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 .

What does that even mean? Mother normally refers to someone who gives birth!

@TangledRoots you asked about benefits to the child of having a non-genetic parent listed on the bc. Here's an example. My dd1 was born via informal sperm donation, and her dad has been an involved parent throughout. UK law doesn't accept three parents, so the fact that he is acknowledged as her father meant that her non-bio mother cannot be on bc and cannot adopt her. That mother quite quickly after developed early onset Alzheimers, so there is now no way my dd1 can have any kind of legal relationship with that parent. She won't inherit from her, for example. She has no legal right to a relationship with her should I decide not to facilitate this.

I am all for children having absolute knowledge of their genetic origins, but a birth certificate is not the right place for it because it is a document we use for identification purposes. People have a right to privacy. My adopted child should not need to disclose her bio parents every time we need to prove her age.

my dad beat my mother I still had a right to know who is is
majority of children adopted are adopted because they have been abused they have a right to no who their biological parents are

@Drenton I think UK law is with me on this one. The bio mother is the one who gives birth. The woman who supplied the genetic material is not seen as the mother, unless she subsequently adopts.

So in essence, you could have 3 'mothers':
The woman who donates the egg
The woman who does the work of carrying and giving birth
The man who purchased the baby such as David Furnish who was listed as 'mother' on a birth certificate by Elton John recently.

Or maybe 4, the woman who ends up doing the work of actually bringing up Elton and David's child.

Your partner/husband is not your child’s biological father he has no place on the birth certificate

he can apply for a parental order or adopt if he’s not wanting to do that then is about self validation and forwarding a lie

you can’t have 3 parents

you have tow the women who have birth and the man who’s sperm feterlised the egg the father 🤷🏿‍♂️

adopted children don’t disclose their adopted status anyone who has actually seen an adoptive certificate would not know the difference my oldest is 10 in 9 years I literally have anyone notice

also it’s about truth if your hiding the truth your wanting to hide your child’s adoptive status this is harmful or your ashamed of it

we don’t tell my kids are adopted but it’s not a secret the only people I met who want to keep it secret are those who want to miss lead their child and the pesky certificate gets in the way

every child development expert
social worker
foster carer
will tell you children need to know who they are and that trumps your blushes

if your child is embarrassed about being adopted you didn’t take good enough notes during the adoption training

The quote in your post just said "mother" not biological mother.

For those arguing that a birth certificate should reflect dna - what about if there are more than two people's DNA involved?

Posie is quite clear on who should be on the birth certificate.

I disagree with her stance. The parents are those who are caring and bringing up the child. Sure add biological parents, but also should be room for those who also are there during the child's life.

I agree with Posie.

Absolutely! But of course there's the ever crushing and over arching #bekind and it would happen anyway, let's just facilitate it.🙄

Her milkshake again eh Mushy?

We aren't even talking about her and yet here you are.

I really love Posie’s work for women’s rights but she’s not speaking from being informed here about what the effect on women (whether LGB or S, married, civil partnered or single or LTR) or children’s rights would be if only biological parents on BC.
And what does she mean by biological? Does that include genetic or gestational biological links?

@Thatgirl1981 my post was in response to a question asking what benefits could there be for a child in having all legal parents put on the bc. I'm quite aware that UK law doesn't recognise three parents - that's why I put it in my post. The point was that there are in fact some benefits to the child in having a non-bio parent recorded. Because we couldn't do this, my dd has no claim for support or inheritance from one of her parents.

You can't have read my post very carefully if you think I have a husband 😃. Or indeed if you think I haven't given my adopted child as much info as I can about her genetic heritage (not much) or think adoption is something to be ashamed of. My point was that the bc is quite a public document, one we often use for ID purposes, and therefore we don't want genetic ID on it. My dd is not ashamed of being adopted, but equally she doesn't want to have to explain it every time she buys a student travel pass.

If that’s the case, then where conception is assisted by IVF, the mother is a Petri dish.

It’s just silly. The mother is the one whose womb bore the child.

If people are fine with non-genetically related husbands being listed

No, those of us who have said it should be a biological parent are not ok with that either clearly !

With the DNA uniting it sort of comes apart and then winds back together with the two separate halves - the ‘double helix’ not a triple helix.

I think it should be:

Mother: The one whose womb the baby came out of and has the medical records to prove it.

Father: The one who registers at the birth or is married to the mother and honestly believes himself to be the biological father, or it is left left blank.
Although leaving blank could cause genetic bewilderment for the child, there can be situations where a woman is highly promiscuous or has been sexually attacked and doesn’t know who the father is, also, there needs to be an agreement from the father that he is indeed the father, so the mother can’t just name a man on the birth certificate as the father, without his presence or consent.

In the case of the use of a donor and additional section is added: Genetic non-responsible parents:

Genetic donor mother: Woman who provided the donor egg. The medical documentation proves this.

Genetic donor father: Man who provided the donor sperm. The medical and/or legal agreement proves it.

Then that child is ‘motherless’ in the truest sense. It is a child of a machine. Brave new world baby factory. You could also clone humans too. That means that people could be genetic clones, born or machines with no mother or genetic ‘parents’ either.

Not really a road we should be going down.

The important thing, is that although some people use novel methods of conception, the majority will continue to have sex and give birth to their own offspring and have both genetic parents at the registration of the birth.

We shouldn’t have to change the system for the majority, forcing paternity tests, or changing the meanings of words, etc, just because a minority use donors.

The birth registration should reflect reality as faithfully as possible and for complicated conceptions, this will mean complicated registrations and additional admin.