BBC article about same sex couple

[QueenPeary]

It really shouldn’t be remarkable should it, but I noticed that this article makes it clear that this is a same sex couple, not same gender and clearly both women. Also talks about mothers.

I think someone at the BBC continues to push to reclaim a use of language that doesn’t erase women and gay people.

I noticed in the BBC 10pm TV news they were talking about 'mixed gender' categories in the Olympics though (they meant mixed sex relay sports). The problem with the English language is the 'sex - tee hee!' element leading to broadcasters preferring the more genteel word 'gender', which didn't matter until transgender ideology came along and deliberately muddied the waters.

I suspect it's more that language has meaning, and people have to make an extra effort to use Newspeak, hence the natural - accurate! - language slips through when talking sense.

About that article... some of our schools registered the children under Parent/Guardian 1 and Parent/Guardian 2. Sometimes I registered the child, sometimes dh registered child, and whichever of us registered the child put their details under Parent 1. Parent 1 was always the first point of contact. However, with the school that had Mother and Father on the registration, it didn't matter which of us registered the child, which of us signed the form, it was always me, the Mother, who was the first point of contact.

This isn't like erasing the word and the relationship 'mother'. This isn't about biology. Isn't this one of the situations when it is exactly about gender roles? When it is about parenting the child, rather than biology, perhaps such documents should have:
Parent 1(name) Relationship (mother/father)
Parent 2 (name) Relationship (mother/father)

Why just parent? Often in schools etc it is parent/carer to recognise that not all children are in the care of their parents.

I disagree about the birth certificate though - it should be mother and father (and fatger left blank if not known) as a re ord of genetic linkage. Unless a child is adopted they still have rights attached to their parenthood, including inheritance.

On the point of the father being named on the birth certificate, I think in the case of donor conceived children, as the child in this BBC article is, I think it could say 'unknown donor' (rather than just unknown), so the child when is old enough (I think it is 16) knows they are donor conceived they can go to the donor registry in the U.K. and find their genetic father. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the birth certificate belongs to them and they have a right to know their identity (the original meaning of the word).

In this case the child will know he is donor conceived as soon as he has a biology lesson about reproduction, but in heterosexual couples the child will not necessarily know this and it could mean they don't know their genetic origins, siblings etc.

Children who are adopted have an original birth certificate that is locked away so the true record can be found. This is not the case for surrogate-born babies as I understand it, as the parental order provides a new birth certificate that appears to be true and so the child relies on the parents to tell the truth.

There is certainly a case for additional fields on the birth certificate naming where the gametes that made them, came from.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405661817300035

100% agree re birth certificates. They are a record of biological relationships, especially regarding the mother-child relationship.

Don't commissioning parents have to formally adopt children of surrogacy arrangements? Surely the child of such an arrangement - altruistic or commercial - should have the right to have their biological relationships accurately recorded?

And yes, regarding the parent/carer record, you're right. I should have written

Parent 1/Carer 1(name) Relationship (mother/father/legal guardian etc)
Parent 2/Carer 2 (name) Relationship (mother/father/legal guardian etc)

She said more shockingly, they were handed another form to register a child at the surgery and that form asked for ethnicity but only offered white ethnicities as an option and under religion, only Christian religions.

Sounds like someone really screwed up writing the forms!

I took that with a BIG pinch of salt. What organisation has ever had diversity forms that only included white ethnicities and Christianity?

That's what I mean. Unlikely that was intended but having seen the state of some forms from NHS I can well believe someone managed to just miss off a load and not notice!

Is it still the case that married couples are presumed to be the parents of a child born in that relationship? In which case, they are the babies legal parents.

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

Is it still the case that married couples are presumed to be the parents of a child born in that relationship? In which case, they are the babies legal parents.

Which is why I thought commissioning parents would have to formally adopt children of surrogates.

