DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

Why do you think that the state recognising the legitimacy of a child’s family and valuing the role that both parents play in their lives isn’t hugely beneficial for a child?

My feeling is that the woman who gave birth, should continue to be registered as the mother on the birth certificate and the father should be the biological father, but that he only needs to declare this to be true, or to be married to the mother, not requiring a DNA test or anything.

I think it should still be acceptable to have no father registered so that women who don’t know who the father is, or who were subjected to sexual violence etc, shouldn’t be forced to interact with her attacker.

Where donors are used, I believe there should be some sort of record at the registering of their birth, so the child and future generations can know their genetic heritage, but there should be two versions of a birth certificate so that this doesn’t have to be disclosed day to day when verifying that person’s identity.

I’m on the fence as to whether a person with no biological relationship to the child should be registered on the birth certificate in addition to the biological parents (birth mother and egg donor mother if not the same, and the biological father).

None of the practical uses of a birth registration are either about the actual birth, or genetics.

Except perhaps the place where the actual birth occurred as that can sometimes be used to determine the child’s right to citizenship?

Not particularly relevant to us, mind you, as British citizenship is mostly conferred via the (legal) parent’s nationality* rather than the geographical location of the birth whereas in some other countries parent’s nationality is irrelevant and it’s all about the location eg the US (aka ‘jus soli’)

*I think there might be a place-of-birth-determined route to British citizenship for babies born in Britain to non-British parents if the parents have Indefinite Leave To Remain status but I dare not open another window to fact check myself because invariably MN has a page reload and deletes my draft. Soz!

The system set up by the Victorians didn't need to distinguish as medical and social situations were different.

I think that if we are in a situation where donor eggs and sperm are permitted, and gay marriage is permitted, and surrogacy is legally recognised, then our legal registration system needs to adapt.

The 'birthing mother' definitely needs to be part of the legal registration system.

Mine has "Certificate of Birth" in large block caps printed across the top of it.

We call them 'Birth Certificates' but are they not more officially called 'Certified Copy of an Entry' or some such?

I absolutely agree genetics must be recorded somewhere for the individual e.g. their medical records, but in a formal state record I'm not convinced.

I think it's desirable for a child to know but I don't think it's practical to insist on it being on a bc. Isn't the information kept confidential until the child is 18?

I am still reading through the thread, but I wanted to answer this question, even though not directed at me. As someone who doesnt have a father listed on my birth certificate then I very much think that whoever the biological father is should be named on the certificate. I agree that others may raise that child and be more of a father than whoever donated sperm, but surely the child has a right to know their biological history wherever possible?

Obviously I am taking it to an extreme. But the event being recorded is literally the birth - the event where a new human being exits it’s mothers body from which it has grown, and takes its first breath.

Mother and baby. That’s the essential information in a birth certificate.

Well the main reason I think this particular legal state document should name the woman who gave birth to the child is because it’s called a “birth certificate” and if you miss off the person who has actually birthed the child it’s a bit of a pointless document. I also think a child has an absolute right to know who gestated and birthed them even if they are not brought up by that person. I think this should apply in EVERY case including where the birth mother is a surrogate or not genetically related to the child.

I think another document could be created to state other parenting or legal relationships with children. I don’t really understand why we need to try and squeeze everything on one document.

If it was just a record of an event then medical staff could register it most of the time.

I don't think that is the purpose at all.

I think the purpose is to register the existence of a new person within the state and who is responsible for that person.

That registration leads on to those responsible being eligible for child benefits; the child itself being eligible for free NHS care, being automatically issued with an NI number entitling them to work, being able to prove eligibility or otherwise for a passport and other benefits. It can also prove eligibility for inheritance under intestacy rules.

None of the practical uses of a birth registration are either about the actual birth, or genetics.

I also think it's misleading to equate this with changing sex markers on birth certificates (which I disagree with btw) A birth certificate should include accurate information about sex, dob, name etc plus details of the people who have parental responsibility- including the birth mother.

Mothers who give birth in caves are definitely a minority! Most people need a bc to "exist" within society, apply for school, passports etc. It's a legal document not a genetic history.

Of course.

That’s what I am saying.

Who are the only two essential people at the birth?

The mother and the baby.

A woman can give birth alone in a cave somewhere. These are the only two essential people at the birth.

@Ketzele I replied in anger before. Being accused of homophobia when it is untrue is as frustrating for me as the constant accusations of transphobia, when that isn’t true either.

