"Transgender man, 34, loses legal battle to be named as the father on his child's birth certificate as Supreme Court refuses to hear his case"

I wonder if the decision not to attempt to revoke FM's GRC was in any way linked to the realisation that it would be a shit-show. Imagine!

Prick News and the Grauniad going wild at the evil reactionary courts suggesting pregnancy is a female thing.

Endless stories about how being a man isn't limited to physical sex, appearance, actions, stereotypes, behaviour or personality. It's a special twinkly invisible fairy dust glittering away invisibly in one's mind.

Only special people can see it, only special people have it, but yeah it's definitely worth encapsulating in law and it definitely applies to ten year olds too.

In fact, challenging FM could well have brought the whole house of cards down, if Prick News etc decided to get irate about the unfair expectations placed on trans people to act in acceptably masculine or feminine ways etc etc

Sooner or later the public will begin to ask what trans even means.

Bosky thanks for all that info. It really is a bit of shitty, ill-thought-out legislation isn't it?

In a previous thread I suggested a large group of women get GRCs and then try to reverse them a year later, then try to get another GRC. It should be technically possible for some. Provided reversal was allowed, one could change legal sex every couple of years.

It's a fiver and some gas bills; I'm sure it could be done.

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accouchement_sous_le_secret or in English www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/les-enfants-x-denied-their-true-identity-2333283.html

A quick search turned up this:

"the legal maternal relationship with the child is automatically established with the mother's name appearing on the birth certificate"

www.angloinfo.com/how-to/france/healthcare/pregnancy-birth/registration-nationality

On birth certificates, it's legal in several European countries to give birth without your identity being recorded. About 600-700 women do this in France every year, for instance. There is no way for the child to discover their mother's identity unless she decides to reveal it herself.

Going back to Freddy:

The GRC minutes from 2018 would suggest that the Secretary of State consulted the GRC Panel before deciding not to take steps to revoke Freddy's GRC.

In Paragraph 45, Justice McFarlane clearly thought that Freddy's application for a GRC might be considered fraudulent, although he does not state why.

"The Secretary of State has the right to refer a GR certificate to the High Court or Family Court if he considers that its grant has been secured by ‘fraud’ [GRA 2004, s 8(5)]. At a preliminary hearing, I enquired whether there was to be any challenge to the validity of the GR certificate in the light of the close chronological alignment of the GR certificate application with the Claimant’s IUI treatment. Having taken instructions, Ms Sarah Hannett, on that occasion acting both for the Secretaries of State and for the RG, confirmed that there was to be no such challenge and that the judicial review proceedings would proceed on the basis that the certificate was valid. This position was confirmed by Mr Ben Jaffey QC at the final hearing, although he reserved the right to refer to TT’s behaviour as part of any submissions on proportionality; in the event this, potentially striking, aspect of the factual background was not in fact referred to in submissions. I have therefore ignored it in my analysis of the issues."

One possibility springs to mind:

McFarlane would be aware that an applicant for a GRC must sign a declaration that he/she "intends to continue to live in the acquired gender until death"
2 (1) (c) on this page:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/2

Perhaps McFarlane assumed that this meant that, since only females can get pregnant, that someone who has declared that they intend to live as a male until death would appear to have made a fraudulent declaration if, on receipt of a GRC and obtaining a new Birth Certificate, they promptly made arrangements to be impregnated by IVF.

Perhaps McFarlane also considered what the motivation for fraud might be, given the nature of Freddy's case, if the declaration was indeed fraudulent?

That line of thought took me down a bit of a rabbit hole into legal stuff beyond my ken - IANAL!

Was McFarlane seeking to establish whether the "Mischief Rule" might apply?
I honestly do not know whether this is relevant and hope a lawyer happens by this way. Tagging @spero :-)

The mischief rule

Sometimes, statutes can be defined more broadly by the courts to deal with unforeseen loopholes or ambiguity within the legislation, which may prevent parliament’s original intention being honoured. This application is known as the mischief rule, and will be used where there is ambiguity.

The mischief rule was laid down in the landmarkHeydon’s Casein 1584 where the court said four issues need to be considered when interpreting statutes. These were to: examine the common law prior to the Act, locate the mischief or defeat in the common law, identify the remedy Parliament meant to propose to eliminate the mischief, and finally, to give effect to that remedy.

The mischief rule is narrower than the golden rule and only applied to determine the mischief and defect that the statute was intended to remedy.

www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/statutory-interpretation/

The Mischief Rule of Statutory Interpretation

"Themischief rule of statutory interpretationis the oldest of the rules.Themischief rulewas established inHeydon's Case[1584] EWHC Exch J36Case summary. InRe Sussex Peerage, it was held that themischief ruleshould only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute. Under themischief rulethe court's role is to suppress the mischief the Act is aimed at and advance the remedy."

