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 is the key purpose of listing anyone other than the mother who gave birth and the father if known, on a BC? Who does this benefit?

I don't think forcing women to put the biological father on the birth certificate is actually in the child's best interests. In fact it could be quite dangerous.

whoever raises the children can change through a child's lifetime. That is entirely separate to the biological reality of who has given birth to the child.
It is also a record of who the child's de facto parents were at the time of birth. I think this is important. I know a lesbian couple who split up when their child was 10. One mother (not the birth mother) could have been completely cut out of her child's life. It was a very precarious situation.

I have to be honest here and say that it should be recorded that you are not the biological mother. A child has a right to know that it's parents are not genetically/biologically theirs. Many donor parents don't tell their child and there is no law that requires them to do so

Adopted children can get
a) a short form birth certificate confirming their birth, but not listing parents
b) a long form certificate that looks like a birth certificate at first glance, naming the adoptive parents, but the title of the certificate makes it clear it is an Adoption record entry not a Birth record entry.

Although we legally have parental responsibility no one tries to pretend we gave birth to our AC.

So what maybe we need to move towards is:

Record of birth (name, birthplace, date)
Birthing mother.
Names of those having parental responsibility (at max 2 people?)
Plus a Tick box if genetically related y/n

(Plus then maybe a 'Genetics certificate' if people stated N)

The non-biological parent who has raised the child? Also who are you counting as the biological parent when one partner has donated eggs to the other?

As the daughter of an abusive sperm donor (I will not call him a parent) something like this, tho I would like to remove him 100% from all legal records linked to me! I think the child's feelings as they grow up are more important than making this another fights about biology that doesn't need to happen. Both men or both woman are the parents from birth and should be listed on the birth certificate as the sperm donor will have no role in raising the child.

This is important and I agree with both posters here. I know many people yearn to be parents and have the skills and the care to be great parents - gay or straight. But the point should not be primarily about that. Having children is not a right. At some point in the last 30 years or so our society has changed to put the rights of adults to fulfill their dreams over the essential questions about the rights of all humans to be able to track their own history. It has gotten really messy. I do not think having a child is a right. It is a priviledge and a responsibility. Adoption and fostering is different. Some parents are not good enough and caring couples can really be important here in raising kids. Off at a tangent I know, but it is relevant to the discussion.

So imagine you are married to a woman, you both decide you will get pregnant by a donor through a clinic, you get pregnant then she decides she doesn’t want to be with you anymore and doesn’t want to help raise your child. How do you propose you would get any financial support from her if she’s not allowed to be on the birth certificate and decides she doesn’t want to adopt your child?

The child. Having a secure understanding of who they are, where they came from, a sense of self and belonging is a huge thing.

Louise Perry did a really interesting interview with an American woman called Katy Faust on centering children's rights when it comes to childcare IVF and adoption. It was challenging but definitely worth a listen...

So what is the main purpose of a birth certificate?
It is to prove the 'existence' of someone and their acknowledgement by the state.
Second to that is it to
a) record people with initial parental responsibility
or
b) record the biological 'parents'
or both?

In the old days a and b were synonymous more or less. But they aren't any more.

@Drenton nope a father is someone who raises a child, he is simply a sperm donor.

The ‘father’ on a birth certificate has always been the second parent with legal responsibility for the child.

’Father’ has never really meant biological father - if a separated woman has a baby with a new male partner whilst still legally married to her husband, her husband is the second parent with legal responsibility (this caused a massive headache for my US born, UK resident friend and her daughter’s ability to prove her entitlement to a British passport via her bio dad, because legal dad was not British 🙀)

Years ago a baby’s nationality was determined by mother only because the ‘woman a baby came out of’ is far easier to objectively ascertain than who the biological father is (pre DNA).

If a married/civil partnered couple (F&F) have had a baby via an anon sperm donor then surely the wife of the mother has just as much right to be in the ‘second parent with legal responsibility’ box as a F&M couple who used a sperm donor due to male infertility?

personally, I think birth certificates should provide the baby with as much factual information as possible and if that means adding some extra boxes then so be it (I am very anti surrogacy but as it can’t be eradicated and the baby deserves the info then perhaps extra boxes are necessary to keep up with tech)

I absolutely do not agree with erasing the names of lesbian women from the already-existing birth certificates of their children - those women took on the legal second parent role in exactly the same way the man in a straight couple using a sperm donor did.

