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 .

Yes I do. It’s about genetics, not someone’s feelings.

There is only one mother listed on the birth certificate, the woman who has not given birth is listed as a parent regardless of whether her egg was used. If you use a donated egg you are the mother on the birth certificate, if a heterosexual couple use a sperm donor then the husband/partner is still registered as the father. You can put any man down as the father regardless of genetics or you can leave the father blank even if you know who the father is, so there are many cases where the birth certificate is not representative of genetics, not sure why this only seems to be an issue to people when it involves gay people.

The child's right to basic information about themselves should be at the centre of this. I like the idea of an extended birth certificate that lists the legal parents, birth parents, egg donor and sperm donor. It could be made available to the child at age 18 and a BC listing the legal parents issued in the meantime. The solution in Italy would be to legalise lesbian adoption if it is illegal.

The legal ramifications of not having lesbian parents on BCs is a lot more complex and the issues with stigma in daily life when women or men are not represented on their child’s BC are much more intense and different from each other than some posters seem to be giving credit for.

Sperm donors (legal ones not randoms off the internet) have never been represented on BCs whether to straight or gay or married or single people so that’s a different question.

There has been loads of discussion around BCs on the Freddy McConnell court challenge to BCs threads, if people are interested.

Bottom line though most relevant to the thread title is that there is no reason not to have two women on the birth certificate when they are bringing up a child together.

That is unless you think two lesbians should not be bringing up their kids together, as apparently the Italian PM does? This issue is about lesbophobia, which has nothing whatsoever to do with identity politics. Nor surrogacy which I think is awful.

Also, if you are advocating for kids to have to have their genetic parents shown on their BCs when donor conception is used, then you are extremely naive. That would be massively invading their and their parents’ personal and medical privacy, not to mention making a proportion of women and children at risk of domestic violence and homelessness if non-paternity (which can obviously apply to consensual and non consensual sex) is shown. That’s not a win for women and children or safeguarding.

I would be in agreement with this, if Italy allowed same sex adoption. That, as PP have said, is where the campaigning should be, not campaigning to legalise birth certificates with two mothers but to give full parental rights and responsibilities to the actual parents raising the child, whatever sex they are.

I think posters advocating for birth certificates with technical info eg sperm donor x, egg donor y, birth mother this legal parents that aren't thinking about the child having to use that birth certificate in life. It's not just a legal record no one sees, you need it for starting school, getting a driving license etc. Would you want to have to share that kind of info about the circumstances of your conception with the school office or whoever?

I confess to having skin in this game - my adopted DC have a short form birth certificate in their adopted name, to use so they don't have to disclose they are adopted when using a BC as ID, and the long form adoption certificate which replaces the long form BC. If Italy did this, to give confidentiality to the child and family where biological accuracy isn't important, then I agree the long form BC should reflect biological reality.

I'm not sure which country you are talking about but you can't 'just record any father' in England. You'd be committing perjury by lying at the registration appointment.

I feel something like this might be appropriate, given that medical advances and rights changes have modified what used to be a relatively uncomplicated situation.

I think there needs to be more clarity on the function of a birth certificate and what can usefully be recorded there. Genetic information about the child is important, but so are those who will raise the child, and sometimes even gave birth to him or her. It would be better to avoid birth certificates becoming a legal battleground over who has the right to be on there and one way to avoid that would be to move from having two parents recorded to having more details reflecting various different aspects of parenting.

I think a two certificate system could work really well. One with all info on it. One for use in everyday life (school enrollment etc) with just the legal parents and date and place of birth on it - perhaps linked with a number to help prevent identity theft.

Is there an argument for there being a birth certificate showing both biological parents (if possible) and then another certificate- parental order or adoption type certificate showing who will have parental responsibility for bringing the child up.

Surely genetically it's useful to know your biological parents - you could end up marrying a sibling or close relative otherwise? Also as understanding of inherited conditions grows it may be useful to know your family history.

These points are also valid. Maybe two documents then, one with full details, the other short form for sending out. There’s not really a need for anyone other than me to know who my parents are anyway.

Maybe the solution for all scenarios is to list the 2 people who will raise the child on the BC.

After all they are the doing the parenting so should be listed as parents.

There should then be a section in the child's medical notes to record biological parental details.

This way the information is available if required, is confidential to the child, and seems to be the best way to cover all bases.

