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.

'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.'

That would be a minefield! How would you get straight couples to admit that they used donors? You'd have to DNA test the babies and parents before registering a birth and even then, how are you going to get the 'biological' details if someone doesn't want to admit them??

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 think that works well, as it is. There is no legal responsibility on those who donate gametes, nor should there be, but there is a social responsibility that can easily be shrugged off and with men as prolific sperm donors (far less so with women donating eggs) the rules and restrictions to protect donor conceived children (multiple donations worldwide, another Dr has recently been charged in Canada I think it was...) are easily broken.

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.

I think that's really sad, obviously same-sex couples would quite be lying if they told their child that they were both the biological parent! There's no predicting that future medical circumstances may mean the truth comes out, tragically, though unlikely (but perhaps increasingly more likely so as millions of children around the world have been donor conceived) if they reproduce with a sibling and it ends in miscarriage or genetic birth defects due to close DNA.

I disagree on one point, with the Lana hush. I would say the woman who gave birth to the child is the biological so mum - I mean she gave birth so she is the legal mother and biological mother - but the woman who gave one egg (or reality quite a lot of eggs to make a pregnancy) was the genetic mother. I think this is one of the reasons why an additional filed noting gamete donation would potentially be helpful to donor conceived children.

At least for honest parents who intend to raise their child with truth as the foundation to their existence.

Because the couples, man and woman, walked in together and registered their child together.

This would not be the case with surrogacy but, unless those involved completely bypass the legal system.

Any change to the registration process wouldn't be foolproof but it would be helpful to donor conceived children in some ways and I think the paper I shared upthread presents this argument fairly.

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 only situation in which that would be a useful way to complete a form is the unlikely circumstance where the sole purpose of the form is to collect genetic information on the child. If you are trying to find out who should be registered as the child's legal parents, or who can attend to register the birth, or who the child's legal parents are, or who can make medical/school decisions about the child, or who is responsible for the child, those answers are going to be unhelpful.

If it's a paper form, it's fine - you can cross out father and write something more appropriate. It probably doesn't matter much. If it's an electronic form, it can be a bit more tricky.

We have hoops to jump through that straight couples don't too.

I'm not making a direct comparison, but there are 'hoops' for unmarried parents too:

"Married or civil-partner parents
Either parent can register the birth on their own. They can include both parents’ details if they were married or in a civil partnership when the baby was born or conceived.

Unmarried parents
The details of both parents can be included on the birth certificate if one of the following happens:
• they sign the birth register together
• one parent completes a statutory declaration of parentage form and the other takes the signed form to register the birth
• one parent goes to register the birth with a document from the court (for example, a court order) giving the father parental responsibility

The mother can choose to register the birth without the child’s father if they’re not married or in a civil partnership. The father’s details will not be included on the birth certificate.

(So a father who wants to be registered cannot be named if the mother doesn't want him to be. He has no means to ensure he has parental rights, and for good reason as I said, in classic MN fashion, NAMALT and this could be argued, not that I would be making the case, that this was some form of legal discrimination against men, as a result of the registration process and rules).

It might be possible to add the father’s details at a later date by completing an application for the re-registration of a child’s birth....

Same-sex female couples
Female couples can include both their names on their child’s birth certificate when registering the birth.

(It doesn't mention being married or in a CP)

Same-sex male couples
Male couples must get a parental orderr_ from the court before they can be registered as parents."

(Because men can't have babies so somewhere there is a biological mother and/or genetic mother whose name should be written down somewhere...)

www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-can-register-a-birth

The registration of a birth can take place in other circumstances where neither parent is present so the process seems quite flexible in many ways.

So if you think some of their points are sensible, what did you mean by:
It could be argued that the pendulum swing you mention is created or increased by articles like in OP ?

As to clinics, laws, the NHS etc. I was not saying that they all discriminate against same sex parents. You said that it was ok for them to prioritise the child over the desires of adults, including lesbian parents by donor conception. I thought you were saying that at present, those laws etc prioritise parents like me, and there should be reform to prioritise the child. I was saying that there is not a special conflict between the priorities of lesbian parents and their children's needs, such as to necessitate reform.

