Three fathers now.

[Igneococcus]

Whatever next?
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5dc4f5d8-7b7e-11eb-83b7-5869de54abef?shareToken=bd5e62f29aae305ea21426c3155bc5ab

so what happens to these legal protections if the thruple splits?

sounds like a minefield

Adoption (these days) is not a robust process for giving children away it exists for the good of the child who needs a family, because we have finally taken off the emphasis on punishing unmarried mothers and correcting their children. We now acknowledge that open adoption is healthier than closed. We now see that institutionalised childhoods in what we used to call an orphanage is a very damaging start in life for children. So wherever possible we try to find suitable families for children to grow up in. Adoption rightly has very stringent rules around it, eg as to who can adopt. In the UK that’s not something paid for in a commercial way.

So it’s not that adoption is or was a system created for the benefit of women or at their request. If a woman had babies just because she wanted to help and support other people who might like to be given a baby to bring up, that woman would be deemed dangerously irresponsible and mentally unwell. I’d assume that her existing kids would be subject to social services involvement. Any babies she birthed for the purpose of relinquishing would be taken at birth by social services and put into foster care until legal adoption could be arranged for them. The woman would be treated for serious mental health problems.

My point is that the social contract that we understand as ‘surrogacy’ is only ever legitimised as such by the desires of the intended parents. Never by the woman’s wants. We no longer consider her actions as ‘surrogacy’ if she deviates from the IPs‘ requirements or stipulations around the pregnancy.

Like: imagine she insisted on giving the IPs something they didn’t want- pregnancy with a different baby because she used a different egg or sperm than the IPs wanted, or if she gave them another already born young baby instead. Or imagine if she changed her mind about which IPs she wanted to help and gave the baby to a different person or couple instead.

So although surrogacy obviously has an element of bodily autonomy and the woman’s choice around it, it is in not actually built around the woman’s wants, and it’s wrong to present it that way. She is instrumental to others achieving their desires. This is why there is a lot of concern about women’s interests and welfare and rights when it comes to women providing surrogacy for other people.

Adoption (these days) is not a robust process for giving children away hmm it exists for the good of the child who needs a family

Yes, it's for the good of the child but it is literally the method by which we transfer responsibility of a child from it's birth parents to other people. We cannot force people to parent (and wouldn't want to).

So although surrogacy obviously has an element of bodily autonomy and the woman’s choice around it, it is in not actually built around the woman’s wants, and it’s wrong to present it that way.

I wasn't claiming that surrogacy was built around a woman's wants, just that as a society we agree that we cannot prevent a woman from producing a child, regardless of her reasons for having that child.
One potential reason a woman can have a child, that a lot of people disagree with, is surrogacy.

Have they written a book?
Of course they have...

it exists for the good of the child who needs a family, because we have finally taken off the emphasis on punishing unmarried mothers and correcting their children.

Yes in the U.K., but I think the situation is very different in the US. It’s another of those issues (like gun control, health care) where we are two countries separated by a common language.

I really want to know why the Times is pushing this so relentlessy, another article about it today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5b5e9dba-7de7-11eb-823e-250f70612dc4?shareToken=d95dac817743ea2c617686e2d9c85da3

‘A birth certificate reflects biology. It's not a way to validate parents regardless of a family set up.’

Does it though? There’s no DNA requirement and if your a straight couple you can use a donor egg or donor sperm and register as parents without telling anyone and without ever telling the child.

Isn’t it around 10% of men who aren’t biological fathers to their child but believe that they are?

As for what a birth certificate means - it’s the first price of proof that you are a parent to your child, without one it can be very tricky legally and otherwise to show you have responsibility for a child. I even have to carry one with our DCs
passports as I have a different surname and get questioned.
My wife, The non birth mother ( who’s ‘parent’ on our DCs birth certificates to my ‘mother’ ) ironically doesn’t get stopped as they do have her surname...

without one it can be very tricky legally and otherwise to show you have responsibility for a child. I even have to carry one with our DCs

I have a different name to my children and a birth ceritifcate was not enough the first time I travelled with my daughter alone. I thought it was, and although the guy at Franfurt airport let us go through customs after a lengthy debate, he was very clear that I should have a signed and witnessed letter from the father giving permission to take the children out of the country.

The advantage of three fathers: one can always take a holiday

Be absent without being criticised for being absent by outsiders. To hell with the child and whether they want them.

I do wonder about any parent who fucks off for long periods without their child and treats it as a holiday. Very young kids need consistency of one parent at least always being present. Its one thing for one parent to be away working. But if both parents are doing this, and don't have a primary carer present at all times, its not great for the child and their emotional security in their early years. I do think its odd and not right for celebrity couples to dump their kids with the nanny for a week or two whilst they go off and go on holiday or do work. I know how much boarding school damaged family members emotionally. We've seen kids dumped with au pairs and its bloody awful.

Imagine saying 'I need a break from parenting you, so I'm fucking off on holiday' in any other situation. No it wouldn't be considered progressive. Especially if it was a woman doing it.

Their whole attitude to parenting fucking stinks.

Its not thinking about the child first. Its all about their lifestyle and fitting kids in around that. And i despite that in any scenario and the selfishness and lack of thought to the impact of it on kids.

As for what a birth certificate means - it’s the first price of proof that you are a parent to your child

Yes, but in the U.K. that is because it is a record of a birth and it is a copy of information recorded by the registrar. It is a birth certificate, not a parent certificate and other documents may also establish a legal parenting relationship.

The record of information held does not belong to the parent or child.