If Italy want to change the way legal parental responsibility is recorded in future by adding extra boxes so be it but most sperm donation is anon until the kid is 18 so the ‘father’ box cannot contain any useful info anyway 🤷‍♀️

it’s already obvious that a female second parent isn’t bio dad so having a blank ‘father’ box and adding an extra category doesn’t actually tell anyone any more than was already obvious!

And presumably non-anon donors (eg a friend of the couple) can’t be recorded as ‘father’ without also having some unwanted legal responsibility conferred?

Raising children requires a lot of resources and two willing and able adults should be able to share legal responsibility regardless of whether parent two is a biological parent or not - anything that removes the ability of female-female couple to make that legal agreement will ultimately be a negative for the children they are raising - the child will have less legal security and likely less psychological security too.

(the complex issues around gamete donation is a subject for another thread 😬)

This is silly. Biologically speaking, the father is the male whose sperm unites with the ova to make the baby. The meaning of the word ‘father’ does not require his presence beyond conception.

Maybe there beds ti be two documents for such situations.

A birth certificate which names the actual birth parent - so the birth mother and the birth father, if known. A legal document which states fact, a useful document for the child in the future perhaps.

And an official legal parent document which names the legal parents of the child be it a woman and man, two women, two men, one man, one woman, etc. so naming the people who will be the legal adults with parental responsibility for the child.

BC is not there to benefit and give recognition to someone who is considered a non-biological parent at time of birth though is it, it is (and needs to be an official record of the child’s birth).

And as a record of birth not of genetic parentage it would be the mother who gave birth who would be on there. I agree that is a complex area, however to protect women I do think it’s incredibly important that a woman who gives birth has the right to be considered the baby’s mother.

yes, both sets of information useful and important to record, they are just distinctly different!

I also thought birth certificates were about the biological parents but they seem to be more about who the parents at birth are regardless of biology. I do think having two parts would be useful as sometimes it is good to know your biology.

@NicCageisnotNickCave the rules for ‘father’ is that he has to be there, present at the registering of birth or to be married to the mother. The assumption is that he is the biological father, but because that can only be proved by a DNA test (only available since the 1990s), the assumption was that the couple presenting or married were the genuine biological parents. The fact that paternity couldn’t be proved until recently doesn’t mean that father on the birth certificate is not intended to mean biological father, but just ‘second parent’, or ‘unrelated person who at the time of birth promises to play the role of parent for the rest of this child’s life’.

Enough of all of this retrospective skewing of meaning to suit modern purposes.

Maybe birth certificates should show spaces for both biological parents and additional socially-linked parents if appropriate? And whilst at it there could be spaces for both sex and gender, with the latter generally left blank unless the parents are intending to bring their child up under the straitjacket of genderconformity, but the owner of the birth certificate can add a gender later if they choose to (the bio sex wouldn't ever change without scientific evidence of a DSD which led to the wrong sex being written)

Obviously the use of donor eggs and/or donor sperm confuses matters for a 'biological' birth certificate, if somewhere did decide to go down the route if two documents. I'm not sure the best way to record that. I guess maybe a section which has birth mother/father but next to it a tick box to say if own egg or donor, or similar.

BC is not there to benefit and give recognition to someone who is considered a non-biological parent at time of birth though is it, it is (and needs to be an official record of the child’s birth).
This also benefits the child though! I agree with @NicCageisnotNickCave has written above. I used to think that the birth certificate should be about the biological parents but, on reflection, I don't think enforcing this is in anyone's best interest. Yes, a child should be allowed to have information about their genetic heritage but I don't think a birth certificate is actually the right place for this.

SignalBox but married status is relevant. It’s not deception as you would put it, to say on the BC that the husband is the dad, just because he is married to the mum who has given birth. That holds as a non—deception in law even if the whole world and their doctor knows otherwise. I’m not sure what you think happens?

There is definitely something to be said for a redesigned birth certificate,
or maybe everyone gets a short form, and then there are 'options' for long form dependent on the situation.