Continues at:
www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Mischief-rule.php

Looking at the minutes of the GRC Panel User Group 2005-2018, questions about "fraud" have been mainly about marriage and the Spousal Consent Clause, which obviously do not apply in this case, although the minutes from the 2018 meeting are interesting:

mforstater.medium.com/long-slow-demeaning-intrusive-and-distressing-or-swift-professional-and-efficient-e100f2fb41f8

Gender Recognition Panel User Group Meeting Edinburgh Sept 2011

Judicial report - Jeremy Bennett

Please see the minutes from the GRP User group meeting in Scotland Additionally to the points raised at the Scottish GRP User group meeting Mr Bennett highlighted that the panel need to see evidence of divorce documents and change of name documents. The reason for this is to confirm that a marriage has come to end otherwise only an interim certificate can be issued. An applicant must declare whether they are married or divorced. On rare occasions applicants have failed to declare their marital status. If a full certificate was issued and applicant was still married this may be considered as fraudulent.

Previous minutes - suggestion that gender recognition obtained by married person would invalidate the marriage.

Ms Gray told the meeting that, in her opinion, it would be the certificate that was invalidated, not the marriage. Ms Celizalso commented that there may be fraud implications that might have to be considered.

Minutes of Gender Recognition Panel User Group Meeting 21 November 2016

Page 5

1. This is to be taken as a general and not specific(related to any person) question. If the trans spouse knows that spousal consent has been given under duress and does not declare this, Is the trans party guilty of any criminal offence?

Answer: It is not for the panel to comment on whether the applicant has committed a criminal offence in circumstances not known by the panel.

If the panel became aware that spousal consent had been given under duress, the panel would have to decide whether the spousal consent has been freely given. The panel might contact the spouse for clarification of their wishes.

Section8 GRA2004 allows the applicant's spouse to apply to the High Court for Court of Sessions to quash the grant of the GRC if it was secured by fraud. Similarly, the Secretary of State could apply to set aside the decisionIf they consider it was secured by fraud.

PG said there are precedents in other areas of law, allowing for Instance for the annulment of a marriage.

JB said if the panel were aware spousal consent had not been clearly given they would question the application

Page 7

(Redacted) asked about numbers of fraudulent applications. JB said he couldn't disclose this but it was mlnlscule (sic). The Secretary of State does have power to act.

Minutes of 2018 Gender RecognitionPanel User Group Meeting

Page 6 - 7

Statutory declarations made on application for a GRC: If an Interim GRC is issued that la not "cashed in", if the applicant then begins to live In their legal gender, would this be a crlminal offence?

Judge Bennett said that the full GRC comes from the court or in some circumstances from the panel. The Interim certificate does not legally change the gender only the full GRC does this.

(Redacted) said that the statutory declaration is a legal document and that If an applicant has sworn they will live in their gender for the rest of their life could they still not be committing fraud even if they have not been Issued with a GRC?

Judge Bennett said no.


(Redacted) said that the statutory declaration is only fraud if created with fraudulent intent. It needs to be created 'In good faith' at the time of being sworn. Wedding vows may say that someone intends to be married until death but there is still divorce. Judge Bennett agreed.

(Redacted) asked who would bring a fraud case?


Judge Bennett said that theSecretary of State would take advice of the panel in cases of fraud.

(Redacted) asked If the panel had input into the consultation regarding the statutory declaration?

Judge Bennett said that the panel interprets the law given to them they do not make the law. Judge Bennett said that he may personally feel that the law should be changed but that is only a personal view. Until the law changes the panel must operate under the current Act.

(Continued in next post)

The mess of the GRA is directly threatening the protections for babies born in this country- having a mother legally responsible for the welfare of the baby from the moment of birth and the rights of everyone by an attempt at changing the meanings of words such as mother, father, man and woman.

The GRA started off the process of queer theory and gender identity theory taking over institutions and culture in the U.K. and becoming akin to a new state religion, participation in which is being enforced to varying degrees in a different parts of the U.K.

The whole premise of the Gender Recognition Act is nonsense. It should be repealed.

This should always be about the truth on the child's birth certificate, not for validation of the parent's identity.

100% this. The child is a human being, not an accessory.

Nothing will ever count as fraud I suspect. How could ‘fraud’ be proved when it’s completely in people’s own heads how they feel? It’s just a pointless, undefined addition to the Act dressed up to look like some kind of a safeguard.
The whole premise is so poorly conceived- no acknowledgement of women who get pregnant, no provision for people with GRCs to change their minds and remove their consent to have ‘changed’ sex. Feels like it was just scribbled out on the back of an envelope at a drinks reception and then turned into binding law. Its bizarrely full of holes. It wasn’t even made law that long ago.

