Trans children (just deleted thread!)

Also there doesn't seem to be any legal way to stop someone from getting a GRC every few years, I made a few facetious posts about this previously. However with a doctor on side it would be unlikely the applicant would be refused a GRC back to birth sex, or even a third GRC if that person decided to retransition after detransition.
After all, the main metric is how sad a face one can pull, and changing the name on your gas bills.

Surely these points make the GRA unfit as a law? Aside from the fact same-sex marriage is now legally permitted.

In cases where there is no birth certificate, why isn't the person with parental responsibility prosecuted for failing to register a birth? I thought the time limit was six weeks from the birth.

Judging from Instagram, recent travel overseas has been possible for a child who, it has been claimed, doesn't have a birth certificate.

To travel overseas from the U.K. you need a passport, to get a passport, you need a birth certificate.

From what I remember of this discussion before, is it not the case that the mother is named as the one with automatic legal parental responsibility from the off? Because she is the only one guaranteed to be there. And does it not interweave with the children's act in terms of the legalities surrounding children?

As far as I remember, it was a safeguarding aspect that meant you had to name the mother, not only as a mother, but as the birth parent.

I guess a lot of this is about what could be done vs what should be done.

Is it ethical to deliberately create a child that will be removed from their mother at birth (surrogacy)

Is it ethical or even legal to get a GRC and then immediately father a child (TW) or get pregnant (TM)

Is it ethical to medically transition and father a child / get pregnant? Is the impact of hormones on sperm / egg quality or pregnancy known?

Is it ethical to not be entirely honest with a child about where they come from?

Is it ethical to alter official documentation so that an individual is not made uncomfortable?

Is it ethical to legislate for a state-mandated belief system?

So many interesting questions here, if only academics were allowed to get their teeth into things.

How would one get to Sweden from England to give birth. It would be pretty difficult as you can't fly at the later end of pregnancy. I suppose if you were having a c-section you could time the dates somewhat unless the baby comes early. Sounds crazy to me as you'd be putting both mother and child at risk. Presumably health tourism has a cost to it too.

My head is spinning reading that.

Mine too, I was deliberately vague so to keep this thread up and would remind those posting naming the person should post carefully, though I think we should be able to discuss what is already in the public domain on a number of media and social media platforms.

The child in the situation I outlined above also features in a channel 4 documentary and on social media, and though children are entitled to privacy (under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, sharing again www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/01/Summary-of-the-UNCRC.pdf) the parents have publicised their 'journey to parenthood' on multiple occasions so this is all in the public domain.

When will these people realise the birth certificate belongs to the child - it's not there to affirm the parents

imagine the person you call Dad is your genetic mother as you were made from that person's eggs, your birth mother (surrogate mother) is a woman in Ireland, where you were born and your birth would be registered in a hospital there, your father is a unknown sperm donor (presumably registered and recorded in the national database) and the person you call Mum is of no genetic relation and would not have been able to be your birth mother as this person has a male reproductive system.

My head is spinning reading that. In an over-populated planet, I can see no good reason to allow surrogacy at all. Having a child is not a human right. Sometimes one's other life choices rule it out. Sometimes it's just not possible. This is hard, but so often measures taken out of a desire to be kind to someone experiencing something hard just create a worse position for other people.

You are aware fathers also have automatic parental responsibility towards their children?

Not if the parents are unmarried. A father who is not married to his child’s mother can choose to be included on the birth certificate, but only if the mother agrees. If not, he can apply to the court for a Declaration of Parentage.

This law has enabled many fathers to avoid being recognised as the legal parents of their illegitimate children.

I said this on the other thread - it's now no longer accepted (and should never have been) for adoptive parents names to appear on the birth cert. A separate cert is issued.

I'm beginning to wonder if that should happen with any donor/surrogate/even identity births. A birth certificate for the child indicating their biological background, and a separate "parental" certificate where parents can list whatever they like in relation to whoever is legally going to be "parenting" the child.

I suspect this thread will go. Generalisations aren't allowed. Nor are specifics

The legal definition of mother was in fact already changed by McConnell's case - the appeal court ruling was that "mother" refers to the person who gives birth regardless of their sex. Effectively it made the word "mother" into a legally genderless term

What nonsense word salad. The person who gives birth will always, can always be female.

I'm sometimes a tad annoyed about the monitors (now I'm picturing big lizards..) having their big ole noses in women's business and trying to get us deleted.

But then, when I think about how it must be, to feel so utterly owned compelled to show up every day on a site you hate, only to read and seethe, and get in even more of a strop about all the frantic reporting that achieved nothing.

Then I realise it's actually rather sad a bit hilarious really 😂😂😂

The legal definition of mother was in fact already changed by McConnell's case - the appeal court ruling was that "mother" refers to the person who gives birth regardless of their sex. Effectively it made the word "mother" into a legally genderless term.

