BBC article about same sex couple

I do not live in UK, but the article and this thread really gave me a lot to think about.

Unfortunately, I never thought about what the birth certificate on these situations should mention but now I have all kinds of ideas and inner conversations. I have a lot to think about and read upon in order to make my own opinion, but I would like to thank of all you for sharing your thoughts.

But there are more and less sensitive ways to ask about genetics in front of a child.

Well in this case they are registering a newborn at a GP surgery so the child wouldn't be aware, at a nursery or school enrolment I would imagine and hope that staff are sensitive to absent fathers in a number of scenarios and if done by form no questions would be asked in person. Most Childcare settings I imagine would be very open to having conversations with parents as they are parent-facing.

So it's helpful to have forms and policies that don't give an impression that they aren't aware of same-sex parents.

I agree but I would also think the forms indicate what an approach could be, they are only forms and there might be certain rules around what they have to ask. A form doesn't represent a school/HT's position on same-sex couples, or GP's approach but I see what you're saying. It could give an indication, I would say it would be over-sensitive to make that what a same-sex parent would base their response in though. It would be more about the people and teachers and doctors etc who would be used to discussing this if there was a problem. We have had same-sex families in society for decades, it's nothing new, and not that 'different' really. At least that's how I see it.

Perhaps as a result of the article other organisations will be more aware of this issue now and there will be less mistakes. I don't think this deserves or ought to prompt a backlash against lesbian rights.

Absolutely and there not should there be a 'backlash' but in some ways highlighting things as issues that are not only experienced by one group, as is implied, it can be counter-productive. I don't think it will prompt a backlash at all.

the link you posted only gave part of the picture and there's no point in discussing an issue on a false premise

I agree, perhaps the text on the government page should have more detail in that section to reflect the reality, that a marriage or CP is required, perhaps it's a case of 'legally' it isn't but in reality it is? All guidance on this very complex issue of registering a birth to recognise legal parents and genetic parents and birth mother should be looked at in the context of modern society and same sex couples, whilst not divorcing it from biology and at the same time keeping the child central to the objectives.

Questions about genetic parentage might be relevant in that situation and it would be based on homophobia if asked, it would surely be important to ask if it could be connected to the condition the child was presenting with.

That's true if course. But there are more and less sensitive ways to ask about genetics in front of a child.

I was thinking more of nurseries/schools where I have heard of forms asking questions that don't fit the circumstances of families with same-sex parents. And then parents will wonder, for example, how the carers will deal with their child, whether they have had a similar family before and have thought about ways to include a child from such a family (e.g. on Father's Day, in diversity of families appearing in books in the classroom etc). So it's helpful to have forms and policies that don't give an impression that they aren't aware of same-sex parents.

I'm not saying that professionals in the UK fail to educate/give inferior medical treatment to children of lesbian parents. Of course not.

Perhaps as a result of the article other organisations will be more aware of this issue now and there will be less mistakes. I don't think this deserves or ought to prompt a backlash against lesbian rights. Forms that take account of different circumstances collect more useful information and are reassuring to families. That's a good thing and in my view it's helpful to draw attention to the issue.

I made the point about the ways that legal parenthood is acquired for lesbian couples because the link you posted only gave part of the picture and there's no point in discussing an issue on a false premise. I wasn't saying that the current law is discriminatory to lesbians.

As to electronic/paper forms, what I meant was that forms WITHOUT the relevant options are easier to correct on paper than in an electronic form.

I think encountering forms like that makes you worry how sensitively the organisation concerned is going to deal with your child.

Obviously a GP and the staff at the surgery shouldn't prejudice the treatment of a child over who the parents are, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. Any Dr or GP receptionist who did should be pulled up on it but I think it's highly unlikely as Drs see all kinds of people and body parts and the child's health would be prioritised. Questions about genetic parentage might be relevant in that situation and it would be based on homophobia if asked, it would surely be important to ask if it could be connected to the condition the child was presenting with.

