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 .

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/03/children-donor-conceived-origins-sperm-egg-donations

A birth certificate is a record of a child's birth, not of their conception.

We don't allow people who are going to raise the child to be listed at birth rather than the birth mother because that aids in the trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation of women and children.

We do allow the mother to register the birth without naming the father because in countries where mothers are not allowed to do this millions of children go unregistered and are stateless and without basic human rights as a consequence. It is a woman's human right to register her child's birth and pass on her nationality without the consent or presence of a male.

The West has become really selfish and inhumane in constantly putting their own concerns and wants over the consequences for women and children globally.

The two aren’t incompatible. Yes all the evidence is that children do need the truth from day dot explained to them in simple terms. But the truth is some children have two mummies and one of them needed help from a donor to make them. That can be explained to children while still allowing the birth certificate to record both legal parents.

Accurate records need to be kept for the child's benefit. Look how important it is to many adopted children to be able to have access to the records of their birth parents, even if they were very happily adopted they want to know their true background. There are things like medical history that might be helpful. At the same time I agree that everyone you give your birth certificate to for ID purposes doesn't need to have your full parenting history. A certificate for this purpose could just have your legal parents.

Just intrigued what happens where the “donor” objects to not being named on the birth certificate?

Birth certificates should be factual and scientific, so sex and actual parents/mother.

There should be other paperwork in place for legalities of parenting.

But that doesn't mean I'm against same sex parents, although I'm not for surrogacy. It's all very confusing.

Without being rude, you clearly know nothing about donor conception in the U.K. It’s never been the case that donors have been listed. In most cases the parents wouldn’t have the information to enable them to even do that. The law has now changed so that children can find out information at 18 and that doesn’t preclude children being told from day 1 that they have a donor. (And for the children of lesbians, they realise pretty early on that they don’t have a daddy like their other friends!)

How horrific that if the biological mum died then that baby could be taken away from its other mother.

Perhaps this underlines the confusion over what a birth certificate is here - mine doesn’t represent biology as I am adopted and my very names my adoptive parents (as it should). Maybe generally we need more complicated certificates with more options as that would keep the security of the parent child relationship which prioritises the baby. This is homophobia that does nothing to keep children safe and validating it, in the absence of a system to secure gay parental rights in advance of any removal from birth certificates, is abhorrent.

When someone adopts a dc presumably they have a birth (adoption)certificate with them named as parents.
Surely a same sex couple are entitled to both be named as their dc’s parents.
It’s the most sensible and kind approach.

That's an interesting point.

Perhaps birth certificates should only have the birth mother (and egg donor?) and not be changeable as the birth mother is not going to change.

And a separate certificate, issued at birth, but possible to change which has things like parents etc as parenting arrangements can change?

Incidentally and a bit pernicketly Favouritedog, my ‘true background’ is that of my adoption and my parents. My ‘true’ family history is theirs. As an adoptee while I can access my birth mother’s name and whatever other info is held on file, I have no wider rights to any information or any medical history. Your idea of the two certificates is what we have as adoptees but the second supersedes the first, legally replacing it. This is very much not what the Italian government would be in favour of for these gay families and their children.

A birth certificate belongs to the child not the parents. It should contain factual information not the wishes or delusions of adults.

Men should not be registered as mothers neither should women who did not give birth.

This is part of the slippery slope thing we are all now feeling the consequences of. Data needs to remain actual data.

Why don't we strip this back to the questions:

'what is the purpose of a birth certificate?'
'who is it for?'

Families have changed so much in how they are structured and function (gay couples, lesbian couples, egg donors, sperm donors, out of 'wedlock') I don't think we can look at how things historically have worked, but look at what is needed now.

Thinking of those question, birth certificates are clearly for the child, the parents, and the state.

The parents - to prove legal parentship

The state - accurate/factual record keeping

The child - to know who parents are, and also to know genetics..

Knowing one's genetics is much more important these days, now we know how many diseases are hereditory. To be able to know if you are pre-dispositioned for certain cancers is quite important.

I think that there is an innate curiosity in us to want to know who our ancestors are. This is clear with how popular DNA testing for ethnicity/geneaology is. Similiarly the high use it of ancestory websites.

So maybe updating birth certificates so that they show:

Parental (legal) mother at time of birth:
Birthing mother:

Genetic mother:

Parental (legal) father at time of birth:
Genetic father:

This way it covers all situations... if you were legal, and birthing and genetic mother then your name would appear three times. If another egg was used, then the egg donors name would appear. If a surrogate was used, her name would appear.

If you were in a lesbian couple, both names would appear as legal mother, but only one as birthing and genetic.

It could be that only parents listed as parental/legal have any parental rights. The names listed as genetic and birthing are only their for the child to be able to know their history.

It might also mean that three parents could be listed as having parental rights: maybe a lesbian couple used a friend who is a sperm donor and they also want him to have parental rights. His name could be under legal father, whilst both theirs also under legal mother.

