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 .

The way to stop surrgocey is to bring them in with adoption rules like step parents have to step parents have to go through the adoption process like all other unrelated biological adults who want to be legally recognised to parent a child

What a good idea.

No because the fathers name should be there again children have a right to know who they are adults right to be validated doesn’t trump that right

is fundamental

go get a parental responsibility order you have all the rights of not then is just self validation

Parents of surrogate children have to adopt the child or apply for a parental order (if the child is genetically theirs), they can’t falsify a birth certificate and say they are the mother.

Agree.

crazy to think anyone with money can buy a child, only criteria is money.

In Italy surrogacy is not legal so it doesn't make sense to allow people to do it abroad.

They should have to go through the adoption process like step parents

like all other non biological adults

it would stop over night most of these people are unhealthy and many of the surrogates have MH Amy husband is a nurse and a HCA at work did 5 he said she was really odd

Every child has a male and a female parent.

Every single one.

We're creating fictions here.

Children have a right to know their genetic heritage. No matter who is raising them.

It's fundamentally important to people, and it's reality.

I don't understand where this duscussion has gone. My birth certificate says father and mother. Has that changed to parent 1, parent 2, and any other parents? Are people wanting it to?

*Every child has a male and a female parent.

Every single one.

We're creating fictions here.*

Again - it's not a fiction. Noone is claiming that a child has two mothers and no father. But not every child has a male parent in their life.

Isn't that a good reason why it gets recorded? So a child who has no contact, for whatever reason, has a name if they ever do want find them. It's well documented that adults with an absent parent often have a great need to find the missing side of their family.

So you don't think sperm donors should have anonymity until the child is 18 anymore? What if a mother doesn't want to name the father?

A mother isn't forced to put a father onto the birth certificate but I do think they should be on there. It's not the mother's document.
I understand in rape cases, a mother wouldn't want to do that. But a record should be kept for the child. If it's not attached altogether, then I don't see how complete information can be passed on. Maybe these days, with computers, there could be a second part to be issued, if so wanted, at 18? But I believe that everyone should have as much information as possible about their biological background.

No because the child’s need is more paramount that that adult’s

again a lot of talk about the adults that in it’s self is very telling

Every child has a father

and it’s the not having a father in their life and the father shaped whole that we’re trying to correct

If you have a controlling or absuive male partner and you get pregnant, its a really good idea not to put their name down on the birth cert. (if at all possible). It's easier to escape them and its harder for them to demand access to the child, unless they are very determined and have the money for DNA tests and solicitors.

A mother cannot have the father named on the birth certificate unless they are a) married or b) he attends the registry office in person.

So no dice if he’s already done a runner.

If the father’s name IS recorded on the birth certificate he automatically has parental responsibility (if he isn’t recorded he can still acquire parental responsibility via the family courts).

A lone mother with an ex who has parental responsibility for their child via naming on the BC has to theoretically get the absent ex’s agreement on decisions taken on the child’s behalf (eg school choice, permission to take the child on a foreign holiday, changing the child’s name etc) which can obviously be manipulated by the ex as tool for coercive control.

Of course a child should be able to know their biological origins but the current system of birth registry in the U.K. can make recording the father’s name impossible and/or undesirable.

I think there should be two documents. One with full details. One with just the legal parents on it. So full birth certificate would need three spaces for ´mother’ -genetic, gestational and legal parent (although that could be two men). Someone in your situation may have ´egg donor xyz fertility clinic AB’ and then you as gestational and legal mother. Legal parents certificate would have someone in your situation listed as mother/parent 1. And the legal parentage certificate should be the one asked for as ID for schools etc in everyday life.
So yes, basically I feel there should be a legal record of Children’s history, that would be freely available to the child at 18. But I think this needs to be set up to ensure that there is no negative day to day impact of parents of donor conceived children (whether within a heterosexual or homosexual relationship or as a single mother). The situation in Italy where one of the child’s mothers is being effectively stripped of parental responsibility is entirely unacceptable. I don’t think it should be an option to keep secrets from children about their genetic origins.

I don’t think people with no biological relationship should be on the BC. It should remain as it is now in the UK, with the mother registering the birth and for the father to be either the man who shows up to register and/or is the man who is her husband, otherwise no father is registered. There’s no need to change what currently works for the majority to accommodate novel methods of family creation.

Now that we have donor gametes used, there should be an optional additional 2 spaces for “genetic” mother and father, if required, and this would need medical evidence and a legal agreement from any donor parent, but this space should not confer any legal responsibility on the named donor parents.

I think any non-biologically related person who wishes to share legal responsibility with the mother, should not be named on the birth certificate, but should apply for a step-parent legal responsibility agreement as per Thatgirl1981 ‘s post yesterday at 20:46. They could apply before the baby is even born to make that as soon after the birth as is possible.

With the Italy thing, I think they should change the law so that same-sex couples who are civil partners/married can apply for the step-parent legal agreement rather than having unrelated people on birth certificates.

The birth certificate is not about genetics. It is about who has parental rights and responsibilities at the birth.

That is the woman who gave birth to the baby and forms a dyad with the baby. She is the legal mother regardless of whether the egg is hers or not.

Whoever she is married to will have shared parental rights and responsibilities for whatever children she bears whether there is a genetic relationship to the child or not.