My understanding is that if you conceive with donor sperm outside a clinic, you need to be married/in a cp at the time of conception if you both want to be legal parents from birth and have both names on the birth certificate.

That's because if you conceive outside of a licensed clinic, aside from all the risks that brings, the father has legal responsibility, but again the mother could waive that on the BC so it's not really something that is enforced. That applies to single women. It's the same for them too. The mother of course has legal rights as the woman who gave birth, anyone else would need to apply for them, as would a step-parent who might adopt. I just think families come in all forms and this isn't discriminatory to record where a child's genetic, birth and legal/social parents come from. Everyone alive or dead has a mother father, regardless of how good or how shit they were at the role, or whether they were even around. It's just biology, it's not 'heteronormative' to record it as such and it doesn't take away from the legal rights of same sex couples.

What do you think they want? Only to draw attention to the situation.
Yes of course and they did that and the out of date forms shared were explained and they apologised. What else do they have to say? It was a mistake. It wasn't done to make them feel ostracised as a same-sex couple. If it was then don't those people look bad now. Missioned accomplished.

If it's a paper form, it's fine - you can cross out father and write something more appropriate. It probably doesn't matter much. If it's an electronic form, it can be a bit more tricky.

An electronic form would make it easier I think, plenty of drop down options, free text fields. It could be applied for online from a hospital bed or from home whilst the mother, with or without a partner, can hopefully do it quite quickly and easily. You could add marriage certificate/CP details and I'm sure it will be made to leave the father's name blank. The paper form process in the article is what seems to cause some of the problems.

Certainly there are some reasonable points made, but overall the article for me reads as a same-sex couple complaining and wanting more than the apology offered by both the council and the GP surgery

What do you think they want? Only to draw attention to the situation. I think encountering forms like that makes you worry how sensitively the organisation concerned is going to deal with your child. Perhaps that's an unfounded worry but it's a common one and understandable where your small children are concerned. So whether there is discrimination or not, it's a good thing to try to rectify.

Female couples can include both their names on their child’s birth certificate when registering the birth.(It doesn't mention being married or in a CP)

This sentence doesn't give all the detail about the hoops for female couples. My understanding is that if you conceive with donor sperm outside a clinic, you need to be married/in a cp at the time of conception if you both want to be legal parents from birth and have both names on the birth certificate. Otherwise there is adoption later. If you conceive in a licensed clinic, I understand that there is a form you can fill in so that your partner is the legal parent, even if you are not married or in a CP.
www.familylawgroup.co.uk/site/blog/flg-news/lesbian-parents-fertility-treatment-and-the-law.html

I think it's possible that articles like the OP imply that there is discrimination where there is none, so it might, for some, lose sympathy rather than provoke it. That's what I meant about the pendulum swing you mentioned. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but I can see how someone might read that article and think it's mostly the BBC looking for ways to write about LGBT issues and make more out of something that isn't really editorially sound.

Certainly there are some reasonable points made, but overall the article for me reads as a same-sex couple complaining and wanting more than the apology offered by both the council and the GP surgery. It doesn't highlight the real issues in the right way, but that's just me. As I said there were a few details missing that could have made me think otherwise but it was lacking in that, for me.

I thought you were saying that at present, those laws etc prioritise parents like me, and there should be reform to prioritise the child.

I was, but not to push the parents 'further down the list of priorities', I think all laws involving children should prioritise the children, whether that be adoption laws, surrogacy reform (which I have posted on a lot), safeguarding...

Laws can't make people, parents or otherwise, be honest and truthful with their kids. You hope it happens, but it cannot be enforced. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children have the human right of having an identity, in the old-fashioned definition, this relates to knowing where you come from, both in terms of your biological parents and where you came from (international adoption for example). Again it cannot be enforced but it is there as a foundation to recognise the rights of a child (not being trafficked is one).

I imagine some of this is lost in the posts and we would largely agree, I don't think there is a conflict between the rights of a lesbian couple and the rights of the child, but laws should be made centrally around protecting a child, before we protect adults, as by definition, the child is more vulnerable than the adults involved. There's no reason to suggest that both can't be equally protected, but above all else I would prioritise the child.

