DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

Incidentally and a bit pernicketly Favouritedog, my ‘true background’ is that of my adoption and my parents. My ‘true’ family history is theirs. As an adoptee while I can access my birth mother’s name and whatever other info is held on file, I have no wider rights to any information or any medical history. Your idea of the two certificates is what we have as adoptees but the second supersedes the first, legally replacing it. This is very much not what the Italian government would be in favour of for these gay families and their children.

That's an interesting point.

Perhaps birth certificates should only have the birth mother (and egg donor?) and not be changeable as the birth mother is not going to change.

And a separate certificate, issued at birth, but possible to change which has things like parents etc as parenting arrangements can change?

When someone adopts a dc presumably they have a birth (adoption)certificate with them named as parents.
Surely a same sex couple are entitled to both be named as their dc’s parents.
It’s the most sensible and kind approach.

How horrific that if the biological mum died then that baby could be taken away from its other mother.

Perhaps this underlines the confusion over what a birth certificate is here - mine doesn’t represent biology as I am adopted and my very names my adoptive parents (as it should). Maybe generally we need more complicated certificates with more options as that would keep the security of the parent child relationship which prioritises the baby. This is homophobia that does nothing to keep children safe and validating it, in the absence of a system to secure gay parental rights in advance of any removal from birth certificates, is abhorrent.

Without being rude, you clearly know nothing about donor conception in the U.K. It’s never been the case that donors have been listed. In most cases the parents wouldn’t have the information to enable them to even do that. The law has now changed so that children can find out information at 18 and that doesn’t preclude children being told from day 1 that they have a donor. (And for the children of lesbians, they realise pretty early on that they don’t have a daddy like their other friends!)

Birth certificates should be factual and scientific, so sex and actual parents/mother.

There should be other paperwork in place for legalities of parenting.

But that doesn't mean I'm against same sex parents, although I'm not for surrogacy. It's all very confusing.

Just intrigued what happens where the “donor” objects to not being named on the birth certificate?

Accurate records need to be kept for the child's benefit. Look how important it is to many adopted children to be able to have access to the records of their birth parents, even if they were very happily adopted they want to know their true background. There are things like medical history that might be helpful. At the same time I agree that everyone you give your birth certificate to for ID purposes doesn't need to have your full parenting history. A certificate for this purpose could just have your legal parents.

The two aren’t incompatible. Yes all the evidence is that children do need the truth from day dot explained to them in simple terms. But the truth is some children have two mummies and one of them needed help from a donor to make them. That can be explained to children while still allowing the birth certificate to record both legal parents.

A birth certificate is a record of a child's birth, not of their conception.

We don't allow people who are going to raise the child to be listed at birth rather than the birth mother because that aids in the trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation of women and children.

We do allow the mother to register the birth without naming the father because in countries where mothers are not allowed to do this millions of children go unregistered and are stateless and without basic human rights as a consequence. It is a woman's human right to register her child's birth and pass on her nationality without the consent or presence of a male.

The West has become really selfish and inhumane in constantly putting their own concerns and wants over the consequences for women and children globally.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/03/children-donor-conceived-origins-sperm-egg-donations

Is this actually the case? Isn’t it known now how important it is for children to know about their genetic roots. It’s why adoptions are often open and why people who were conceived by ivf have fought to gain access to information about their donors.

I would be out on the streets campaigning if lesbian women were being prevented from adopting and having parental rights in these scenarios,

If I have read this correctly, they are indeed denied this in Italy.

Two women are not named as the mother, there is one mother (the woman who gave birth) and the other woman is registered as a parent, so there is no “lie”.

It might not be legal, but in reality it happens and is hardly ever challenged because there is no mandatory DNA testing of fathers as another poster mentioned. In cases of couples using a sperm donor the husband or partner is recorded as the father, which I would argue is much “worse” if you’re concerned with the birth certificate being an accurate representation of genetics, since there is no way of that child or anyone ever finding out the father is not the biological father if the parents choose not to tell them. With two women it’s pretty obvious from the start that both can’t be genetic parents and a donor was used. Yet I never seem to see any threads started about this, it’s always when it’s lesbians using sperm donors that people are up in arms about.