No idea what the law is in the US. They have a completely different attitude to surrogacy and adoption.

It’s a ‘record of biology’ in that it lists the mother - the woman who gave birth - but you are right that it doesn’t necessarily describe a genetic relationship.

And separated / divorced couples are out of unavoidable circumstances which are far from ideal and we know that this does cause problems. Its not something you really want to be setting out to do to begin with and holding up as an example for others to follow as a lifestyle choice.

We waited specifically for the law to change before we had our children - so that we could both be recognised as legal parents on our kids birth certificates. We had a lot of hoops to jump through, that straight couples don’t have to bother about - not least having a Civil Partnership ( there was no marriage equality available to us) before conceiving, and the way in which was conceived was also regulated.
So to us, the birth certificate is important, particularly are there are many countries who don’t recognise either our Civil Partnership or subsequent marriage nor our right to be called parents to our own children.
DWs home country won’t allow her to give our DCs her citizenship unless she ‘adopts’ her own children here in the U.K. but the U.K. won’t allow her to ‘adopt’ them ( nor would we want her to have to) as she is legally already their mother.

It’s easy to read headlines and make snap judgements, but the reality for many LGBT people in particular is that the more legal protection you can put around your relationship and family the better usually. We don’t always have the luxury of rejecting ‘conventions’ like marriage...

‘ so what happens to these legal protections if the thruple splits?

sounds like a minefield’

My guess that they, like most people,
Aren’t planning on splitting up.
My friend’s father has been married 3 times and she has siblings, half siblings and step-siblings. That to me is more of a ‘minefield’ ...

frickina I think the main concern people have is around surrogacy and removal of rights and recognition of the birth mother.

It’s really difficult to know what is being described here as it relates to US law.

Cases like this are reported as heart warming events, but where in the story is the woman/women who risked her life and health to produce these children? The mother is sometimes included as a selfless but nameless individual who ‘will stay involved’, but the magnitude of what has been given is minimised.

In the U.K. the birth mother is always named on the original birth certificate, and although this may be sealed the child has automatic access at 18.

As you say these laws are not the same everywhere.

‘
frickina I think the main concern people have is around surrogacy and removal of rights and recognition of the birth mother.’

A right so the ‘whatever next’ comment from OP actually had nothing to do with the story being about 3 men on the BC and was actually about surrogacy in general? Including surrogacy involving g straight couple?
I read that entirely wrong then...

That to me is more of a ‘minefield’ ...

However legally, multiple marriages and relationships have no effect on parental rights.

I’m not instinctively that concerned about a child having 3 legal guardians, but if three parents are OK, are 4? At what point does a child effectively have no clear parents?

@FrickinA

‘ frickina I think the main concern people have is around surrogacy and removal of rights and recognition of the birth mother.’

A right so the ‘whatever next’ comment from OP actually had nothing to do with the story being about 3 men on the BC and was actually about surrogacy in general? Including surrogacy involving g straight couple?
I read that entirely wrong then...

Fair point - if you want I will rephrase that as ‘I think it is reasonable to be concerned about...’

It’s not for me to say what people in general think.

Not sure what BC means.

I’m going to go back on what I said about not speaking for other people, but my impression is that on the FWR board, people are not more sympathetic to straight couples who use surrogates. Surrogacy is very much treated as a women’s rights issue.

I really want to know why the Times is pushing this so relentlessy, another article about it today

I wonder too.
The Times has at least two employees who have obtained children through surrogacy but they must be very influential to be able to push this to this extent.
It does seem to be a softening up process in advance of the Law Commission presenting proposals for law reform re surrogacy to parliament scheduled for early 2022 which is, in itself concerning.
Who has overall control of editorial policy and why would the Times be pushing this? Starting to wonder about News Corp and the Murdoch family. Of course New York has recently passed laws to allow commercial surrogacy and this is a world wide business.
That there is a wider agenda I have no doubt.

‘ I’m not instinctively that concerned about a child having 3 legal guardians, but if three parents are OK, are 4? At what point does a child effectively have no clear parents?’

I know kids who have 4 ... and they seem to be thriving. They have very clear parents, just 4 of them.

Legally. Birth parents and their partners who have parental responsibility two dads and two mums.

‘ However legally, multiple marriages and relationships have no effect on parental rights.’

They do actually, in my friends case as her father was widowed first time around and step mum was given rights over the kids, then had her own kids too. Then father divorced her and re-marrried and had more kids, plus for PR over the new wife’s kids.
So my friend has 2 step mums, one with PR over her younger sons still...
So straight people can make their lives just as complicated it seems... none of which has got anything to do with who’s on the BC.

So the birth dad and the mother (who gave birth) could be on the BC.
Then the second dad could be on an adoption certificate (except California produces fake BCs instead of ACs).
And the third dad could have PR.
And everyone has what they need (once CA changes its adoption certificate rules).

So straight people can make their lives just as complicated it seems..

But I don’t think anyone is commenting on this because the people involved are same sex. If they have I must have missed the post.

Honestly, surrogacy is a hotly debated issue on this board, not same sex parents.

I know kids who have 4 ... and they seem to be thriving. They have very clear parents, just 4 of them.

Great.

However one you have decided that 4 patents are fine, the ethical question becomes how many parents are too many? 6, 10? Who gets to decide?

I think the value of a parent is that they will absolutely put their child’s needs first, to a frankly illogical degree. If they didn’t babies would have a very low survival rate. How many people can you add before either there is no parenting, just child minding, or the situation has just reverted to a state of 1 or 2 people doing the actual parenting?