I suppose the addition of gamete donation being recorded on the BC, at the very least it could be explored.

So if you think some of their points are sensible, what did you mean by:
It could be argued that the pendulum swing you mention is created or increased by articles like in OP ?

As to clinics, laws, the NHS etc. I was not saying that they all discriminate against same sex parents. You said that it was ok for them to prioritise the child over the desires of adults, including lesbian parents by donor conception. I thought you were saying that at present, those laws etc prioritise parents like me, and there should be reform to prioritise the child. I was saying that there is not a special conflict between the priorities of lesbian parents and their children's needs, such as to necessitate reform.

We have hoops to jump through that straight couples don't too.

I'm not making a direct comparison, but there are 'hoops' for unmarried parents too:

"Married or civil-partner parents
Either parent can register the birth on their own. They can include both parents’ details if they were married or in a civil partnership when the baby was born or conceived.

Unmarried parents
The details of both parents can be included on the birth certificate if one of the following happens:
• they sign the birth register together
• one parent completes a statutory declaration of parentage form and the other takes the signed form to register the birth
• one parent goes to register the birth with a document from the court (for example, a court order) giving the father parental responsibility

The mother can choose to register the birth without the child’s father if they’re not married or in a civil partnership. The father’s details will not be included on the birth certificate.

(So a father who wants to be registered cannot be named if the mother doesn't want him to be. He has no means to ensure he has parental rights, and for good reason as I said, in classic MN fashion, NAMALT and this could be argued, not that I would be making the case, that this was some form of legal discrimination against men, as a result of the registration process and rules).

It might be possible to add the father’s details at a later date by completing an application for the re-registration of a child’s birth....

Same-sex female couples
Female couples can include both their names on their child’s birth certificate when registering the birth.

(It doesn't mention being married or in a CP)

Same-sex male couples
Male couples must get a parental orderr_ from the court before they can be registered as parents."

(Because men can't have babies so somewhere there is a biological mother and/or genetic mother whose name should be written down somewhere...)

www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-can-register-a-birth

The registration of a birth can take place in other circumstances where neither parent is present so the process seems quite flexible in many ways.

As neither of these females can be the father they can a) leave it blank b) as I suggested - put unknown donor or unknown (again the article doesn't say whether the sperm came from a man they knew or didn't know, though private info it's clearly relevant to the article

The only situation in which that would be a useful way to complete a form is the unlikely circumstance where the sole purpose of the form is to collect genetic information on the child. If you are trying to find out who should be registered as the child's legal parents, or who can attend to register the birth, or who the child's legal parents are, or who can make medical/school decisions about the child, or who is responsible for the child, those answers are going to be unhelpful.

If it's a paper form, it's fine - you can cross out father and write something more appropriate. It probably doesn't matter much. If it's an electronic form, it can be a bit more tricky.

My children's birth certificate names me as mother and my wife as parent. There's no denial of biology there, but there is the legal proof and protection our children and family need to make sure that we as parents can speak on our kids behalf, raise them together, get them passports and prove that they are actually our children

I think that works well, as it is. There is no legal responsibility on those who donate gametes, nor should there be, but there is a social responsibility that can easily be shrugged off and with men as prolific sperm donors (far less so with women donating eggs) the rules and restrictions to protect donor conceived children (multiple donations worldwide, another Dr has recently been charged in Canada I think it was...) are easily broken.

Neither at the moment has any intention of letting the children know that their father is NOT their biological father, or their mother carried them using another woman's egg, so she is nOT their bio mum.Their birth certificates say their mum and dad are their mum and dad.

I think that's really sad, obviously same-sex couples would quite be lying if they told their child that they were both the biological parent! There's no predicting that future medical circumstances may mean the truth comes out, tragically, though unlikely (but perhaps increasingly more likely so as millions of children around the world have been donor conceived) if they reproduce with a sibling and it ends in miscarriage or genetic birth defects due to close DNA.