And as the kick back of the populace against the TQ smash and grab raids starts, there go LGB rights with them. Thanks for that TQ.

if you’re not homophobic then presumably you are out campaigning against the centuries old tradition of all married straight couples being able to put the man of the couple down as father on the BC unchallenged? Presumably you would insist that because he isn’t proven to be be the genetic parent, his name shouldn’t be on there? So to be certain, all fathers should have to adopt their own kids?

I would consider parents naming a man who isn't the genetic father of the child on a birth certificate as the father as much of a legal falsehood as naming another woman as the mother.

the fact that it's a lie that can be 'got away with' because genetically it's actually possible for a man and a woman to create a baby and we have to operate on trust that the man that is named is the father doesn't change the fact that it's also a lie to name two women both as the mother.

Many men DO adopt the children of their wives if they aren't genetically the father.

Arguments about centring the child and protect their right to information seem to forget that the best thing you can do for the child is legitimatising their normal family. A child growing up with two mummies knows only that they have two mummies. A world that accepts that and removes as much friction as possible is the kindest thing you can do for that child, not constantly find ways to other their other mother.

Birth certificates are not and never have been a record of biological origins. Children of a heterosexual marriage have always been recorded as the children of the husband even if that is not biologically the case.

A birth certificate is a record that a child has been born and who their parents are. A non gestational mother is a valid parent. An anonymous donor is not.

This. The birth certificate is the child's document. End of.

Your situation makes this a very interesting conversation. If it’s about biology then no, you shouldn’t. If it’s about birth, yes you should, and if it’s about legal parents then you should. It should probably be more nuanced than just “sperm and egg only”.

Should birth certificates list biological contributors even if they are not parenting the child in any way ie egg donors/sperm donors?
What happens with newborn adoption? Who goes on the birth certificate then? I’m actually asking, I have no idea.

I don’t understand why people are talking about adoption, it’s not directly relevant to lesbians who want their names on the BC of their donor conceived baby? Italy doesn’t allow same sex adoption and that’s very wrong, absolutely. Different issue.

However here we are talking about the Italian government not allowing the wife of the mother who has given birth (via sperm donation) to be on the BC of their own child?
How do people not think that’s outrageous?

If you think that it isn’t outrageous, then if you’re not homophobic then presumably you are out campaigning against the centuries old tradition of all married straight couples being able to put the man of the couple down as father on the BC unchallenged? Presumably you would insist that because he isn’t proven to be be the genetic parent, his name shouldn’t be on there? So to be certain, all fathers should have to adopt their own kids? Or just men with fertility problems who need sperm donors?

And you’re saying that all babies should be DNA tested at birth and results put on the BC? What happens when there are no matches to the parents like in embryo donation from countries where donor anonymity is allowed? No parents on the BC? What happens when parents say fuck this for a game of soldiers and refuse to have the kids DNA tested?

But naming a father on a birth certificate does not necessarily mean he is the genetic parent. For married women in the UK the assumption is automatically made ( and I emphasise it is usually the correct assumption!) that the woman’s husband is the father of the child. For unmarried parents the father has to attend the registration process and acknowledge paternity. But in neither case is any genetic test made to see if the information is correct because it is a system of recording birth that predates the science of genetic testing and relies on peoples honesty - and the assumption of marital fidelity.

The only true genetic inheritance any of us can be 100% sure of are the genes we have inherited from our mothers. To start listing multiple people on a bIrth certificate will not alter this fact. So keep birth certificates as they are, they serve their purpose effectively for the most part, but make sure that parental responsibility is recorded in the case of gay parents through properly annotated and legal adoption procedures.

If people have come to parenthood through other means there is nothing to stop them recording this in alternate ways if they wish the child to have a record when they reach adult hood.

Historically there have always been children who don’t know that a parent (father) who did not actually provide the sperm, but who has brought them up, is not their genetic father.. it used to be said that about a third of all children, are not genetically children of the man they think it is. This can cause huge upset, eg over healthcare or discovery, but generally society has has accepted some untruths, which of course can benefit the child growing up.. to pick out lesbian parents however is discriminating surely, when so much “truth “ is concealed,

Maybe the solution for all scenarios is to list the 2 people who will raise the child on the BC.

After all they are the doing the parenting so should be listed as parents.

There should then be a section in the child's medical notes to record biological parental details.

This way the information is available if required, is confidential to the child, and seems to be the best way to cover all bases.