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 need to apply for parental order like everyone else’s or we could a section to the birth certificate called medical parent

but sperm doner is the biological father

Our genetics, all the details of the gametes provided and the woman who gestated us should be on our medical records.

The Birth Certificate is about parental rights and responsibilities at the point of birth and yes it also confers nationality because it brings the child into relationship with the state as well as his or her parents.

It is a certificate of legal personhood and legal relationships as recoded at that point in time. So the relationship of the mother who gave birth and her husband or wife or the legally recognised father or co-mother to the child, and the relationship of the child to the state.

I think that we might be going down a dangerous path if we insist that birth certificates, our relationship with the state and our parents, contains genetic details. There could be a variety of unintended consequences of a negative kind.

We use our birth certificates in a variety of ways, generally for employment, opening a bank account etc I can’t see any reason that our genetic heritage is relevant to most of that.

Have you tried this already?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adoption-certificate-application-form

Our genetics, all the details of the gametes provided and the woman who gestated us should be on our medical records.

Really??

Medical records are private. Are you saying that a baby’s medical records pre-date their birth? I am sure that isn’t true.

Surely any donors are on the mother’s medical records, shared at her discretion and, even if this information is added to the baby’s medical records, it is not public so would not be available for grandchildren, etc to access.

There needs to be a public record of genetic lineage that people can access and isn’t private and confidential like medical records.
The birth certificate is something an adoptee gets access to which tells the truth about their history. How are people supposed to find out about themselves if it is locked up in confidential medical records? There must be some indication of gamete donors on the birth certificate.

We have access to our own medical records.

Yes. So what if a child, or grandchild wants to find out about their genetic heritage, then the person who has that secret locked away in their own medical records can choose to deny them that information.

No I haven't thanks but I probably have no need of a long form BC these days other than sentimental reasons.

And this is exactly what adopters used to to do and then they would find out by accident and would tail spin their whole life adults who think it’s fine to keep parentage from a child is thinking about self

You can apply for your full BC abut it depends how old you are

They (posters strongly supporting this) don’t have any valid reasons to support the removal of these women from BCs as far as I can see. I’ve explained the advantages to the child and birth mother and they can’t even give one single disadvantage to the child or family that isn’t factually incorrect or just their own opinion of what should be on a BC and what shouldn’t. They also repeatedly post false information no matter how many times people correct them as justification for their views. When questioned about disadvantages to the child they either just don’t reply or reply with something that isn’t even true.

So I really question some posters motives tbh in supporting this….

DNA is becoming an increasingly important part of medicine (eg exome
and genome sequencing for diagnostic purposes and screening for gene mutations eg BRCA) and DNA based genealogy websites are becoming more and more affordable.

it won’t be possible for older relatives to ‘lock away’ genetic info in a personal medical record because the child will be able to access the same info via their own DNA.

I have been told that this is why anon sperm donation is no longer an option in the U.K. - 20 odd years ago it started to become clear that donor conceived children would be able to access DNA information (perhaps not the exact identity of the donor, maybe just other relatives, but that would then allow them to track the donor via social media/public records) so best to get in front of it before it happens.

So now all donors are informed that their info will cease to be anon when the child reaches 18.

Anon gametes are still available in other countries but it seems utterly pointless to go abroad for it when tech will reveal their identity eventually anyway.

Plus we know from data collected that children born from donated gametes do best when told early (via things like picture book stories) rather than it be dramatically revealed later on or a secret discovered at adulthood/after the legal parents have passed away.

I’m extremely skeevy about all sorts of fertility tech (just because we CAN doesn’t mean we SHOULD) and totally anti surrogacy but the facts are a) children born using fertility tech exist
and b) statistics tell us that children raised by two women in a committed partnership do well by all yardsticks.

If a married man can be registered as the legal parent on a BC of a child conceived with donor sperm (due to male infertility) then a married woman should be able to do the same.

Pretty sure in E&W children born to lesbians (who fulfil the quite strict criteria set out in law) have ‘mother’ and ‘parent 2’ or similar listed on a BC so no lies or language distortions are taking place and as the child has to be conceived in a clinic setting for this sort of BC to be an option, the child will have info on the donor available on request when the child reaches 18.

Perhaps in time (and as tech becomes cheaper) all gamete donors will have full genomic sequencing that can be attached (with ID anonymised) to the child’s medical record? This would likely mean that the doctors of donor conceived patients will have more info available to them than they will for a patient with an absentee parent or a patient of an adopted child in a closer adoption.

The old civil liberties arguments against DNA databases aren’t able to halt the forward march of tech, which does make me feel a bit skeevy, but we have to find ways to deal with how things actually are (whilst campaigning for law change where relevant) and not just continually insist on what we would prefer them to be.