I disagree on one point, with the Lana hush. I would say the woman who gave birth to the child is the biological so mum - I mean she gave birth so she is the legal mother and biological mother - but the woman who gave one egg (or reality quite a lot of eggs to make a pregnancy) was the genetic mother. I think this is one of the reasons why an additional filed noting gamete donation would potentially be helpful to donor conceived children.

At least for honest parents who intend to raise their child with truth as the foundation to their existence.

Because the couples, man and woman, walked in together and registered their child together.

This would not be the case with surrogacy but, unless those involved completely bypass the legal system.

Any change to the registration process wouldn't be foolproof but it would be helpful to donor conceived children in some ways and I think the paper I shared upthread presents this argument fairly.

'Perhaps birth certificates should have the option of adding information about biological parents if they are not the same as the de facto parents, eg donor sperm or donor egg.'

That would be a minefield! How would you get straight couples to admit that they used donors? You'd have to DNA test the babies and parents before registering a birth and even then, how are you going to get the 'biological' details if someone doesn't want to admit them??

'Birth certificates for the children of lesbian parents say Mother (this must be the parent who carried the baby) and Parent.
Can understand those suggesting it should only have the biological parents registered but is there not so much more to being a parent than biology? All donor conceived children in the UK are able to look up their donor’s details on turning 18.'

We have hoops to jump through that straight couples don't too. For 2 women to go on the birth cert we have to be married/CP before we have the baby, we have to use a clinic or be able to prove the child was conceived by IUI/IVF with a donor, ( i.e. no sex happened) and that's on top of the thought that goes into having the child in the first place.

Children can find out the donors details when they're 18, and we fully expect ours to.

By contrast I know of 2 families - heterosexual, not married but long-term together -who have used sperm donation and egg donation. Neither at the moment has any intention of letting the children know that their father is NOT their biological father, or their mother carried them using another woman's egg, so she is nOT their bio mum.Their birth certificates say their mum and dad are their mum and dad.
Because the couples, man and woman, walked in together and registered their child together.

'I think you'd be seeking much wider changes to the birth registration system if you wanted it to be a record of biological parenthood in every case.'

Yup - you'd have to DNA test the 'father' and baby for starters for a match...

'100% agree re birth certificates. They are a record of biological relationships, especially regarding the mother-child relationship'

Given that literally any man can walk in the registry office with the mother and baby and say he's the father, that's not exactly true. And is it 10% or more now men are not the fathers of their children but think they are?

My children's birth certificate names me as mother and my wife as parent. There's no denial of biology there, but there is the legal proof and protection our children and family need to make sure that we as parents can speak on our kids behalf, raise them together, get them passports and prove that they are actually our children.

I don't really agree with the couple in the interview. While it would be nice to have forms that exist for same-sex couples having kids together, as well as the usual mother/father ones it's only been in the last 10 years or so that we've had most of these legal protections in the first place so it'll take a while for that to change. Most babies do have a mother and father.

I think you misunderstand me @LesbianonFWR

Are you saying that by making public bodies aware that they exist, lesbians are "asking" to have their existing family law rights removed?

Not at all, I said I agreed with some of their points and would agree that forms should be written in a way to allow easy completion for all kinds of circumstances, the article doesn't actually say why they couldn't book an appointment to register the birth "but they could not" doesn't go into the detail of why. Was a father required to attend the appointment? Was a name for the father required to book? It doesn't say.

As neither of these females can be the father they can a) leave it blank b) as I suggested - put unknown donor or unknown (again the article doesn't say whether the sperm came from a man they knew or didn't know, though private info it's clearly relevant to the article).

The article says they were given an old form by the GP surgery by mistake so that goes quite a long way I think to say what happened. As for the Red Book, the article explains that is being digitised and will likely (I think) have drop down options, again, that is a record for the child for height and weight tracking as well as a record of vaccinations so really it belongs to the child.

I don't think it is 'Heternormative' to ask for the details of the mother and father as clearly biology dictates they both exist, though I do think there could be separate field or a change made for a 'Parent 1/Mother' and 'Parent 2/Father'. Does this discriminate against single parents of either sex? I don't think it does, but father could be left blank if a single mother didn't want him named.

