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 .

I was unaware that being a spouse carried more rights than being a biological parent, so I am certainly one person whose opinion has been changed by this thread.

I suspect it’s a common misconception as father is more generally used nowadays to mean biological father. But when the laws were written, being legally married was more significant. It may have been unspoken that the spouse and the father were not always the same man, but it is clear in the law that the mother’s spouse could be added readily, while listing the biological father was actually more complicated.

I would question whether it might be better to go back to first principles and work out what information is useful to the child to have on that paper, and why, but if it has always been the case that a spouse can be added, without question, then adding the spouse, whatever their sex, may well have been “in the spirit of the law” in a way that I hadn’t appreciated before.

I would be quite glad for my daughter to be on the birth certificate if she was married to the mother, in some format or other. I can’t see what harm that would do and I can see that it would be useful in some circumstances. But it might also be useful to have the biological father listed as well. So I’m somewhat on the fence about who should be listed and what format that should take. This entire conversation has opened up for me just how complicated parenthood has become.

I also think we need to put the brakes on some of this technology.

Its so obvious that a man with access to hundreds of women’s vaginas, wombs and eggs is going to give into his primal impulse to impregnate them all.

We need a diversity of genes, it’s not healthy our species for one man to sire so many children.

Yes, the documentation should reflect the truth, not just what is convenient and gives people fluffy feels. This does means catching up with technology. But technology mustn’t be allowed to keep advancing at the behest of desperate people and those who wish to exploit them and/or have a pervy interest in advancing it.

So the child has an incubator for a 'mother' or doesn't have one?
I suppose as long as the adults are happy?

God forbid it will ever happen. I hope that we get a handle on this. Currently it seems that the bar for ethics is set by the country with the lowest standards. Then everyone else wrings their hands and says “well if they do it in North Korea, then people will only travel there to do it, so we need to get rid of our own values”. I wish we’d take a bloody stand about bio ethics.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Human beings, like all other mammals are currently gestated within the mother’s womb.

It was always taken on good faith that the husband was the father since you couldn’t prove paternity.

The goalposts are now being moved by people with an agenda - claiming that because it was possible for a man (or mother) to lie at registration and claim to be the father in the absence of paternity tests, that means that genuine paternity was never assumed to be the truth or inferred by marriage when registering a birth, therefore the ’father’ on a birth certificate only ever meant ‘second parent with parental responsibility’. It’s not true. It’s not how it was intended. It serves a certain narrative to make that claim.

The goalposts are now being moved by people with an agenda - claiming that because it was possible for a man (or mother) to lie at registration and claim to be the father in the absence of paternity tests, that means that genuine paternity was never assumed to be the truth or inferred by marriage when registering a birth, therefore the ’father’ on a birth certificate only ever meant ‘second parent with parental responsibility’. It’s not true. It’s not how it was intended. It serves a certain narrative to make that claim

Again though, this applies (in terms of absolute numbers) to far more men who aren't genetically related to the child than women. Even setting aside lies at registration, there are many more heterosexual couples having fertility treatment involving doner gametes than lesbian couples.

But it's lesbians who have received the ire - I wonder why that might be.

I know that the OP is about Italy and lesbians, but I am interested in the wider discussion which includes anyone who uses donor gametes, etc.

I know that the OP is about Italy and lesbians, but I am interested in the wider discussion which includes anyone who uses donor gametes, etc.

That's fair enough - so what are your thoughts on this? Can you imagine the chaos and heartbreak caused if we suddenly removed all the men who are not the biological fathers from their children's birth certificates? Imagine the backlog in the adoption processes and the potential for awful outcomes if the mother died while the couple were scrabbling to get the paperwork in order.

I can actually see an argument for changing the information on birth certificates for all sorts of reasons but going back and stripping existing parental rights seems like a dreadful thing to do to families.

I think civil partnership/marriage should be considered primarily, as the spouse is the next of kin, in the terrible situation you described, there would also be evidence of what was already planned and that parental responsibility had already been applied for. All these things considered would mean that the spouse would get custody of the baby.

I know that any changes around donors and birth certificates would cause a bureaucratic hell for a few years, but I do think it all needs proper ethical scrutiny, especially since donors and methods to circumvent the adoption process through surrogacy are becoming increasingly normalised. We need the damn truth documented and we need to stop all these unethical practices racing ahead at the demand of desperate or wealthy people.

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.
It’s would be very dangerous for some women and children.
Completely agree with all your post, especially my highlighted bits and I made the same point upthread, just you worded it better 😁

If people are fine with non-genetically related husbands being listed but not OK with non-genetically related wives then that really can only be because they are against same sex couples having children.

Coconaut absolutely. Most people don’t like to think of themselves as being -phobic anything but then other people can only go on what they actually say, for whether that’s the case or not.

And I am not saying as any kind of a conversation stopper that anyone is lesbophobic. It just is the appropriate shorthand word for someone who doesn’t think that lesbians should have equal parenting rights as heterosexual people.