If she is not married she can declare who the father is whether that is correct or not genetically and if he agrees to accepting paternal responsibility he can go with her to the registry office when she registers the baby.

As pp said, if there is any question of a difficult relationship or the mother doesn’t believe him to be a suitable father she doesn’t have to name him. Then he won’t have any rights or responsibilities towards the child. He can apply for parental responsibility through the courts, I think that will only be granted at that point if he is proven to be genetically related to the child.

Anyone interested can find more information on the UK government website.

Point is that a birth certificate legitimises (makes recognised by the state) the relationship between the child and his or her mother plus usually a father who can be presumed to have provided the sperm but not necessarily and it doesn’t matter much to the state that he did or not. It just means that that man or nowadays other woman will assist the mother in providing for, caring for, disciplining etc that child so that the state doesn’t have to.

Pregnancy and birth are the key elements of biology in the birth certificate (clue is in the name?) genetics are not important except in proving paternity where that is in dispute and one or other party wants it proven.

@Thatgirl1981
If you don't think people with no bio relationship should be on the birth certificate (which is not an unreasonable point of view) how do you deal with donor sperm, or indeed donor eggs?

Also on another point, along with learning about pig arcs etc, one thing I learned from The Archers is that a step parent can apply for parental responsibility as a separate act from adopting.

Nice comment @PomegranateOfPersephone

I know that heterosexual couples with no donors used are the majority, but there are increasing numbers of families where this is not the case, and it doesn’t just concern homosexual couples. The old way is no longer fit for purpose, if it only works for the majority and not for all. We need a new way that doesn’t sideline or other parents in family set ups outside of man+woman (preferably married) = baby. I agree with you that the biological origins of children should never be hidden or dismissed, which is why I think there should be a legal document recording it. That document should look the same for everyone - if you’re in a traditional set up you would just write the mother’s name three times (genetic+gestational mother + legal parent 1) and the father’s twice (genetic father +legal parent2). But there would also need to be a document with just the legal parents on it for purposes where only the legal parents are relevant. (Of which there are probably far more than times where all the info needs to be disclosed).
Your idea of lesbian mothers needing to adopt their own children really doesn’t make sense if (as if fairly frequently done) one mother provides the egg but the other mother carries the pregnancy. - So the non genetically related mother is the one who gives birth.

You say it’s not about genetics, but the birth certificate predates women having another woman’s egg implanted in her womb and predates DNA testing.

So there was a correct assumption that the mother was the mother in all senses of the word before that natural process was split apart by medical intervention.

There was also a faith in the fact that the man showing up to register and/or was married to the mother, was in fact the father - biological/genetic. But since there was no way of proving paternity like we can prove maternity, registrars had to believe it was true.

What you say here is wrong about the purpose of the birth certificate: “It is about who has parental rights and responsibilities at the birth.”

The birth certificate is not just a document for the duration of the childhood of the person, some kind of ‘right to parent’.

It is about the identity of who lives in the country. Births, deaths and marriages are all recorded, so the State has a record of every citizen living or dead and every family.

The birth certificate will used throughout a person’s life as an identity document. It doesn’t exist solely to prove parental responsibility. That is an important use for the birth certificate, but it is not it’s primary purpose.

Of course the birth certificate is about genetics, that's the whole point.
It's about your bloodline, it's about your history.

I like the idea above, of

1. egg donor (no legal rights)

2. gestational mother (default legal unless someone is in 3 - cases of adoption/surrogacy)

3. legal mother

4. sperm provider (default legal unless someone is in 2 - case of donation)

5. legal father

Thank you ElsieBear, CarryOn and Persephone (sorry if I have missed other names) for keeping on arguing for the rights of married lesbians in Italy not to have their names stripped off their own kids birth certificates.

The point is this is the Italian government don’t care if there is a genetic relationship via IVF or not. They allow same sex marriage but not same sex donor insemination in Italy. The Italian government aren’t calling for, or even allowing, actual genetic reality to be recorded on BCs. (That is a terrible idea for safeguarding that naive posters seem to keep pushing for)

The Italian government are simply working on a crude moral punishment of children basis. They just don’t want two women (or two men but let’s have that discussion separately) having kids together. So they are retrospectively taking the non-birth lesbian mother’s name off their kids BCs. That’s it.

If you can’t see a problem with that then that is lesbophobia. Why should married lesbians whose wives give birth be treated differently to married men whose wives give birth, who are allowed to be on the BC?
Why do you think it is better for a child with married parents to live in unnecessary legal precarity simply because only one woman out of the two who is doing the daily parenting, is allowed to be listed on the BC? What happens if the wife who gives birth dies? or the couple splits up?

More importantly it’s not ok for a government retrospectively make some kids second class citizens? It’s not ok for some marriages to be less valid than others. It’s explicit lesbophobia and I hope the European court of human rights will force a change of policy if they can’t do that domestically. It’s an awful thing for a government to do.

Not read the full thread so apologies if this has been answered.

I'm an adoptee and have never had any sort of legal document that names my adoptive parents as my parents. There is a birth certificate I could access once 18 that names my bio mother/father (if named). Then I have a short form BC that has my adoptive name, DOB and place of birth. That's it.

Maybe more recent adoptions are done differently, I'm not sure.