Lesbian parents by donor conception prioritise their children just as much as other parents. There's no evidence I am aware of that mental health problems disproportionately affect our children.

I didn't suggest otherwise, of course they prioritise their children, many if not most would tell their child who their father is or more about the circumstances of their birth so they can feel secure as they grow that their father is out their somewhere, if one day they would want to find him.

No, there are no studies and I'm not suggesting that children of same sex couples can be disproportionately affected but there is 'evidence' that children who don't know their genetic backgrounds can experience mental health problems. Millie Fontana speaks eloquently about this here.

She is just one, there are undoubtably others, not all people feel the same but just because there are no studies doesn't mean it isn't true for some. Children who are not yet adults may feel differently about it as they grow up, they might feel the same. Who knows?

On the contrary, studies have shown our children well cared for, resilient and doing well.

I think you might be referring to Susan Golombok's work. Though the sample sizes are small, children I think can be resilient or not and I wouldn't suggest that the sex if their parents affects this, they are no different from opposite-sex parents.

Are you saying that children from opposite-sex parent families are more resilient than children being raised by same-sex parents? I don't think you are, I don't know what difference it would make, children do well in loving, stable families regardless of the sex if their parents. Some children who are adopted like to know where they have come from, find out about possible siblings etc, same for donor conceived. There is no predicting or controlling it. People feel what they feel and it changes according to age and circumstance.

And no evidence that the NHS or clinics or the law are working in the interests of parents like me, in a way which is somehow contrary to the interests of our children.

As the Adoption and Children act changed to allow same-sex and single people to adopt in 2002 (enacted in 2005) I would say the laws does work in the interests of parents like you and in the best interests of children. Fertility clinics do not discriminate against same sex couples or single people and if they did they could be reported for doing so. The NHS has a postcode lottery in terms of fertility treatment so it could be argued that it discriminated against a number of people, based on where they live. An NHS Trust would be in huge trouble if they did discriminate against a same-sex couple, outside of their own treatment protocols. Do you know of one? I ask as I haven't heard of one.

It could be argued that the pendulum swing you mention is created or increased by articles like in OP.

The couple in the article in the OP were complaining that they couldn't book an appointment to register the birth online because it didn't take account of their circumstances. And neither did a form to register their baby at the doctor's. Are you saying that by making public bodies aware that they exist, lesbians are "asking" to have their existing family law rights removed? Sounds a bit like - 'be quiet or things could get worse for you'. Of course I and most lesbian couples don't complain about admin hassles such as the ones the OP article couple faced, we just get on with it. But there's nothing wrong with highlighting these things politely. At all.

But it is important to centre the child in these adult desires and when a child doesn't know their genetic connections there can be mental health issues (sometimes not until they are grown and want to start families of their own) with adoption, donor conception and surrogacy. It's ok for laws, fertility clinics, the NHS and birth certificates to prioritise the child

Lesbian parents by donor conception prioritise their children just as much as other parents. There's no evidence I am aware of that mental health problems disproportionately affect our children. On the contrary, studies have shown our children well cared for, resilient and doing well. And no evidence that the NHS or clinics or the law are working in the interests of parents like me, in a way which is somehow contrary to the interests of our children.

I think the original birth certificate should have the genetic parents (obviously left blank if unknown!) then

Don't commissioning parents have to formally adopt children of surrogacy arrangements?

For surrogacy the process is completely different to adoption. It is mischievous easier and quicker. The parental order can currently not be applied for before the child is 6 weeks old (something the problem-surrogacy lobby are campaigning hard against) and the process is usually completed by the time the child is 6 months old and several high profile examples show this wasn't slowed by COVID. From birth the child is in the custody of the commissioning parents. Background checks are not conducted, as they are with adoption but a gone visit is usually conducted as part of the parental order process.