Thanks Bodger and I notice that nobody on the thread arguing for full genetic disclosure or the child’s right to know, or the dad’s right to know, has acknowledged the negative reality of why that requirement on a BC could be extremely dangerous for some women and their kids. I think some people think that male violence and coercion isn’t a thing?

people who are not biological parents should not be on the birth certificate

me and my husband are adopters we are not on our child’s birth certificate not sure why is different step parents can apply for parental orders

How do people expect naming donors on the birth certificate is going to work? You can’t put a man down as the father without his permission unless you’re married, otherwise they need attend and sign. I think it’s incredibly unlikely women and donors will want to do this, so are we going to make it law that women have to put the biological father down on the BC? Then force the biological father to attend and sign the BC? Are we going to force men to have DNA tests if they deny being the father? It’s all good explaining dream scenarios where everyone has their biological father on their BC, but how do you expect to achieve this?

Also, in the UK you can’t put another woman as the mother on a BC if she hasn’t given birth to the child regardless of the genetics, so in the case of surrogacy the birth mother is registered as the mother and her husband/partner the father (if she has one) and they are the legal parents. The intended parents either adopt the child or complete an application for a parental order if the child is genetically theirs. So not sure why people think lesbians having their female partner registered as a parent on a BC is providing some kind of legal loophole where people can forge BCs for surrogacy or men can be registered as mothers.

I’m also yet to see anyone supporting this give even one benefit to making these women adopt the child instead of the current UK system of being named as a parent, despite asking numerous times.

I don’t like this “equal parenting rights” talk. Let’s stick to prioritising the children at the heart of this please. Equal parenting responsibilities, sure.

There are lots of practical considerations involved in novel forms of conception, if there is a will to find a way to get around those, a little bit of paperwork is a much simpler matter, to truthfully document what took place.

With egg donors, it would be quite possible to insist that the women sign something to the effect that they will be on the new ‘genetic, non-responsible parent’ section of the birth certificate of any babies born. Because of the nature of male donors - that they can be informal and don’t require clinics, then there would be no way to insist they are put on birth certificates, but where a clinic is used, it could work the same for sperm donors.

Also, any legal agreement to protect a sperm donor from being sought for child support payments could also include a clause that he hereby agrees to be named on the birth certificate in the new ‘genetic, non-responsible parent’ section.

See, I imagine that the defenders of having non-biological parents on the BC in this thread are not alone in wanting a child’s birth certificate to reflect what they want it to show, rather than the truth of who the child is.

I think there are many people who want in on the birth certificate and probably also want to disrupt the essential fact that mother = womb. Lots of people want to play happy families and have that birth certificate as a proof of their feeling of commitment. Proof that ‘we are a real family just like any other’. The only thing a BC should prove is who the baby is and where they came from.

Unrelated people on a birth certificate is a recipe for genetic bewildering, surrogacy, baby trade, etc, etc. There will be people on this thread saying “no, but we never intended these consequences because we are all good”. However, their apparently faultless, fluffy intent will always be used as a Trojan horse. We’ve seen it again and again.

An adoption certificate is proof of commitment and responsibility. What’s wrong with that?

@Pri0n1, thank you for coming back. Let me be really clear that I didn't accuse you, or everybody on this thread, or even most people on this thread, of homophobia. I've been an out lesbian on MN for 20 years and have found it a very supportive place. I'm also not someone to throw around accusations of homophobia just because I don't like the way a discussion is going.

The point I made (or tried to) is that people need to be more careful not to fall into "my enemy's enemy is my friend" type thinking. Some posters have said that having two women on a birth certificate is akin to saying a man can be a mum. Others have said the children's needs come first, but they are only considering the need for genetic info, not the need to support children within strong lesbian families. Some are insisting this is a simple matter (if only) and refusing to concede the complexities involved. Some have said 'Good' of this appalling act of publicly stripping lesbian mothers of their legal status.

I am proudly gender critical, but appalled by some of the grubby campaigning from our side, at the easy gibes of 'groomers' and 'pedos' and applauding of right wing moralisers. We live in a pluralistic society and if kids want to dye their hair blue and call themselves non-binary that's up to them. Trans people are not my enemy. But the laws and policies of this country have to work for women and children and if we think the only way to achieve that is to tolerate careless homophobia then I'm not on board with that.

Some big leaps of "logic" there! Maybe they just think that it's better for the child to have a certificate which unequivocally states who is considered their legal guardian? Maybe they think that it is both impractical and unrealistic to include genetic information on a birth certificate?

Is that not a different certificate?

So maybe call it a guardianship certificate, rather than a birth certificate?

This thread isn't actually the law, is it? We can posit different scenarios to suggest solutions to the problem in hand and surely we can do it without calling people phobes or ists?

I think in time it will indeed become genetic information that ends up on a birth cetificate.

Well I was referring to the situation in Italy where it's not but I don't think my point of view is pro-surrogacy. Actually I am against surrogacy.

Drenton, I completely disagree that the biological mother is the egg provider. The 'mother' on the bc should be the woman who carried and birthed the child: how else can we protect women from exploitative surrogacy?

You know what gay people have seen time and time again? People who deliberately misrepresent and twist the truth to scaremonger and object to them having equal rights (and yes this is an equal rights issue since in Italy men are able to register as fathers when sperm donors are used and gay couples can’t adopt). People who profess to only be concerned about the children because they think it gives them some kind of moral high ground that can’t be argued with, despite having zero evidence that any children are being harmed or disadvantaged.

How many times do people have to explain to you what is wrong with making women in this situation adopt instead of being the legal parent from birth? It must have been explained in excess of three times yet you continue to ask the same question while refusing to answer the opposite question. What is the benefit of making them adopt?