I think it's possible that articles like the OP imply that there is discrimination where there is none, so it might, for some, lose sympathy rather than provoke it. That's what I meant about the pendulum swing you mentioned. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but I can see how someone might read that article and think it's mostly the BBC looking for ways to write about LGBT issues and make more out of something that isn't really editorially sound.

Certainly there are some reasonable points made, but overall the article for me reads as a same-sex couple complaining and wanting more than the apology offered by both the council and the GP surgery. It doesn't highlight the real issues in the right way, but that's just me. As I said there were a few details missing that could have made me think otherwise but it was lacking in that, for me.

I thought you were saying that at present, those laws etc prioritise parents like me, and there should be reform to prioritise the child.

I was, but not to push the parents 'further down the list of priorities', I think all laws involving children should prioritise the children, whether that be adoption laws, surrogacy reform (which I have posted on a lot), safeguarding...

Laws can't make people, parents or otherwise, be honest and truthful with their kids. You hope it happens, but it cannot be enforced. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children have the human right of having an identity, in the old-fashioned definition, this relates to knowing where you come from, both in terms of your biological parents and where you came from (international adoption for example). Again it cannot be enforced but it is there as a foundation to recognise the rights of a child (not being trafficked is one).

I imagine some of this is lost in the posts and we would largely agree, I don't think there is a conflict between the rights of a lesbian couple and the rights of the child, but laws should be made centrally around protecting a child, before we protect adults, as by definition, the child is more vulnerable than the adults involved. There's no reason to suggest that both can't be equally protected, but above all else I would prioritise the child.

I suppose the addition of gamete donation being recorded on the BC, at the very least it could be explored.

Certainly there are some reasonable points made, but overall the article for me reads as a same-sex couple complaining and wanting more than the apology offered by both the council and the GP surgery

What do you think they want? Only to draw attention to the situation. I think encountering forms like that makes you worry how sensitively the organisation concerned is going to deal with your child. Perhaps that's an unfounded worry but it's a common one and understandable where your small children are concerned. So whether there is discrimination or not, it's a good thing to try to rectify.

Female couples can include both their names on their child’s birth certificate when registering the birth.(It doesn't mention being married or in a CP)

This sentence doesn't give all the detail about the hoops for female couples. My understanding is that if you conceive with donor sperm outside a clinic, you need to be married/in a cp at the time of conception if you both want to be legal parents from birth and have both names on the birth certificate. Otherwise there is adoption later. If you conceive in a licensed clinic, I understand that there is a form you can fill in so that your partner is the legal parent, even if you are not married or in a CP.
www.familylawgroup.co.uk/site/blog/flg-news/lesbian-parents-fertility-treatment-and-the-law.html

I think encountering forms like that makes you worry how sensitively the organisation concerned is going to deal with your child.

Obviously a GP and the staff at the surgery shouldn't prejudice the treatment of a child over who the parents are, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. Any Dr or GP receptionist who did should be pulled up on it but I think it's highly unlikely as Drs see all kinds of people and body parts and the child's health would be prioritised. Questions about genetic parentage might be relevant in that situation and it would be based on homophobia if asked, it would surely be important to ask if it could be connected to the condition the child was presenting with.

My understanding is that if you conceive with donor sperm outside a clinic, you need to be married/in a cp at the time of conception if you both want to be legal parents from birth and have both names on the birth certificate.

That's because if you conceive outside of a licensed clinic, aside from all the risks that brings, the father has legal responsibility, but again the mother could waive that on the BC so it's not really something that is enforced. That applies to single women. It's the same for them too. The mother of course has legal rights as the woman who gave birth, anyone else would need to apply for them, as would a step-parent who might adopt. I just think families come in all forms and this isn't discriminatory to record where a child's genetic, birth and legal/social parents come from. Everyone alive or dead has a mother father, regardless of how good or how shit they were at the role, or whether they were even around. It's just biology, it's not 'heteronormative' to record it as such and it doesn't take away from the legal rights of same sex couples.

