An Oklahoma Judge Just Transferred a Lesbian Mom’s Parental Rights to Her Son’s Sperm Donor

The biological mother wrote an article about the situation when everything was supposedly going well.

It is a whole parade of red flags.

www.metrofamilymagazine.com/time-to-be-brave/

Wouldn't the father have had to agree to the adoption, even if the former partner had wanted it to take place? I can't imagine any court allowing it without the involved parent's leave.

In the UK, two mothers are only listed on the birth certificate if there is an anonymous sperm donor and the donation is arranged through a clinic. That way it is agreed in advance the biological father is not involved. Hence parental responsibility can be given to two mothers via the birth certificate.

In the Oklahoma case the donor was found online, and was heavily involved from the beginning, as were his parents. It cannot be right in such a situation for the mother's partner, whether male or female, to be given parental responsibility without adoption, when both biological parents are already acting as parents.

The reason she chose not to adopt was because the father was so involved, so this was a barrier way before the biological mother fled DA allegedly perpetrated by the female partner leading to this case.

The issue is in the US birth certificates seem to allow a range of people to be included and excluded e.g. surrogate mothers.

This would not happen in the U.K. The birth mother is always on the birth cert as mother irrespective of how the identify. The father can be unknown or blank, the biological father (DNA), the male spouse. As far as I am aware a same sex spouse can’t be on the birth very.

Sadly in both countries, and others, the law has not kept up with the rapid societal changes in relation to blended families, surrogacy and same sex marriage etc.

I think the judge made the right decision. Wilson is neither the bilogicsl parent or the adoptive parent so why should she hsve parents rights.

No that's true but if the real biological father popped up and sued for paternity this situation would likely happen just the same

But she didn't adopt him? She didn't do whatever she needed to do to be legally his parent. So now she's not

Sure - change the phrasing to “non-related adult” and my point becomes much stronger! I think her argument is that were she male (and not the biological father) she wouldn’t have had to adopt to retain parental rights. I’ve no idea if that’s true - if it is then it seems unfair, but edge case unfairness is not a strong argument for changing the law.

She was, as she was the mother's legal spouse. Spouses are automatically recorded as a second parent. A law which assumes that the mother is married to a man and that only he can be the father of her children born within the marriage.

She can't have been on the birth certificate if she never adopted the child

In lots of countries the mother's husband is automatically the legal father. It stated in the article that is also the case where baby W was born.

In most cases they are the same. There should be some process by which the partner who hasn't got a gamete involved can be legally recognised. I suppose the best option in current law is adoption and the woman didn't do that. I'm not sure what law change would fix this issue and not have some negative implications, as DarkDay says above. It is of course very sad for the woman in question, and the child.

Yes this is what I don't understand
I thought that birth certificates were a strict record of parentage and that adoption certificates were used in cases where the parenting parents were different.

The problem is it functions as both.

But she didn't adopt him? She didn't do whatever she needed to do to be legally his parent. So now she's not.

Why is anyone up in arms that the mother's former female partner (who hadn't actually adopted the child) is no longer being named as a parent, then?
Honestly, op? This is not a scandalous outrage, give over.

Birth certificates are meant to be a record of the two people whose gametes contributed to the creation of the child, right? Or is it a record of the people who have parental responsibility?

But the biological mother isn't the issue.

The issue is that rights were taken from an adoptive parent and given to a biological parent. In this case, the biological father. In other cases, it could be the mother. This case could be useful to the dodgy men’s rights campaign precisely because the sexes are reversed.

Is the child now with his biological parents?

I mean, this is America and their laws are all a bit confusing. In the uk being named on the BC confers PR and that is almost never removed. A biological father can get himself added by court order but a non biological parent would have to either be on the BC or obtain PR via an order. I don't see how this scenario is that different- has She been removed from the BC or has whatever the American version of overriding PR been granted to the biological parents?

If Wilson had been married to a man who was not the baby's father, then he could have been put on the birth cert. And if the baby's biological father had disputed this, the same change would ultimately have been made.

Actually it’s even more straight forward than that. The biological mother who also carried and gave birth to the child is now with the biological father.

I’m a bit cynical about cases like this getting lots of publicity. I assume they are focusing on relatively more sympathetic lesbian adoptive mothers to campaign for legislation that makes it easier for dodgy men (no, I don’t mean gay men, I think lesbians and gay men are being used as the thin end of the dodgy men’s rights wedge) to obtain babies via surrogacy without inconvenient mothers getting in the way.

I feel bad for this woman if the facts are as she represents them, and she’s clearly being treated unequally relative to a male partner. But I am cynical about what changes in the law will be suggested to remedy this.

Plus, apparently Kris Williams had the option of formally adopting the boy, but never did. Though would be harsh to love a child and then no contact. However, we’re unlikely to know the full details.