Gender doesn't come into this at all. The person who gives birth will alway be female because only female humans can give birth. So 'regardless of their sex' is utterly meaningless above.

You are aware fathers also have automatic parental responsibility towards their children? Nothing about McConnell's legal obligations to his child would have changed had he been allowed to be listed as the father.

Obviously it will totally mess up genealogy, but what would be the impact on the child?

Genealogical bewilderment is something I've been reading about. It is known to impact adopted and donor conceived children (possibly also surrogate born children but there are no studies).

An example of this which I won't name for fear of more monitors coming along and nuking this thread but imagine the person you call Dad is your genetic mother as you were made from that person's eggs, your birth mother (surrogate mother) is a woman in Ireland, where you were born and your birth would be registered in a hospital there, your father is a unknown sperm donor (presumably registered and recorded in the national database) and the person you call Mum is of no genetic relation and would not have been able to be your birth mother as this person has a male reproductive system.

Your birth certificate has the names of the people you call Mum and Dad in the fields that would reflect that and this has been obtained via a parental order, so you knowing and potentially finding your genetic father (if you ever wanted to) relies on those who have legal parental rights telling you about the circumstances of your conception and birth.

Surely in terms of medical history, a child needs to know who their biological mother and father are (recognising that the latter is not always possible, but desirable). The debate should be centred on the practical needs of the child, not the emotional demands of either parent.

As explained here innumerable times, when the GRA was passed in 2004, the Blair government saw it as a quicker and easier way to react to a judgement against UK law from the ECHR than trying to introduce same sex marriage, which they didn't think they could get through Parliament at the time. Making it legally possible for a person to get a GRC and then a birth certificate with the opposite to their birth sex enabled the GRC holder to marry a person of their own sex, because of the legal fiction the GRC holder now belonged to the opposite sex. Problem solved!

Parliament was told that at most 5000 people would qualify to get a GRC - which was true, that's the number issued in the last 17 years, more or less - and nobody else would be affected. This would explain why the whole thing was rushed and in particular why it was never explained in law what it means 'to live as a woman' or 'to live as a man'.

My hunch is that if somebody did a poll asking people to go down a list of things you might do if 'living as a woman', 'living as a man', or just 'living as a human', going to a fertility clinic and using the services of a sperm donor to get pregnant would count as 'living as a woman'.

I haven't gone back to those Hansard excerpts to check, but I doubt anybody anticipated that the first action of a female granted a GRC would be to get pregnant. It defies all logic.

And now we have the next illogical step - that the children of said GRC holder should have their birth certificates turned into legal fictions too. Ludicrous.

Could it lead to disputes between parents/couples as to who would be recorded as the mother of the baby? And how would any change benefit the child?

Legal dispute example here, only in that one woman was the egg donor, her partner the birth mother, and the children where both in Belgium then they moved as a family to Ireland where the genetic relationship between the woman and the child keen doesn't result in legal parental rights.

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/surrogacy-and-assisted-reproduction-5577455-Oct2021/?fbclid=IwAR0OiP4VAmYYc3LdQi7361jWEnJMJE1kuTrhFb6XJj5YUbmf7077_qOuzhI

Or this where two women have a baby with a friend who donates sperm but because legal processes weren't followed for the second child (due to money, the time it takes) and the circumstances with the friend and their own relationship broke down, it created a very tricky legal situation for all three 'parents' (social, genetic and birth) and for the children.

www.heyreprotech.com/p/when-donor-becomes-dad?fbclid=IwAR23TGU3OuDB8cGDUsMqf2abYgodxDG3o2XCN2Da8kTGmNQ2f5sk6GaXEKs

Owain's not great at comprehension, is he? I can't see anyone asking if it's legal to give birth in Sweden, only whether it is legal to circumvent the law of one's own country in order to acquire a benefit or perceived benefit in another.

In answer to the original question, my initial thought is that it probably is legal, in the same way that a marriage which would be unlawful / unrecognised if conducted in the UK (e.g. a proxy marriage) will be recognised by the UK authorities if it was validly contracted in the country where it was conducted. And "birth certificate tourism" has always been a thing - e.g. before the law changed in 2005, non-EU nationals going to Ireland so that the child had an Irish BC and was an EU national.

Whether it is in the best interests of the child is a completely different issue, particularly if the parent will be listed as mother on one sibling's BC and as father on the other sibling's BC.

I agree it’s about the rights of the child. The BC is about identifying who the biological parents are. Not how these people identify, their clothes or hairstyle . Is not about their social role and if they are called mummy or daddy.

Otherwise adopted children would be a new birth certificate with their social and legal parents names and they dont . They get an adoption certificate.

I also think that we should have a different document for children born to same sex couples. One that reflects biology and one for social and legal parenting .