Three fathers now.

Every child in the world has the right to have a mother listed on their birth certificate

Interesting how the people posting here and saying it’s not a big deal seem to have zero understanding of what this means legally and to the child themselves to not have a birth mother on their birth certificate and to instead have three men - and what this could imply further down the line to many other children. But then if it’s not bothering them directly why care?

Safeguarding out of the window and minds so open their brains have fallen out.

As a PP said, legal guardianship or adoption is the better option if they want parental status.

it is the child's birth certificate, belonging to them, recording information important to them about them, ie their biological parent. It is not the parents birth certificate.

Should the uk be aspiring to a culture of polygamy? Really? Is that what you are saying?

So there are three parties.

What happens if the relationship breaks down?

Its bad enough with two parties who have parental rights. With three do we think there will be the same level of problems, less problems or more problems - which pose a risk of psychological harm. Children need stability. Do we think custody disputes between 3 or more parents will be just fine?

If we can have children with 3 people with legal parental responsibility, why not 4 or 20? At what point does it change from being a parent/child to owner/possession relationship? What has happened with communities where children have been raised with 'multiple' parents?

The issue is the more people you throw in the mix, you weaken bonds of responsibility and add layers of not really knowing how you fit in. We know from children who are adopted biology remains a fundamental issue in terms of understanding who they are and where they come from which can not be ignore. Erasing a child's ability to access this information removes something from them.

The needs of the child always come second to the wants of the adults in these situations - and thats the biggest red flag going.

At least the birth mothers were named in this article. When I read about Tom Daley's son it was as though he and his husband had immaculately conceived the child. No woman was mentioned at all. Repulsive journalism.

If the women wanted to be on the birth certificate and were not allowed then yes I can see an issue it just doesn't seem the case here it seems all parties were willing

Most people in the U.K. have a short form birth certificate which doesn’t record any parents. (You can apply for either long or short form copies - the short form certificate just usually gives enough information for practical purposes).

However the information held on the register is for the purposes of public record. You might as well ask to identify as being born on a different day as ask for the mother to be excluded.

^ Yes, I agree and I went on to say that.

But this is neoliberal, individualised, choice feminism.

It's more than that though, because this is not just something along the lines of the prostitution argument where you can say "this is an arrangement between consenting adults".

The most important person in this arrangement is not a consenting adult. The child is the most vulnerable and hence most important party here. Whether all the adults agree about what they're doing to/for the child is irrelevant.

Not sure what documents and official records they have in California, but in the U.K. a birth certificate is a copy of information held on a public register. It does not necessarily record legal parents as those can change, but it will certainly record the woman who gave birth as the mother

Ah - see that is what I thought they had removed the women's names from? But maybe not?

Not sure what documents and official records they have in California, but in the U.K. a birth certificate is a copy of information held on a public register. It does not necessarily record legal parents as those can change, but it will certainly record the woman who gave birth as the mother.

I’m not sure what the article means by ‘birth certificate’ but it doesn’t seem to correspond to the U.K. concept of a birth certificate.

Has California really stopped accurately recording births?

If the women wanted to be on the birth certificate and were not allowed then yes I can see an issue it just doesn't seem the case here it seems all parties were willing

But this is neoliberal, individualised, choice feminism.

What these women have done (and I'm still not sure if this happens more broadly in surrogacy) is surrendered their individual right, but in a way that opens up a legal possibility for women who might not want to make the same choice, but when it becomes normalised there is less reason to object and more to say 'well if that is how it works ...'. And we cannot presume that all choices are good ones or ones that may not be rejected in the future. Also, there is the issue that there is no record of the maternal line on the cert - so no record of the mother or her lineage and any family-related health issues - and there is the obvious problem of now knowing who one's step-siblings are. Maybe not in this case, but if this does become more widespread.

Also, the fact that women are just vessels for others leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't think that's a valid reason for something being ok.

@Greenrubber you don’t see a problem because you seem to be under the impression the birth certificate is for the benefit of the parents / adoptive family rather than the child to know who sired and bore them

Why are marriages involving 3 people not legal?

In some countries polygamy is legal.

In some countries adopted people (including adults) don't get to see their birth certificates, and have a "fake" birth certificate (my DCs have fake birth certificates as they were born abroad). This isn't a model we want to emulate.

In terms of surrogacy for every woman who is happily taking part there will be several who are putting themselves and the child at risk because they need the money it brings. It's always a woman at risk never a man.

In this case they are friends with the biological mums tho so this should not be an issue

Anyway enjoy your debate ladies

I totally get that there is alot of issues in the world and people need to fight for them!

This case tho just seems like 3 men who wanted kids the mums agreed to it so I don't know what the problem is

If the women wanted to be on the birth certificate and were not allowed then yes I can see an issue it just doesn't seem the case here it seems all parties were willing

This issue here is the biological truth of the matter.

It won't matter if the child grows up and marries the biological child of one of their adopted dads or even if the surrogate mum but it will matter if they marry the child of the woman who donated eggs.

I think more and more that there should be a separate document to a birth certificate which, where known, records the biological truth for health reasons and posterity.

The children will no doubt be greatly loved in whatever family they grow up in but who they procreate with, what inherited conditions they might have and their ancestors are dependent on their biology.

The second document will serve for subsequent additions the parents or they themselves wish to make in the future.

When I mentioned safeguarding it wasn't in relation to these men or gay couples at all. I was giving an example of something which won't affect most people in the process but protects the vulnerable.

I can see how my wording could have misconstrued so apologies for that.

I will however continue to debate and discuss issues which don't affect me. For bleedin obvious reasons

A birth certificate reflects biology. It's not a way to validate parents regardless of a family set up.