And would you also remove legal parental responsibility from the second female parent of a baby (i.e. the female spouse/civil partner of a woman who conceives by donor sperm)? Or just remove her name from the birth certificate but leave her parental responsibility to be recorded otherwise, somehow?

Since April 2009, second female parents have had parental responsibility from birth if in a civil partnership/married to the birth mother, and have not had to go through adoption proceedings to be a parent. I really cannot see how children would benefit from reverting to the previous law, where lesbian parents had to go through lengthy legal adoption proceedings. The birth certificate of the child reflects the child's legal parents from birth, which makes sense to me. How would the child of lesbian parents benefit from a birth certificate that says "unknown donor" and does not provide evidence of the child's second legal parent?

Of course the married or civilly partnered partner of the mother should have equal parental rights regardless of whether they are male or female. But every baby has a biological father. If children have the right to know who their biological parents are, should that not be recorded?

Perhaps birth certificates should have the option of adding information about biological parents if they are not the same as the de facto parents, eg donor sperm or donor egg.

Birth certificates for the children of lesbian parents say Mother (this must be the parent who carried the baby) and Parent.
Can understand those suggesting it should only have the biological parents registered but is there not so much more to being a parent than biology? All donor conceived children in the UK are able to look up their donor’s details on turning 18.

Children have the right to seek details of the sperm donor's identity when they are 18. If they choose to . Until then, he can be anonymous. It's not going to be possible to record his identity on a birth certificate, therefore.

Not the donor's identity, but the fact that the child was donor-conceived.

Although, while that's perfectly obvious with lesbian parents, it is not obvious with opposite sex parents, yet the child's father in both legal and parenting terms may not be the biological father. But there's no expectation that that should be on the birth certificate, so why should it be on the birth certificate of a child with two female parents?

I think you'd be seeking much wider changes to the birth registration system if you wanted it to be a record of biological parenthood in every case. Currently there is no obligation on mothers to give the name of a father, if the mother is not married. Would you change that and compel her to? What if she doesn't know?

The many cases of informal sperm donation done at home and cases where a baby is conceived outside the woman's primary relationship probably vastly outnumber the cases of clinic-assisted donor conception. Very difficult to regulate information about that ending up on the birth certificate.

If your concern is about promoting open conversations between parents and children about their biological origins, then it might be best to concentrate on education and support for parents to help them with those conversations.

The birth certificate is quite a public document. You have to show it to prove identity in various official contexts in which you might not want to discuss complexities relating to your biological origins.

It's not been very long since lesbian families were given the protection of lesbian second parents having the right to parental responsibility from birth, recorded on the birth certificate. Only 15 years. I'm glad I had my child in the meantime. Perhaps it's over-sensitivity but I keep detecting what feels like the beginning of a pendulum-swing in the other direction.

Would you change that and compel her to? What if she doesn't know?

For safety, women cannot and should not be compelled to name the father on the BC, domestic abuse survivors would want to avoid joint custody for one, but a child might want to know their father regardless. It's clearly a tricky balance to strike with known parents, but this is really about unknown genetic parents.

If the mother doesn't know and doesn't want to find out then the child would need to do a DNA test and hope there was a website registry of relatives on say 23andMe and that could be traumatic in itself, as a way to find out about who your Dad is. It may also be that they regret finding out but surely that is for the child to decide as an adult, not the mother who would have her own (and likely very good reasons) not to share this information.

If your concern is about promoting open conversations between parents and children about their biological origins, then it might be best to concentrate on education and support for parents to help them with those conversations.

This is already the advice from HFEA but no one can compel a parent to be honest and tell a child throughout their childhood what their genetic roots are, though it is encouraged with donor gametes no law can ensure that happens.

Perhaps it's over-sensitivity but I keep detecting what feels like the beginning of a pendulum-swing in the other direction

I can see what you mean but I don't think there is an appetite to remove any rights or overturn any laws that permit the current processes for lesbian couples and gay men to have babies via surrogacy and adoption. Single people are also able to do both and if anything the laws around surrogacy are about to relax even further. It could be argued that the pendulum swing you mention is created or increased by articles like in OP.