[quote Bosky]FlyingOink - There's no way to rescind a GRC

Yes there is and the Sec of State was asked by the Court in Freddie's case if he intended to revoke Freddie's GRC as having been obtained fraudulently. The Sec State elected not to do so.

GRA2004, Section 8 "Appeals"

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/8

Case No: FD18F00035
Date: 25/09/2019
Before:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane
President of the Family Division

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

• and -

• and –

See para 45:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TT-and-YY-APPROVED-Substantive-Judgment-McF-25.9.19.pdf[/quote]
Very interesting thanks.

What do you think would actually class as fraud then? It can't be changing legal sex to inherit because primogeniture was not affected by the GRA.

It makes sense that the person who gives birth to a child has automatic parental responsibility for that child, unless there are safeguarding concerns. I’m not persuaded that abolishing this legal convention is generally in the best interests of children.

Thank you FlyingOink for that post. These are huge potential risks for children, it’s very concerning.

FlyingOink - There's no way to rescind a GRC

Yes there is and the Sec of State was asked by the Court in Freddie's case if he intended to revoke Freddie's GRC as having been obtained fraudulently. The Sec State elected not to do so.

GRA2004, Section 8 "Appeals"

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/8

Case No: FD18F00035
Date: 25/09/2019
Before:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane
President of the Family Division

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

• and -

• and –

See para 45:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TT-and-YY-APPROVED-Substantive-Judgment-McF-25.9.19.pdf

There are babies born in the UK who are not registered. They are born to women here illegally, enslaved in brothels or sweatshops. They aren't born in hospital and their mothers have no medical care. Some of these babies are sold to paedophiles.

Sorry to make such a disturbing point, but this happens.

Having the woman who gives birth registered as the legal mother means there is an adult who is legally responsible for that baby.

One adult. Regardless of who provided the sperm and who married who and who commissioned who and whose eggs. There is one adult who the law can point to and say, this infant is your responsibility.

If we decouple the act of giving birth from legal responsibility for a child, as surrogacy campaigners prefer, what happens to the child when the commissioners abandon it, like the case with the paedophile from Australia who took one twin and left the other in Thailand because he had Down's?

Anything that could lead to more motherless children is exceptionally dangerous. This child is not registered, and whatever the passport office decided, technically he has no parents, and no record of his birth, his age, or his nationality by birth (so why he was given a passport I don't know, but I can't get into all that).

I agree with pp that birth certificates should reflect parenthood. There should be a record of which humans were responsible for the creation of the child, which woman gave birth, and then whoever bought or adopted the child afterwards. In no cases should lies be published on a birth certificate form.

Also the GRA is entirely unfit for purpose. There's no way to rescind a GRC, even when it is obvious that it was obtained for political reasons. Getting pregnant is not something a man would do.

“I’ve seen Freddy’s petition and am concerned by the reference to surrogacy. I don’t believe that the attempts to legally sever pregnancy and birth from the role of “mother” are putting children’s best interests first.”

This x 100

Also, as I understood it, if the birth hasn’t been registered within 6 weeks by the parents, it becomes the responsibility of the midwife who attended the birth to do it.

If SJ doesn’t have a birth certificate, then I owe Freddy McConnell an apology - I’d never heard of anyone having a UK passport without a birth certificate before. I

That said, didn’t Freddy lose his final appeal in the UK courts? If so, I’m surprised SJ wasn’t registered after that.

SJ is the same age as my DD, so I know he’d normally be due to start school this year. Our Local Education Authority keeps track of DD and her cohort - they know which nursery she attends, when she is due to start school and whether a primary school application form has been submitted on her behalf. Would this process work for a child without a birth certificate? I suppose the LEA might know from the hospital records that a Baby McConnell exists.

I’ve seen Freddy’s petition and am concerned by the reference to surrogacy. I don’t believe that the attempts to legally sever pregnancy and birth from the role of “mother” are putting children’s best interests first.

A baby begins to bond with his or her mother before birth and afterwards has a strong instinct to stay close to her. The mother and baby remain biologically linked, with skin-to-skin contact affecting lactation, for example. The birth mother might identify as a “surrogate”, but that isn’t child-centred language.

I know there are situations where babies need to be cared for by someone who isn’t their birth mother, but at least child-centred language helps people to focus on the children’s needs, not the adults’ feelings.

Ugla says

"This is a simple change of registration that will affect no one but the trans parents who need it."

Not the kids then?

https://twitter.com/uglastefania/status/1468905074269331460?s=21

Campaign Instagram account

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CXRYidOAa0l/?utmmedium=copyy_link

I find it so repugnant that any parent would use their child in this way

I do too, and it continues.

Following the crowdfunder to pay for the birth in Sweden, McConnell has launched an additional crowdfunder to pay for it to be filmed (and later made into a film with further money?) and a government petition which is now live.

In this Instagram post FM explains that the judge ruled that son SJ should be given a passport so I previously had this wrong, though most people have to register their child in order to get a passport, FM got special treatment due to the legal action.

