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.

As others have already said, the father as recorded on a birth certificate may not actually be the biological father. Husbands are deemed to be the second parent with parental responsibility. This is true even when it is known that the child has been conceived with donor sperm or via an affair. And unmarried women can choose to leave the father unnamed.

So, birth certificates seem to me to be about who is legally responsible for the child, so who has parental responsibility. Very often this is the same as those who are biologically the parents, but not always. The one constant is that the woman who gave birth is always recorded as the mother/first parent.

Subsequent adoption or surrogacy would update who has PR, not overwrite the original records.

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

Yes if the lesbian couple were married or in a civil partnership at the time of conception and / or they used a licensed clinic.

It used to be the case that the non bio mother had to adopt, but the law changed about 10 years ago.

I think the birth certificate has become - outdated isn't the word, but something like that. You need - for the child - to be able to have a record of their biological parents (egg, sperm, and the uterus that carried them) and then a record of who is going to have parental responsibility for the child going forward. At the moment you've got one document that's hitting the mark. How many biological fathers in a heterosexual relationship aren't listed on a BC because the mother doesn't want them to have parental responsibility at birth? Half of AIBU it would seem.

Then they should adopt. My dad is my step father who adopted me. It's insulting to place the the non biological "parent" as equal to the mother who carried and birthed the child just because they aren't heterosexual. They are nothing to do with the baby until they make the commitment to adopt them.

What goes on the birth certificate if two gay men use a surrogate?

Do you see the lack of symmetry that you have declared homophobic on another thread?

I understand that the mother most definitely should be on the birth certificate always. That is never in question. And that parental rights should be very quickly and easily established where needed.

This isn't entirely true.

Fathers have the right to claim their status if it's not accurately reflected on the bc. Or, indeed, to say no, they aren't the father.

And knowingly putting the wrong father down is technically fraud. It's a legal document.

The fact that there is room to fudge it isn't because it's ok for mothers to lie, it's because sometimes it's not clear who the father might be, and until recently proof was often impossible to obtain.

The woman who gives birth is recorded as the mother. If she has a husband, he is the father, even if it is known by all involved that he is not. The surrogacy, in the UK, is essentially an adoption that is ordered to transfer parental responsibility from the mother to the commissioning couple/person.

The mother does. Male gay couples must apply for a parental order.

I don't agree with surrogacy or renting women's wombs but that doesn't happen with lesbians.

"it's a wise child that knows his own father", as Homer/Shakey said.

Do you think that where a sperm donor has been used in a heterosexual relationship that the women's husband/partner should not be on their child's birth certificate? Should that man have to adopt the child?

What we need is a 2 part system, one to record biological parent(s) as known, the second to record the people with parental responsibility which could be 2 women, 2 men or an unrelated opposite sex man / woman. The biological record is needed for genetic reasons, the parental responsibility is for legal reasons. For many if not most they would be identical but this 2 stage system means that same sex couples entering parenthood are protected

@Rudderneck I'm not making any comment on what's right or wrong about the current set up. I'm describing what actually happens. The point being that the birth certificate is about parental responsibility, not biological origins, although in the majority of cases these are the same.

Hmmmm, I mean, I can see your point, but not putting the second mother on the birth certificate is no different to this then.

It’s rubbish, that a birth certificate should contain a declaration of the child’s biological parentage?
Well, if you say so it must be true…

Do you think that where a sperm donor has been used in a heterosexual relationship that the women's husband/partner should not be on their child's birth certificate? Should that man have to adopt the child?

Excellent question. I haven't seen anyone complaining about inaccurate birth certificates in this scenario.

I agree with this

@RainbowUtensils - they don't. There's no special register for donor conceived children born to lesbian couples.

I find it very sad how little the voices of the donor conceived children like you are being listened to here and the whole debate is being framed as anti lesbian.

There are many many more children born using donor gametes than there have been in the past or children born via surrogacy. Those children should have the same rights to know their biological origins as children born through PIV sex between heterosexual couples. The sexuality of the parents shouldn't come into it.

Parental responsibility is only a very small part of a birth certificate. Once a child turns 18, that's irrelevant.

This has been mentioned on two other threads. YOU discussed it on one of those at least. It has been mentioned repeatedly on this board recently. Maybe you missed it.

I have 2 children with my ex wife and we are both on the birth certificate, kids are 10 and 12. There’s no record of the bio dad, but it was an at home insemination both times.
We’re in Scotland.

They are not step parents though. They are parents just as adoptive parents are parents. I am a step parent to a lovely child and that is very different from my sister who has an adoptive child and equally as different to my female friend who's wife had a baby that they decided together to bring into the world.

It's also been mentioned on this thread @Helleofabore - by someone who is donor conceived.

I think there really does need to be a discussion about this to update what the birth certificate needs to record if the information is available and it doesn't open a child or mother to abuse. There is probably a couple solutions or more. What is vital is that it centres the needs of the child and not of the parents.

It is the current framing of calling such discussion homophobic that is the issue.

Definitely, show all relevant information. It's so unfair otherwise. The original article is an excellent read.