I think what is important is not to allow emotions to get in the way, its obviously an important document for all of us, and in the end it is our own birth certificates which we use throughout our own lives, so what does the child need, not 'how is does this make me feel'.

If you aren't being rude there's no real need to state it is there?

I was thinking more in terms of where arrangements have been made for a donor to provide sperm to a Lesbian couple outside of a medical IVF situation.

A birth certificate should be factually accurate. The Adoption certificate can state the actual adults doing the parenting. The child's rights to a factually accurate record of its origins supercede the potential mother/father/nongenderspecific individuals wishes regardless of the race, religion or sexual orientation of saud parents. This is a black and white issue and the child's rights must come first.

The birth certificate is only for data surrounding the child's birth. Who the legal guardian is can change any time and has no effect on the circumstances of the child's birth.

Adoption papers and the likes can be added to the child's file to prove who the legal guardians are. There is no reason what so ever to mess with the birth certificate.

It needs to stick with the data.

I would agree with this, if Italy allowed gay adoption. But they don't. That's the issue here really, if they did then the birth certificate could name the birth mother and adoption certificate name the two mothers and job done.

But now we've got two competing needs - the need for birth records to be accurate, both for the child and the state; and the need for the actual parents of the child, in this case the two mums, to have full legal rights and responsibilities for the child. Which is pretty urgent if that means the non birth mum can't consent eg for medical treatment for the child, or would have no rights to raise the child if the birth mum died. IMO Italy needs to legalise same sex adoption, that's the problem here.

You've expressed what I've been thinking.

I am an adoptive parent. Adoptees don't get a new birth certificate; they get an (additional) adoption certificate and use this for all legal purposes.

The birth certificate should state the biological parents. Children have a right to know this information. It is important for their sense of identity and for medical reasons. Many donor conceived children struggle with their sense of identity. I know children who are in therapy because of this.

I don't see the difference to gay parents, sperm/egg donation etc. At the same time, it needs to be guaranteed that gay parents have equal rights. I would introduce a certificate stating the legal parents which would be used for all legal purposes.

I think the birth certificate should only have the biological parents on it. It should be a factual record of the birth.

As other have said an additional adoption certificate can be issued.

I’d like to strip it back to the question of, why is it of any benefit to the children born by donor conception to married lesbian couples, for the Italian government to take away their other mother from being recorded on that child’s birth certificate?

Please someone explain to me why you think their other mother should not be on their BC? This the other mother who is also picking the child up from school, making medical decisions about them etc etc and who will continue to always be the child’s other mother even if they were to divorce from the mum in future?

Posters who are wanting BCs with full genetic disclosure- a very risky to children and women position to be advocating for- please bear in mind that the mum who did not give birth, whom some of you are arguing has no right to be on the BC, may be the child’s genetic mother, if the lesbian couple used her egg in IVF with the donor sperm.

Donors of gametes are not parents in the eyes of the law which is why they are not identified on the BC. That’s a different question.

I feel as though I might need to state for the avoidance of anyone’s doubt that parents who give each other gametes to have a baby together are not donors, they are parents, before anyone tries to suggest that normal egg donation rules should be applied to lesbian couples transferring eggs between themselves.

I can’t see any non-lesbophobic reason why any of this explicit discrimination by the Italian government benefits the children of lesbian couples or lesbian couples themselves, or indeed would benefit wider society. So it’s a shock to see so many posts thinking this is a good move.

We clearly need to rethink what the purpose of a birth certificate is.

Is it provide the child, society and the state with adults who are legally responsible for the child’s upkeep and wellbeing?

The legal mother is the woman who gave birth to the baby. Anyone she is married to should be named as a legal co-parent because there is an existing legal relationship between the two adults.

Perhaps if mothers are unmarried only the genetic father should be listed because he made the choice to part with his gametes in the direction of the mother and therefore bears some legal responsibility for the child, financially and otherwise.

If the mother chooses not to name a father or a father chooses not to acknowledge paternity then the child of an unmarried mother has only one legal parent until another adult adopts the child as some step fathers have done, so a comother who isn’t married to the legal mother could then adopt the child and become a legal comother.

Parental responsibility in the UK

https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities

Out of interest Onlytherain do you still get a short birth certificate reissued (don’t think they are meant to be used as id but mine seems to have been generally accepted) or has that stopped as the stigma of adoption has (hopefully) been lost?

could another woman, a friend of the mothers put her name on the birth certificate also? - no.

could a man who is not the father put his name on the birth certificate? - not legally, no.

can anyone other than the biooligcal mother and father out their name on the birth certificate? - no.

clearly the birth certificate is for biological parents, and biology determines the need for 1 male and 1 female.

So it isn't lesbophobic because it isn't excluding lesbian partner/parents whilst including others.

what IS lesbophobic is allowing another man to adopt the child, but not another woman.