Lesbian mothers should be on birth certificates

[SapphosRock]

Great article from Kathleen Stock.

unherd.com/2023/07/lesbian-mothers-should-be-on-birth-certificates/

It is surprising to me that anyone who supports women's rights would oppose lesbian parents having equal rights to straight parents.

From the article:

Naming a second lesbian parent on a child’s birth certificate is a family-friendly move. Arguably, if you squint a bit, it’s even a socially conservative move — though agreeing probably depends on whether you take, as your baseline, a society where lesbians will have children anyway; or whether you think of it as a cultural aberration that could, with discouragement, be stopped. Either way, putting a second lesbian partner on a birth certificate officially defines and legitimises her parenting relation within the family, allowing the burdens and joys to be shared between two adults, and adding a second layer of protection for the child. Family stability is important for good childhood outcomes, and this measure seems to provide some.

I think it might be time to alter the existing birth certificate or move to a 2 cert system - one that records biological data and one that records parental data.

This! The birth certificate should be a factual biological document, but could be expanded to add on other non- biological parents where appropriate.
And the sex should be recorddd accurately for all parties, with the option to add-in identities where necessary.

I’d agree I think a birth certificate should record biological reality with an additional certificate to record those who have parental responsibilities where necessary.

Lesbian couples with donor conceived children have this already.

The sperm donor details are recorded in a separate document.

What currently happens with births where the mother gives up the infant to two gay men adopting? What is the symmetrical arrangement for a family of two gay men vs two lesbians?

I agree, biological reality.

You may have used a U.K. donor @SapphosRock but thousands don't. Many children whose mothers used donor eggs to conceive have no idea that they are not genetically related to their mothers.

What about a child's rights to know their biological origins?

Normally, on adoption, doesn't the birth certificate get replaced by an adoption certificate which looks exactly like a birth certificate, with the original no longer being public records [only available to a few people in a few circumstances] and the adopting parents being listed as just 'parents'? This feels just the same?

No they shouldn't, just like any other step parents shouldn't be on the BC.

So gay men don’t get both their names on a birth certificate using the logic that is being used here?

There is a discussion to be had here about what a birth certificate means and is used for. And It should be discussed without accusations of homophobia as I have seen on other threads and on social media.

Its important that children thier biological history

But the point of the birth certificate is to show legal parenthood.

I think it should be the same as when a child is adopted.

I have a copy of my original birth certificate. I also have one with my adoptive parents names on. That’s right and proper.

Does the non-biological mother usually adopt the baby? If not, they won’t be legally their parent if something happened to the biological mother.

I have to admit, it’s not something I’d ever thought about before.

Definitely food for thought and one to mull over.

A lot of birth certificates are already not factual. I believe the accepted figure within modern DNA paternal tests is around 1% and I have found queries about my ancestors and likely non parental events that the father named is not the biological father.

I am astounded by how many people think my daughter-in-law should not be named as a parent on her DS's birth certificate.

The mother (surrogate) is recorded as the mother on the birth certificate.

After 6 months the gay couple can apply for a parental order.

Lesbian mothers are recorded on the birth cert. No child has two biological mothers…
The birth cert is supposedly an accurate record of the child’s biological makeup, nothing to do with appeasing adults feelings.

It is incredibly insulting to suggest that when a lesbian couple have a child together one of them is a step parent.

A step parent has no parental rights.

They don't need to adopt. In certain circumstances (specific types of conception within a marriage) both women will be on the birth certificate and have equal rights and responsibilities.

Do non-biological lesbian mothers have parental rights if they don’t adopt the baby legally?

So they are on birth certificates?

Ok I’m officially confused.

I thought this thread was about them not having a place on the birth certificate.

I'm donor conceived and I agree with this. I didn't realise lesbian parents had the sperm donors details recorded separately - how does that work?

My birth certificate is effectively a lie, as my dad's name is on it and he's not my biological father, but as my parents are heterosexual there's no question about it. There should be.

Biological certificate and legal parent certificate all the way.

The birth cert is supposedly an accurate record of the child’s biological makeup

This is rubbish. The birth certificate shows who has legal parental rights for the child.

Also, mothers have the option to leave out the father, can be mistaken about who the father is or can deliberately lie. Registrars aren't enforcing DNA tests at the Town Hall!

There are few differernt ways birth certificates can be managed, but fundamentally they should be a record of the biological parentage of the child. And that includes donors, if there are donors.

The "lesbian mothers should have the same rights as straight mothers, I am surprised to see Stock arguing this. A homosexual couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple when it come to the possibility of producing a biological child. THat's not a rights issue and trying to make it one results in the kinds of legal knots we should all have learned to be wary of.

The certificate belongs to the child. As people here are happy to say about the bc of children born to gay fathers through a surrogate, or for that matter adults who believe they have changed sex - it is not there to validate anyone. It is there to record material reality. No one has a "right" to legal recognition of the counter-factual.

Adoptive parents, and other people in parental roles for that matter, like step-parents who are not biologically related, or other family members raising a related child,can have a deep and important relationship with children they raise, very similar or even identical to the social role of mother or father, and it's possible to recognize their guardianship legally.

I don't expect to suddenly see a bunch of people on FWR claiming that gay fathers of a child should both be on the bc because they have the same rights as heterosexual parents. But if that's the principle that's relevant it would apply to them equally.

I do think the birth certificate system needs an overhaul and agree there should be two certificates, ones with biological data and one with legal responsibility. Men who have shown no interest in their DC for 10 years can go to court and be given PR, yes they should be added to BC but PR of a child they've never met?