"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"

Without w birth certificate, SJ may be unable to access:
Medical care
Vaccinations
Education
Child benefits

Freddie and Freddie's mum (who set up the crowdfunded) may honestly believe that their political stance is in SJ's best interests but I can't believe it is.

The crowdfunder is for £10k which won't even touch the sides of Freddie's medical expenses. I think they'd be wise to spend the cash on getting legal advice on deliberately turning up in another country to give birth.

I doubt they'll be able to take SJ out of the country though.

You rarely need more than a short form birth certificate in every day life and on the few occasions when you need the whole thing the absence of a mother would cause far more confusion than a simple factual word that just describes the person who gave birth.

Plenty of people have difficult information on a birth certificate (e.g. it lists an estranged parent). Does Freddy really think it’s helpful to insist it describes more than basic legal information?

It will be interesting to see how the issue of getting a UK passport to allow a child born and registered in Sweden pans out . Apparently the parent has to sign the documents required stating that the information contained is “ honest and correct” . Like the declaration on a GRC application I suppose....

I find it hard to believe that SJ hasn’t been registered. How will his family apply for a passport for him (so he can travel to Sweden) without his birth certificate? Perhaps there is a way around that, but I don’t know what it is.

It's sad Freddie doesn't seem to have considered their child's right to accurate info, or the future relationship if he proceeds with this action. Remember the GRA consultation? The Children of transitioners group specifically referred to Freddie:
'We need accurate legal documents. The recent rejection of Freddie McConnell’s attempt to have their baby’s birth certificate changed to record them as the baby’s father rather than mother is very welcome.
We hope that these protections for future children of transitioners will
continue.'
Link to submission
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16837/pdf/
and their website (they don't seem to be on social media)
childrenoftransitioners.org/

'Mother' on a birth certificate is not an identity. It is just the English noun that means person who gave birth.

The law would be outdated if it insisted that a mother couldn't be called 'Alfred' or that 'mother' implies anything about the identity of the person who gave birth.

Alfred is outdated, not the law.

And if like FM you have already lied on one legal document about your promise to live the rest of your life in your new gender then why do you think this gives you the right to lie on another legal document?

Due to outdated English laws, SJ (now almost four) still does not have a birth certificate. Transgender parents have no legal recognition in our country, which means that, even though Freddy is legally male "for all purposes" (GRA 2004), his only option is to register as SJ’s ‘mother’. This in turn would mean SJ going through life with an inaccurate and confusing birth certificate – listing his father (full name Alfred) as his 'mother'.

Some people are very keen on quoting the “for all purposes” wording of the GRA, while ignoring the “terms and conditions apply” provisions. They are either unaware of how to read a statute or they are deliberately misrepresenting the law and hoping that no-one notices.

Yes, NecessaryScene that's the case in the guardian article.

Doh. Missed your first post, and the first link in the other one. Spend ages trawling through your gov.uk links though!

Due to outdated English laws, SJ (now almost four) still does not have a birth certificate. Transgender parents have no legal recognition in our country, which means that, even though Freddy is legally male "for all purposes" (GRA 2004), his only option is to register as SJ’s ‘mother’. This in turn would mean SJ going through life with an inaccurate and confusing birth certificate – listing his father (full name Alfred) as his 'mother'.

Freddie can do one, I'm sick to death of their self absorbed bs. Why do transmen shit all over women?

Yes, NecessaryScene that's the case in the guardian article.

Reading more carefully, the judge did not grant an order, he just confirmed that the LA is a qualified informant for the registration because they have shared parental responsibility (because of the care order).

I suspect that Freddy was waiting for the outcome of the appeal to register the birth. Now that Freddy has lost the appeal I wonder if the child will finally be registered?

Thanks, LangClegsInSpace. Certainly seems like the child can be registered despite Freddie's wishes.

A bit of searching found a recent case of a parent refusing to register a child, and the council wanting to intervene:

lawandreligionuk.com/2019/07/08/registration-of-a-birth-re-t-a-child/

If I understand correctly the council reckoned they had the power, but chose to take it to court to confirm they weren't violating ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

[quote BatmansBat]Pretty expensive to give birth in Sweden

www.expatfinder.com/sweden/expat-guides/article/having-a-baby-in-sweden/1243[/quote]
Crowdfunder incoming ...

Hold onto your hats.