Historically there have always been children who don’t know that a parent (father) who did not actually provide the sperm, but who has brought them up, is not their genetic father.. it used to be said that about a third of all children, are not genetically children of the man they think it is. This can cause huge upset, eg over healthcare or discovery, but generally society has has accepted some untruths, which of course can benefit the child growing up.. to pick out lesbian parents however is discriminating surely, when so much “truth “ is concealed,

But naming a father on a birth certificate does not necessarily mean he is the genetic parent. For married women in the UK the assumption is automatically made ( and I emphasise it is usually the correct assumption!) that the woman’s husband is the father of the child. For unmarried parents the father has to attend the registration process and acknowledge paternity. But in neither case is any genetic test made to see if the information is correct because it is a system of recording birth that predates the science of genetic testing and relies on peoples honesty - and the assumption of marital fidelity.

The only true genetic inheritance any of us can be 100% sure of are the genes we have inherited from our mothers. To start listing multiple people on a bIrth certificate will not alter this fact. So keep birth certificates as they are, they serve their purpose effectively for the most part, but make sure that parental responsibility is recorded in the case of gay parents through properly annotated and legal adoption procedures.

If people have come to parenthood through other means there is nothing to stop them recording this in alternate ways if they wish the child to have a record when they reach adult hood.

I don’t understand why people are talking about adoption, it’s not directly relevant to lesbians who want their names on the BC of their donor conceived baby? Italy doesn’t allow same sex adoption and that’s very wrong, absolutely. Different issue.

However here we are talking about the Italian government not allowing the wife of the mother who has given birth (via sperm donation) to be on the BC of their own child?
How do people not think that’s outrageous?

If you think that it isn’t outrageous, then if you’re not homophobic then presumably you are out campaigning against the centuries old tradition of all married straight couples being able to put the man of the couple down as father on the BC unchallenged? Presumably you would insist that because he isn’t proven to be be the genetic parent, his name shouldn’t be on there? So to be certain, all fathers should have to adopt their own kids? Or just men with fertility problems who need sperm donors?

And you’re saying that all babies should be DNA tested at birth and results put on the BC? What happens when there are no matches to the parents like in embryo donation from countries where donor anonymity is allowed? No parents on the BC? What happens when parents say fuck this for a game of soldiers and refuse to have the kids DNA tested?

Your situation makes this a very interesting conversation. If it’s about biology then no, you shouldn’t. If it’s about birth, yes you should, and if it’s about legal parents then you should. It should probably be more nuanced than just “sperm and egg only”.

Should birth certificates list biological contributors even if they are not parenting the child in any way ie egg donors/sperm donors?
What happens with newborn adoption? Who goes on the birth certificate then? I’m actually asking, I have no idea.

This. The birth certificate is the child's document. End of.

Birth certificates are not and never have been a record of biological origins. Children of a heterosexual marriage have always been recorded as the children of the husband even if that is not biologically the case.

A birth certificate is a record that a child has been born and who their parents are. A non gestational mother is a valid parent. An anonymous donor is not.

Arguments about centring the child and protect their right to information seem to forget that the best thing you can do for the child is legitimatising their normal family. A child growing up with two mummies knows only that they have two mummies. A world that accepts that and removes as much friction as possible is the kindest thing you can do for that child, not constantly find ways to other their other mother.

if you’re not homophobic then presumably you are out campaigning against the centuries old tradition of all married straight couples being able to put the man of the couple down as father on the BC unchallenged? Presumably you would insist that because he isn’t proven to be be the genetic parent, his name shouldn’t be on there? So to be certain, all fathers should have to adopt their own kids?

I would consider parents naming a man who isn't the genetic father of the child on a birth certificate as the father as much of a legal falsehood as naming another woman as the mother.

the fact that it's a lie that can be 'got away with' because genetically it's actually possible for a man and a woman to create a baby and we have to operate on trust that the man that is named is the father doesn't change the fact that it's also a lie to name two women both as the mother.

Many men DO adopt the children of their wives if they aren't genetically the father.

And as the kick back of the populace against the TQ smash and grab raids starts, there go LGB rights with them. Thanks for that TQ.

It might not be legal, but in reality it happens and is hardly ever challenged because there is no mandatory DNA testing of fathers as another poster mentioned. In cases of couples using a sperm donor the husband or partner is recorded as the father, which I would argue is much “worse” if you’re concerned with the birth certificate being an accurate representation of genetics, since there is no way of that child or anyone ever finding out the father is not the biological father if the parents choose not to tell them. With two women it’s pretty obvious from the start that both can’t be genetic parents and a donor was used. Yet I never seem to see any threads started about this, it’s always when it’s lesbians using sperm donors that people are up in arms about.

Two women are not named as the mother, there is one mother (the woman who gave birth) and the other woman is registered as a parent, so there is no “lie”.

I would be out on the streets campaigning if lesbian women were being prevented from adopting and having parental rights in these scenarios,

If I have read this correctly, they are indeed denied this in Italy.

Is this actually the case? Isn’t it known now how important it is for children to know about their genetic roots. It’s why adoptions are often open and why people who were conceived by ivf have fought to gain access to information about their donors.