DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

[DustyLee123]

Can’t do links. Story about removing one mother from the certs where there’s two female names .

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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!

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).

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?

To most people but the egaled eyed they would not spot the difference I no I actually thought they sent the wrong thing at first when I got sent my daughters it’s ment to look the same but it’s notb

Having read the thread, I can see that it is important.

My argument is about Ketzele’s accusation that this thread was filled with “knee jerk homophobia”.

Because both are not the biological parents

should I be placed on my adopted a child original birth certificate as the birth mother 🤷🏿‍♂️is so then truth means nothing and men should be able to call themselves women and have a F maker on there birth certificate

@Thatgirl1981 so what would you do in the case of donor sperm?

Leave father blank or put the husband/partner of the mother?

I can't see a good reason for naming the partner when he is male (but not bio father) but not when she is female (and not bio father).

I think the system used for adoption offers a clearly workable solution that could be used in other areas where the birth / parenting roles don’t match up. Do you think there are any downsides thatgirl1981 to the way this works for adoptive children/ parents?

How many times do I have to keep repeating myself until people stop spouting this incorrect statement as a reason to support this? The partner of the birth mother is not named as a birth mother or any kind of mother, she is named as a parent, the birth mother is recorded as the birth mother.

But some people on this thread are suggesting that the birth mother should not always be named on birth certificates.

Stating you are female when you are male is factually incorrect.

Stating you are the birth mother or birth father would be factually incorrect if untrue.
Stating you are taking on the role as one of a maximum of 2 legal parents of the child being registered would not be factually incorrect.

It is all down to the wording on the certificate.

I think you’ve got this backwards.

Currently, fathers do not need paternity tests to be registered on birth certificates. Because of the nature of human reproduction, registrars take it on faith that the man showing up to register the child’s birth or who is married to the mother is the father. A mother can prove maternity with her medical records a father can’t.

Just because some people choose novel methods of family creation, shouldn’t change how this works for everyone else.

No woman can claim to be a father, because that is not how we reproduce. So that is why it is different for same sex couples.

The only thing for a situation where a non-related woman or man wants to be registered with parental responsibility, should be an additional document, something like an adoption certificate, not the birth certificate.

This.

Adoption, the right to be seen as a parent I support with every part of me.

The right of a child to know their genetic parents is a right not a feeling. I have a genetic condition, not knowing my genetic parents (adopted) caused a long and drawn out diagnosis. The birth certificate is the sperm and the ovum record, the building blocks rather than the 'parents'

That’s the whole crux of the issue it should work primarily for the child

adopters and fosters carers are child centred

a lot of adults their wants and needs in this case to be recognised should be centred
I am afraid this is how we end up we’re we are currently

its very simple for me coming from a child first view that my need to be recognised should always come

2nd to the truth and my child’s needs to be rooted in who they are I am part of that but children who don’t know who they are have worse outcomes if you talk to children who were adopted 20-30 years ago who were not told they will tell you they always had a feeling that something was off

knowing who you are is fundamental to you
if a child doesn’t know who they are it knocks them off kilter and if they find out at a pivotal moment in their life it change fundamentally change who they are

adults have forgotten we should meet our child’s need they are not here to meet ours no wonder why we have kink in the class room ect

My child has the possibility of having Huntington’s

I feel your pain

I mean, it’s complicated- all these additional certificates and forms, but it’s not as complicated as novel forms of conception using donors, etc. The documentation should reflect this complicated reality, not document a false simplicity which is far from the truth.