But it is important to centre the child in these adult desires and when a child doesn't know their genetic connections there can be mental health issues (sometimes not until they are grown and want to start families of their own) with adoption, donor conception and surrogacy. It's ok for laws, fertility clinics, the NHS and birth certificates to prioritise the child.

Personally I would welcome reform of the birth registrations process, both for some of the issues presented in the article and for the child to be the main consideration.

Don't commissioning parents have to formally adopt children of surrogacy arrangements?

For surrogacy the process is completely different to adoption. It is mischievous easier and quicker. The parental order can currently not be applied for before the child is 6 weeks old (something the problem-surrogacy lobby are campaigning hard against) and the process is usually completed by the time the child is 6 months old and several high profile examples show this wasn't slowed by COVID. From birth the child is in the custody of the commissioning parents. Background checks are not conducted, as they are with adoption but a gone visit is usually conducted as part of the parental order process.

It's pretty much a shortcut or a 'back up' option those who don't want to or can't (for whatever reason) adopt, though it is more expensive, even with the actually pregnancy, it is mostly a lot quicker than adoption and obviously for those who want to guarantee a baby, surrogacy is the chosen 'pathway'. Adopted babies do appear to be considered as 'damaged' by some.

I think the original birth certificate should have the genetic parents (obviously left blank if unknown!) then

It could be argued that the pendulum swing you mention is created or increased by articles like in OP.

The couple in the article in the OP were complaining that they couldn't book an appointment to register the birth online because it didn't take account of their circumstances. And neither did a form to register their baby at the doctor's. Are you saying that by making public bodies aware that they exist, lesbians are "asking" to have their existing family law rights removed? Sounds a bit like - 'be quiet or things could get worse for you'. Of course I and most lesbian couples don't complain about admin hassles such as the ones the OP article couple faced, we just get on with it. But there's nothing wrong with highlighting these things politely. At all.

But it is important to centre the child in these adult desires and when a child doesn't know their genetic connections there can be mental health issues (sometimes not until they are grown and want to start families of their own) with adoption, donor conception and surrogacy. It's ok for laws, fertility clinics, the NHS and birth certificates to prioritise the child

Lesbian parents by donor conception prioritise their children just as much as other parents. There's no evidence I am aware of that mental health problems disproportionately affect our children. On the contrary, studies have shown our children well cared for, resilient and doing well. And no evidence that the NHS or clinics or the law are working in the interests of parents like me, in a way which is somehow contrary to the interests of our children.

I think you misunderstand me @LesbianonFWR

Are you saying that by making public bodies aware that they exist, lesbians are "asking" to have their existing family law rights removed?

Not at all, I said I agreed with some of their points and would agree that forms should be written in a way to allow easy completion for all kinds of circumstances, the article doesn't actually say why they couldn't book an appointment to register the birth "but they could not" doesn't go into the detail of why. Was a father required to attend the appointment? Was a name for the father required to book? It doesn't say.

As neither of these females can be the father they can a) leave it blank b) as I suggested - put unknown donor or unknown (again the article doesn't say whether the sperm came from a man they knew or didn't know, though private info it's clearly relevant to the article).

The article says they were given an old form by the GP surgery by mistake so that goes quite a long way I think to say what happened. As for the Red Book, the article explains that is being digitised and will likely (I think) have drop down options, again, that is a record for the child for height and weight tracking as well as a record of vaccinations so really it belongs to the child.

I don't think it is 'Heternormative' to ask for the details of the mother and father as clearly biology dictates they both exist, though I do think there could be separate field or a change made for a 'Parent 1/Mother' and 'Parent 2/Father'. Does this discriminate against single parents of either sex? I don't think it does, but father could be left blank if a single mother didn't want him named.