So SJ doesn't have a BC but does have a passport. I'm not aware of any other cases where you can get a passport without a BC.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CW8xn8mt-EV/?utmmedium=copyy_link

The Family Court in the UK is the most misogynistic institution we have.

That which oppresses women cannot protect children. As a standard, the Court records all their hearings, for accountability as well as its own records. But in practice these audio recordings often go missing when the judiciary is being held to account. I have experienced these dangerous corruptions as a mother and I am issuing a Call to Action to reform this oppressive Court.

I am represented by Charlotte Proudman, Ms Proudman is at the forefront of changing legislation and she bravely holds the state to account on violence against girls and women. The judiciary have long and well documented history of minimising and dismissing male violence against children and women, commonly called domestic terrorism.

Ms Proudman’s work switches a light on in this hidden world. Violence and child abuse is the most serious issue facing women and children who appeal to the Family Court. The pandemic of violence committed by men against children in their care and against the women in their lives is directly enabled by the Family Court ethos of maintaining parental contact at all costs. These costs all too frequently include a woman’s or a child’s life, or years of continued abuse.

The present failings of the Family Court are directly responsible for “exposing another generation to emotional and physical harm.” So says author Rachel Watson. “By denying domestic abuse, failing to address behavioural problems and awarding equal or sometimes sole parenting roles to unsafe parents, the family courts are conditioning children to believe it's ok for one parent to be in control and hurt others without consequence.”

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 acknowledged in law that children are victims of domestic abuse in their own right. The Act legislated that abuse victims are entitled to special measures to protect their privacy and to minimise the retraumatisation that is nearly inevitable in reliving violent events in court. These measures include screens, so that the perpetrator cannot see the victim; the perpetrator also can no longer intimidate and manipulate his victims by cross-examining them in court.

In my case these provisions were not followed. My Appeal is a call to action. We must reform this unsafe Court system. My Appeal will particularly highlight the judiciary’s failure to carry out the requirements of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Early feminists the Suffragettes were pioneers for child safety. Suffragette action brought about the 1925 Guardianship of Infants Act which gave married women rights to their own children for the first time. We all intuitively know that the child is usually safest with its mother. Yet Mr Justice Lawrence called this basic fairness and common sense “an insult to God”. And although in law women now have rights to their children, in reality men’s rights usually trump the right to safety for women and children.

Enough is enough. It’s not ok for women’s and particularly for children’s safety to be betrayed by the Courts. To contribute to the cost of this Appeal or simply to be kept up to date on its progress please send your email address to [email protected]
All funds are sent directly from Crowd Justice to the barrister Charlotte Proudman.

Extra problems for Nonbinary parents, it seems. How dreadful!

I just want to scream:

"IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!! - IT'S ABOUT THE BABY!! - THE BABY WHO WILL GROW INTO AN ADULT AND DISCOVER IT HAS BEEN USED AS A PAWN TO BOLSTER AN IDEOLOGY!"

I find it so repugnant that any parent would use their child in this way:

-----

It’s interesting to see what different reporters focus on when talking about this situation. That is, the situation for UK trans parents, not just my family.

It’s such a complex issue, there are legitimately multiple stories to tell and angles to take. I’m very conscious that lack of legal recognition affects so many more families and in many different ways.

For example, the Sweden solution doesn’t help nonbinary parents, who can’t register as ‘parent’ in the UK if they give birth or were assigned male at birth. If two trans men have kids together and each carries, one after the other, they are likely to be registered as ‘mother’ / ‘father’ on one certificate and then switched to ‘father’ / ‘mother’ on the next. If a trans man’s cis wife gives birth he’ll probably be able to register as ‘father’ even though he technically isn’t allowed to, according to this govt’s interpretation of the Gender Recognition Act…

I could go on but it makes my head (and my heart) hurt.

If you are a journalist or have media contacts, I’m always open to talking. Whether it helps our crowdfunder or draws attention to the wider legal issue, I’ll talk about it until the queer cows prance home.

And if your family or a family you know is affected by this chaotic birth certificate situation, please shoot me an email so we can connect (emails preferable to DM). We are stronger together and historically we haven’t been, which is why consecutive governments have ignored and discriminated against us. We can and must change that. We will be recognised. ✊

#transfamilies #transfamily #transparents #transparenthood #transdad #transmum #ren #lgbtfamily #lgbtfamilies #lgbtparents #lgbtqparents #queerparent #queerparents #queerparenthood #mum #dad #transequality #transliberation

Quite Mavis. There are different routes to being a parent, I wonder why this one was chosen when it’s obviously triggering for FM.

That would be far too logical a conclusion to draw.

I'm fairly new to this debate but surely if you are so hugely opposed to being legally labelled as a child's mother... don't give birth?!?