inclusion of interviews in which
family friends recall how she did not want a
“less than perfect child.”
Sue Daly’s actions and her culpability may
reflect the gendered role expectations of the
1950s. Caring for children was (and in many
ways remains) highly feminized and viewed
as the natural purview of mothers. Mothers of
disabled children were in a contradictory posi-
tion; beholden to follow “doctors’ orders,” but,
in institutionalizing their children, assumed to
have abdicated their maternal responsibility.
While Molly’s mother may have been respon-
sible for providing Molly with the care she
needed at home, Molly’s father must have had
a stake in the decision making process to send
Molly away. Yet Daly does little to explore these
dimensions of their family history, maintaining
the taken-for-granted gender expectations.
There are several reasons why an explicit gen-
dered analysis might be useful to the audience.
First, families in similar circumstances might
benefit from a fuller understanding of the ways
in which normalcy uniquely shaped the actions
and life course of each family member. This
might mitigate our tendency to lay responsibility
on individuals, rather than the larger social forc-
es that continue to influence our values, beliefs
and actions. Second, an attention to the ways in
which gender, parenting and disability inter-
sect, may help forge academic and activist alli-
ances among the feminist and disability rights
movements. Finally, a more complicated analy-
sis of the history of eugenics may illuminate
its contemporary reconfigurations. The repro-
duction of these institutionalized relationships
and gendered roles continue to resonate today.
In educational institutions, for example, admin-
istrators and teachers often speak negatively
about mothers, labelling their advocacy efforts
as overprotection. Educational administrators
and staff have suggested that their absence from
the school setting or greater emotional distance
would strengthen their child’s learning. This
mirrors institutionalized relationships of the
past; the belief that familial relationships hinder
disabled children’s progress.
In addition to its failure to integrate a gender
analysis, Where’s Molly has several limitations.
First, the documentary does little to include the
v . 17 n .2
Where’s Molly?
85
voices of disabled people. While there is merit
in the centrality of the sibling perspective,
Molly’s voice is peripheral to the documentary.
The events of Molly’s life, from being sent away
to an institution and being reunited with her
brother 47 years later, were relayed from the
perspective of her brother and non-disabled
individuals interviewed for the documentary.
While Molly is described as an individual who
does not communicate verbally, throughout
the documentary Molly communicates non-
verbally with others. Jeff also suggests that
Molly knows and is continuing to learn words.
Molly’s voice would have been key to deliver-
ing a fully emancipatory message in the film.
A second limitation revolves around language
usage. Jeff and others interviewed for the film
express disapproval about the labels ascribed
to individuals at the time Molly was diagnosed.
Much of the language used throughout the
film, however, also reflects ableist attitudes. For
example, some individuals interviewed by Jeff
use the terms “retarded,” “mentally challenged,”
and “handicapped” to describe Molly. Possibly
the most troubling was the continuous use of
“vegetable” and “vegetative state.” Molly and
Jeff Daly’s younger brother, Tim, for example,
informs Jeff that in his opinion their sister is a
“vegetable” and that he does not want to have
a relationship with her. Although he does not
specify what state or impairment the term “veg-
etable” was meant to represent, he seems to infer
that Molly would not be mobile, could not com-
municate, and could never have a relationship
with others. Although Daly may have included
this language to highlight the divided responses
to disabled individuals in any family, its unprob-
lematized articulation risks its legitimation.
At the close of the documentary, viewers are
left wondering about Jeff and Molly’s future.
With institutional closures has come an
increase in small group home and indepen-
dent living arrangements in the community.
This has generated debate as to whether group
homes in community settings are homes, or
rather, mini institutions. The film presented the
option of living in a group home as a strictly
positive experience. Daly, who is now Molly’s
legal guardian, decides she could stay in her
group home residence because she is happy
there. While Molly may have happily chosen
her current living arrangement, the documen-
86 Cameron

tary does not offer a fulsome picture of life

after deinstitutionalization for people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
De-institutionalization has led to the homeless-
ness, trans-institutionalization and new forms
of abuse for many disabled people, creating
new concerns and pressures for families. Before
the documentary’s closing credits the words
“Institutions for individuals with developmen-
tal disabilities still operate in many states”
appear on screen. This statement promotes
awareness that institutions continue to operate,
but does little to alert viewers to the enduring
exclusions, threats to self-determination and
violence that individuals experience outside the
institutional walls.

Finally, Where’s Molly provides no accessibility

features. The lack of funding available for doc-
umentary filmmakers to make films accessible
is troubling. Captioning and audio description
would make this story accessible to a larger
audience.

For more information on the film, visit:

www.wheresmolly.net

References
Daly, C. (Producer) & Daly, J. (Director). (2007).
Where’s Molly [Documentary]. United
States: SFO Productions.
Largent, M. (2002). “The greatest curse of the
race”: Eugenic sterilization in Oregon,
1909–1983. Oregon Historical Quarterly,
103(2), 188–209.
Panitch, M. (2004). Mothers of intention:
Women, disability and activism. D. Stienstra
& A. Wight-Felske (Eds.), Making equality:
History of advocacy and persons with disabilities
in Canada (pp. 262‑278). Concord, Ontario:
Captus Press.
Where’s Molly Documentary Website.
(2007). Retrieved from http://www.
wheresmolly.net

JoDD