I understand and share your fear of a backlash against lesbians. My daughter is a young butch lesbian and I am proud that she has grown into a woman who is comfortable with her female body. She is openly a butch lesbian who (as far as I am aware) has never given a moment’s thought to the false idea that she might be “trans” whatever that means nowadays.

What is true, is that any legal changes that have been made and are attributed to the LGBT+ grouping are more likely to come under scrutiny and your rights, like women’s rights, may well be eroded. If they are eroded unnecessarily, that is obviously a bad thing, but new laws are always tested out and can change.

I do not believe the women here are generally homophobic and I do not think homophobia is what is driving this discussion on this board. I should have said that more tactfully, but because of the overuse of accusations of transphobia, it’s very easy to become defensive.

Rather than accusing us of homophobia, your argument needs to convince us that having one or both parents listed because they are legally acting as parents, rather than being biological parents is in the child’s interest, or at the very least, does not cause any harm.

There have been many alternative suggestions made, about adding additional information, rather than exchanging one set of information (biological mother and supposed biological father) for different information (biological father and his male partner, for example) without examining whether that benefits the child or whether it may be detrimental. To describe that as homophobic and without nuance is to insult the women discussing it.

It’s not a lie on the birth certificate to list the woman’s partner as a parent, she is not listed as the mother, for what reasons should she not be listed as a parent when she will be a parent to the child? It is very clear who gave birth as they will be listed as the mother. What possible advantages are there to making women apply for adoption in this situation?

This process (of being registered as the legal parent) also protects women and children from being left with no financial support if the woman’s partner changes her mind or splits from her and then refuses to adopt the child.

At the end of the day, we are not like coral or something, where we just squirt out gametes and hope for the best.

Mammals give birth to live young and feed them with milk from mammary glands when they are born. We then look after them until they can look after themselves.

The mother-baby relationship is everything.

Fathers and everyone else are a nice extra, but they are not essential (apart from providing gametes at conception).

A record of a birth is essentially a record of that event.
It's a record of the birth not the conception!

cultural objection to same sex adoption is not a reason to lie on someones birth certificate

of so why should men be able to say there female on their birth certificates

It's not a lie. The other female partner is included as she has parental responsibility. Nobody is pretending she fathered a child!

Your second point is not really relevant here. Surrogacy is illegal in Italy. Same-sex adoption is not allowed. I think allowing two parents on the birth certificate whatever their sex is beneficial to everyone.

Well…. They are called ‘birth’ certificates, are they not?

There are only two essential people at a birth, aren’t there?

A record of a birth is essentially a record of that event.

In the U.K. (IIRC) the hospital/midwifery service passes on basic details re: live births to the registrar so when a new parent goes to the registry office in person it’s more about confirming the details they already have on record (and to issue you the documentation) than it is about you giving them any new info.

This is how the registrar knows if a new baby hasn’t been registered within the allowed time frame (is it 6 weeks? I forget!) which is a red alert for safeguarding reasons.

IIRC the original reason for birth certificates was a rudimentary safeguarding one - it’s much easier to
get away with abducting/selling/murdering a baby if the authorities aren’t aware that the baby exists.

Hence historically the state being far more interested in recording the man who was taking on the legal responsibility for the child’s physical and fiscal wellbeing than in the man who had provided the small mobile gametes to fertilise the mother’s egg

(although I do concede that, at least in public, most people maintained the polite fiction that the legally responsible man and the biologically responsible man were always one and the same… and now modern day DNA genealogy websites are causing all sorts of havoc by accidentally exposing the infidelity of grand and great grand parents all over the world!)

I'm inclined to agree with you wrt surrogacy (especially commercial), but it is legal so if discussing birth certificates in this context then it has to be considered.

I just think we need to take a step back and consider why we have birth certificates. Think about it I think it is more for legal reasons than any other.

Then they need to win the argument in Italy

cultural objection to same sex adoption is not a reason to lie on someones birth certificate

of so why should men be able to say there female on their birth certificates 🤷🏿‍♂️

we either believe in truth or we don’t

a birth certificate should be a true and accurate representation of what happens at the time of your birth

other wise children don’t know who they are related to

mothers open themselves up to hellish custody battles

and men raise and pay for children whom are not there’s

’prior surrogacy arrangement’ can gtf for a number of reasons. Too many for this thread.