Just had a trawl. This case is relevant and has pointers to the relevant legislation:

www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897fc2c94e06b9e19ea50

It's a bit different because the birth was over a year ago:

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953:

7 Registration after twelve months from date of birth.

(1) Where, after the expiration of twelve months from the date of the birth of any child F1. . . the birth of the child has not been registered, the birth shall not be registered except with the written authority of the Registrar General and in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, and the fact that the authority of the Registrar General has been obtained shall be entered in the register.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/20/section/7

----------

The Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987:

Registration after twelve months from date of birth

12.—(1) Where a relevant registrar or a relevant superintendent registrar is informed that a live-birth which occurred more than twelve months previously has not been registered, he shall make a report to the Registrar General stating, to the best of his knowledge and belief–

(a) the particulars required to be registered concerning the birth;

(b) the source of his information; and

(c) the name, surname and address of any qualified informant available to give information for the registration.

(2) On being satisfied that the Registrar General has issued his written authority to the relevant registrar for the registration of the birth, the relevant superintendent registrar shall require a qualified informant to make and sign in his presence a declaration of the particulars to be registered concerning the birth.

(3) On registering the birth under this regulation the registrar shall enter in space 15 of the entry immediately below the date of registration the words “On the authority of the Registrar General”.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/2088/regulation/12/made
-------------

So yes, no court order necessary. Registrar writes to registrar general with the particulars and seeks permission to register the birth through one of the qualified informants.

It shouldn't be difficult to find all the relevant details because it was on TV!

I would have thought that the matter would be taken out of your hands and the authorities would register the birth instead?

The rules say:

If the parents cannot register the birth (for example, for medical reasons), certain other people can do it:

* someone who was present at the birth
* someone who is responsible for the child
* a member of the administrative staff at the hospital where the child was born

Strikes me that it might be a good idea for the authorities to tell the hospital admin to get on and do it, as Freddie clearly can't.

In the case in the Guardian article the LA applied for a court order to register the child themselves. There was already a care order in place because there were a lot of other issues.

Without children's services intervention it appears there's just a £200 fine.

If someone doesn’t register a birth, there’s just a fine and that’s it? I would have thought that the matter would be taken out of your hands and the authorities would register the birth instead?

The GRC says you can't mention the fact they were born female, ever. But the birth certificate of the child demands it.

But the GRA specifically lists 'parenthood' as a state that does not change if a person obtains a GRC (and this is not the only exception);

12 Parenthood
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act does not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/12

I didn't realise that Freddy's child had not been registered. Just when I think that Freddy exhibits incredible levels of self-absorption, Freddy demonstrates new levels.

Freddy has an almost 4 year old child whose birth has not been registered.

This a failure of parental responsibility.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/23/man-refused-to-register-sons-birth-high-court

Failing to register your child's birth because of your ideology is dodgy as fuck, whether it's because of your strange ideas about 'sovereignty' and the relevance of obscure maritime law, or because of your strange ideas about sex, gender and motherhood.

Freddy's child will probably be (relatively) fine and is in little danger of falling off the radar because Freddy loves the limelight.

But are there other tm following Freddy's example and just not registering their children so they are not recorded as 'mother'? Will there be, after this crowdfunder?

What are the implications of that?

www.transparencyproject.org.uk/does-registering-your-baby-make-them-property-of-the-state/

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/if_a_child_has_not_been_register

Freddy needs to grow the fuck up, take parental responsibility seriously, set an example and get this child registered. I don't even care if Freddy takes the opportunity to have another great big public whinge about it. Just get it done.

It is manifestly in [a child's] best interest for his birth to be registered, in order that he may be recognised as a citizen and entitled to the benefits of such citizenship.

Won't this mean that the two children in this family will have birth certificates showing FM as mother on one and father on the other? Sure, go right ahead, that's not confusing the children at all....

if Freddie is on the birth certificate as 'father', then what is written in the 'mother' box? Nothing at all?

There was an interesting point on the deleted thread about the end game here being for babies born to surrogates to have no mother named on their birth certificate.

They suggested that this was being funded by pro-surrogacy campaigners.

So this would be a birth certificate with a name in the 'mother' box and ?nothing? in the father box? I'd presume lots of children have such a certificate.

I think it would have to show that the ‘father’ gave birth, because it is a record of a birth and in English law a child has a right to know these details and there are legal implications for parental responsibility. It would be obvious that the sex of the person who gave birth was female. In English the gender neutral legal term for this person is ‘mother’.