Fingers crossed that DNA is only used for the good of humanity and not for nefarious purposes/eugenics.

If the motives are about actually caring that the child has some way of tracing their biological parents how is that anything phobic or anything ist at all?

It is possible to actually just care that a thing that exists to document a thing actually documents the thing not a different thing without being a phobe or an ist.

OK then. Let’s imagine that men’s genetic contribution had to be recorded on a child’s BC. No ‘leaving him off because he’s abusive’ any more- since many posters on here are naive absolutists saying it’s the child’s right to know via their BC. Imagine that info is all put on the BC. A public document that you might need to use to access a school, join a doctors surgery, or to show an employer.

So if genetic parents are included what do you think would happen to women’s free choice on abortion? What would it do to levels of Domestic violence? Femicide? Child abuse? infanticide? Mother and child homelessness? Relinquishing children for adoption? The numbers of willing donors of sperm to help other people, including single women and lesbian couples?

Society just isn’t ready for full genetic disclosure. It is highly unlikely that there would be adequate social supports to housing and the benefits system or emotional support to help to these women and families, just from a completely practical standpoint. It’s would be very dangerous for some women and children.

It isnt naive absolutism to think a child should have the right to know who their parents are.

If that document isn't recording the actual biological parents then what is the point of the document?

And how does having a woman registered as a parent m on the BC prevent children from knowing their genetic origins exactly? Children born from donor sperm have the legal right to information about the donor, so this does not in anyway prevent them from knowing where they came from genetically. If you think sperm donors should be legally documented on a BC as the father then that’s a whole other argument, but having a woman’s wife or partner on the BC as a parent does not prevent anyone from knowing who their biological parents are.

This is why I think a birth certificate should reflect the biological truth as transparently as is possible.

Which means the most key information is 1. The baby’s name and 2. The mother - ‘mater’, ie, the woman’s whose womb - ‘matrix’ the baby was born from, 3. The date and 4. The place of birth.
Not essential, but the biological father (if present at the registration and/or married to the mother) is normally included. PPs have eloquently explained why they should not always be included.

And in a situation where donor gametes are used, the genetic mother or father should be registered as ‘additional information’ for factual accuracy, without conferring any parental rights upon them. This extra information is only necessary because modern interventional methods of conception, using donors, has skewed the definition of what mother and father has always meant, and it is only fair that the birth certificate should equally reflect all the information a non-interventional conception would show (which includes genetic parentage) and not obscure the truth.

People who are not biologically related do not belong on the birth certificate. Just because historically some men might claim to be a father when they aren’t (to make an ‘honest woman’ of the mother) or because the mother may have been unfaithful and doesn’t want to disclose it, those who partake in this probably unlawful deception don’t change the intended meaning of the named father on the birth certificate to now be ‘anyone who shows up to claim paternity or is married to the mother’. The intention is that it should be truthful and accurate, that the father really is the father - biologically.

People who are not biologically related don’t belong on a birth certificate and they should apply to adopt as a step parent. That way it is clear and transparent. They are not a biological parent, but they do have legal parental responsibility.

If the truth about parentage is fudged on the birth certificate for the convenience, control and sentimentality of a couple in one situation, surely should be the same for everyone? That way lies surrogacy, GRA, genetic bewilderment, etc, etc.

Thank you for your insightful and informed posts Elsiebear and NicCage.

It's when people say the child doesn't need to know their genetic history all they need to know is 'x' that I struggle with. Agree with pp who say too much is being centred on adults feelings and emotions. A bit like those who focus on 'parental rights' and eskew parental responsibilities.

Well I don’t personally agree with that and that’s not how the law works in regards to lesbian parents using sperm donors, the children have the right to know who their donor is legally, so not sure why this is being used a reason to deny the wife or partner of the birth mother from being registered as the legal parent on a BC.

This thread mostly tells me that many people don't understand what a birth certificate is or does. Now you presumably have been somewhat educated and understand it isn't a record of gametes that made you I can't understand why anyone would support this move by Italy. If you want to go and begin a campaign to remove (for example) husbands of people who've have IVF with donated sperm then fine but I don't see why some Italian lesbians should be at the front line of having their families potentially devastated.

It’s very clear and transparent on BCs already that the wife/partner is not the mother, but has legal parental status, how does making them go through an adoption process to have the same outcome (legal parental status) benefit anyone?

It should be a matter of course that non-related individuals who want legal parental responsibility go through the same process.

It should be a matter of course that non-related individuals who want legal parental responsibility go through the same process.

Including husbands of people who've had IVF with sperm donation? What about women who used doner eggs?

The mother - mater is the one whose womb - matrix the baby emerged from. The donor egg doesn’t change that fact.

There is an issue for sperm donation for fathers. That’s something that takes some thinking through.