What do you think they want? Only to draw attention to the situation.
Yes of course and they did that and the out of date forms shared were explained and they apologised. What else do they have to say? It was a mistake. It wasn't done to make them feel ostracised as a same-sex couple. If it was then don't those people look bad now. Missioned accomplished.

If it's a paper form, it's fine - you can cross out father and write something more appropriate. It probably doesn't matter much. If it's an electronic form, it can be a bit more tricky.

An electronic form would make it easier I think, plenty of drop down options, free text fields. It could be applied for online from a hospital bed or from home whilst the mother, with or without a partner, can hopefully do it quite quickly and easily. You could add marriage certificate/CP details and I'm sure it will be made to leave the father's name blank. The paper form process in the article is what seems to cause some of the problems.

Questions about genetic parentage might be relevant in that situation and it would be based on homophobia if asked, it would surely be important to ask if it could be connected to the condition the child was presenting with.

That's true if course. But there are more and less sensitive ways to ask about genetics in front of a child.

I was thinking more of nurseries/schools where I have heard of forms asking questions that don't fit the circumstances of families with same-sex parents. And then parents will wonder, for example, how the carers will deal with their child, whether they have had a similar family before and have thought about ways to include a child from such a family (e.g. on Father's Day, in diversity of families appearing in books in the classroom etc). So it's helpful to have forms and policies that don't give an impression that they aren't aware of same-sex parents.

I'm not saying that professionals in the UK fail to educate/give inferior medical treatment to children of lesbian parents. Of course not.

Perhaps as a result of the article other organisations will be more aware of this issue now and there will be less mistakes. I don't think this deserves or ought to prompt a backlash against lesbian rights. Forms that take account of different circumstances collect more useful information and are reassuring to families. That's a good thing and in my view it's helpful to draw attention to the issue.

I made the point about the ways that legal parenthood is acquired for lesbian couples because the link you posted only gave part of the picture and there's no point in discussing an issue on a false premise. I wasn't saying that the current law is discriminatory to lesbians.

As to electronic/paper forms, what I meant was that forms WITHOUT the relevant options are easier to correct on paper than in an electronic form.

@OhHolyJesus

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

Thank you for sharing the paper.

But there are more and less sensitive ways to ask about genetics in front of a child.

Well in this case they are registering a newborn at a GP surgery so the child wouldn't be aware, at a nursery or school enrolment I would imagine and hope that staff are sensitive to absent fathers in a number of scenarios and if done by form no questions would be asked in person. Most Childcare settings I imagine would be very open to having conversations with parents as they are parent-facing.

So it's helpful to have forms and policies that don't give an impression that they aren't aware of same-sex parents.

I agree but I would also think the forms indicate what an approach could be, they are only forms and there might be certain rules around what they have to ask. A form doesn't represent a school/HT's position on same-sex couples, or GP's approach but I see what you're saying. It could give an indication, I would say it would be over-sensitive to make that what a same-sex parent would base their response in though. It would be more about the people and teachers and doctors etc who would be used to discussing this if there was a problem. We have had same-sex families in society for decades, it's nothing new, and not that 'different' really. At least that's how I see it.

Perhaps as a result of the article other organisations will be more aware of this issue now and there will be less mistakes. I don't think this deserves or ought to prompt a backlash against lesbian rights.

Absolutely and there not should there be a 'backlash' but in some ways highlighting things as issues that are not only experienced by one group, as is implied, it can be counter-productive. I don't think it will prompt a backlash at all.

the link you posted only gave part of the picture and there's no point in discussing an issue on a false premise

I agree, perhaps the text on the government page should have more detail in that section to reflect the reality, that a marriage or CP is required, perhaps it's a case of 'legally' it isn't but in reality it is? All guidance on this very complex issue of registering a birth to recognise legal parents and genetic parents and birth mother should be looked at in the context of modern society and same sex couples, whilst not divorcing it from biology and at the same time keeping the child central to the objectives.

I do not live in UK, but the article and this thread really gave me a lot to think about.

Unfortunately, I never thought about what the birth certificate on these situations should mention but now I have all kinds of ideas and inner conversations. I have a lot to think about and read upon in order to make my own opinion, but I would like to thank of all you for sharing your thoughts.