It's pretty much a shortcut or a 'back up' option those who don't want to or can't (for whatever reason) adopt, though it is more expensive, even with the actually pregnancy, it is mostly a lot quicker than adoption and obviously for those who want to guarantee a baby, surrogacy is the chosen 'pathway'. Adopted babies do appear to be considered as 'damaged' by some.

Would you change that and compel her to? What if she doesn't know?

For safety, women cannot and should not be compelled to name the father on the BC, domestic abuse survivors would want to avoid joint custody for one, but a child might want to know their father regardless. It's clearly a tricky balance to strike with known parents, but this is really about unknown genetic parents.

If the mother doesn't know and doesn't want to find out then the child would need to do a DNA test and hope there was a website registry of relatives on say 23andMe and that could be traumatic in itself, as a way to find out about who your Dad is. It may also be that they regret finding out but surely that is for the child to decide as an adult, not the mother who would have her own (and likely very good reasons) not to share this information.

If your concern is about promoting open conversations between parents and children about their biological origins, then it might be best to concentrate on education and support for parents to help them with those conversations.

This is already the advice from HFEA but no one can compel a parent to be honest and tell a child throughout their childhood what their genetic roots are, though it is encouraged with donor gametes no law can ensure that happens.

Perhaps it's over-sensitivity but I keep detecting what feels like the beginning of a pendulum-swing in the other direction

I can see what you mean but I don't think there is an appetite to remove any rights or overturn any laws that permit the current processes for lesbian couples and gay men to have babies via surrogacy and adoption. Single people are also able to do both and if anything the laws around surrogacy are about to relax even further. It could be argued that the pendulum swing you mention is created or increased by articles like in OP.

But it is important to centre the child in these adult desires and when a child doesn't know their genetic connections there can be mental health issues (sometimes not until they are grown and want to start families of their own) with adoption, donor conception and surrogacy. It's ok for laws, fertility clinics, the NHS and birth certificates to prioritise the child.

Personally I would welcome reform of the birth registrations process, both for some of the issues presented in the article and for the child to be the main consideration.

I think you'd be seeking much wider changes to the birth registration system if you wanted it to be a record of biological parenthood in every case. Currently there is no obligation on mothers to give the name of a father, if the mother is not married. Would you change that and compel her to? What if she doesn't know?

The many cases of informal sperm donation done at home and cases where a baby is conceived outside the woman's primary relationship probably vastly outnumber the cases of clinic-assisted donor conception. Very difficult to regulate information about that ending up on the birth certificate.

If your concern is about promoting open conversations between parents and children about their biological origins, then it might be best to concentrate on education and support for parents to help them with those conversations.

The birth certificate is quite a public document. You have to show it to prove identity in various official contexts in which you might not want to discuss complexities relating to your biological origins.

It's not been very long since lesbian families were given the protection of lesbian second parents having the right to parental responsibility from birth, recorded on the birth certificate. Only 15 years. I'm glad I had my child in the meantime. Perhaps it's over-sensitivity but I keep detecting what feels like the beginning of a pendulum-swing in the other direction.

Not the donor's identity, but the fact that the child was donor-conceived.

Although, while that's perfectly obvious with lesbian parents, it is not obvious with opposite sex parents, yet the child's father in both legal and parenting terms may not be the biological father. But there's no expectation that that should be on the birth certificate, so why should it be on the birth certificate of a child with two female parents?

Children have the right to seek details of the sperm donor's identity when they are 18. If they choose to . Until then, he can be anonymous. It's not going to be possible to record his identity on a birth certificate, therefore.

Birth certificates for the children of lesbian parents say Mother (this must be the parent who carried the baby) and Parent.
Can understand those suggesting it should only have the biological parents registered but is there not so much more to being a parent than biology? All donor conceived children in the UK are able to look up their donor’s details on turning 18.

Of course the married or civilly partnered partner of the mother should have equal parental rights regardless of whether they are male or female. But every baby has a biological father. If children have the right to know who their biological parents are, should that not be recorded?

Perhaps birth certificates should have the option of adding information about biological parents if they are not the same as the de facto parents, eg donor sperm or donor egg.