Lesbian parents by donor conception prioritise their children just as much as other parents. There's no evidence I am aware of that mental health problems disproportionately affect our children.

I didn't suggest otherwise, of course they prioritise their children, many if not most would tell their child who their father is or more about the circumstances of their birth so they can feel secure as they grow that their father is out their somewhere, if one day they would want to find him.

No, there are no studies and I'm not suggesting that children of same sex couples can be disproportionately affected but there is 'evidence' that children who don't know their genetic backgrounds can experience mental health problems. Millie Fontana speaks eloquently about this here.

She is just one, there are undoubtably others, not all people feel the same but just because there are no studies doesn't mean it isn't true for some. Children who are not yet adults may feel differently about it as they grow up, they might feel the same. Who knows?

On the contrary, studies have shown our children well cared for, resilient and doing well.

I think you might be referring to Susan Golombok's work. Though the sample sizes are small, children I think can be resilient or not and I wouldn't suggest that the sex if their parents affects this, they are no different from opposite-sex parents.

Are you saying that children from opposite-sex parent families are more resilient than children being raised by same-sex parents? I don't think you are, I don't know what difference it would make, children do well in loving, stable families regardless of the sex if their parents. Some children who are adopted like to know where they have come from, find out about possible siblings etc, same for donor conceived. There is no predicting or controlling it. People feel what they feel and it changes according to age and circumstance.

And no evidence that the NHS or clinics or the law are working in the interests of parents like me, in a way which is somehow contrary to the interests of our children.

As the Adoption and Children act changed to allow same-sex and single people to adopt in 2002 (enacted in 2005) I would say the laws does work in the interests of parents like you and in the best interests of children. Fertility clinics do not discriminate against same sex couples or single people and if they did they could be reported for doing so. The NHS has a postcode lottery in terms of fertility treatment so it could be argued that it discriminated against a number of people, based on where they live. An NHS Trust would be in huge trouble if they did discriminate against a same-sex couple, outside of their own treatment protocols. Do you know of one? I ask as I haven't heard of one.

'100% agree re birth certificates. They are a record of biological relationships, especially regarding the mother-child relationship'

Given that literally any man can walk in the registry office with the mother and baby and say he's the father, that's not exactly true. And is it 10% or more now men are not the fathers of their children but think they are?

My children's birth certificate names me as mother and my wife as parent. There's no denial of biology there, but there is the legal proof and protection our children and family need to make sure that we as parents can speak on our kids behalf, raise them together, get them passports and prove that they are actually our children.

I don't really agree with the couple in the interview. While it would be nice to have forms that exist for same-sex couples having kids together, as well as the usual mother/father ones it's only been in the last 10 years or so that we've had most of these legal protections in the first place so it'll take a while for that to change. Most babies do have a mother and father.

'I think you'd be seeking much wider changes to the birth registration system if you wanted it to be a record of biological parenthood in every case.'

Yup - you'd have to DNA test the 'father' and baby for starters for a match...

'Birth certificates for the children of lesbian parents say Mother (this must be the parent who carried the baby) and Parent.
Can understand those suggesting it should only have the biological parents registered but is there not so much more to being a parent than biology? All donor conceived children in the UK are able to look up their donor’s details on turning 18.'

We have hoops to jump through that straight couples don't too. For 2 women to go on the birth cert we have to be married/CP before we have the baby, we have to use a clinic or be able to prove the child was conceived by IUI/IVF with a donor, ( i.e. no sex happened) and that's on top of the thought that goes into having the child in the first place.

Children can find out the donors details when they're 18, and we fully expect ours to.

By contrast I know of 2 families - heterosexual, not married but long-term together -who have used sperm donation and egg donation. Neither at the moment has any intention of letting the children know that their father is NOT their biological father, or their mother carried them using another woman's egg, so she is nOT their bio mum.Their birth certificates say their mum and dad are their mum and dad.
Because the couples, man and woman, walked in together and registered their child together.