UK transwoman suing because Irish citizenship not recognised for his child.

[BruachAbhann]

I can't believe we've gotten to this state where a newspaper is referring to 'her sperm'!
Basically, a UK man who has transitioned to transwoman used his frozen sperm to impregnate his female partner (who doesn't have Irish citizenship). He is now suing because the baby is not being recognised as an Irish citizen. He has Irish citizenship but does not want to be registered as the 'father'.

'The woman - who has Irish citizenship while her wife does not - submits that if she has to claim to be the "father" of the child as part of the application, it would be an "offensive, discriminatory and unjust attack" on her person, gender identity and legal status.'

It's so confusing reading the article as the trans woman is being referred to as a 'woman' and 'she' but 'her sperm' really takes the biscuit.

Hopefully, this case might force the Irish government to decide whether biology matters!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/trans-woman-who-used-her-sperm-to-have-baby-with-wife-challenges-irish-citizenship-refusal-for-child/a1333201313.html?errorCode=0

Content below.
A UK transgender woman, who used her frozen sperm to have a baby with her wife, has been granted permission to bring a High Court challenge against a refusal to grant Irish citizenship to the child on the basis that she is not the biological mother.
The woman - who has Irish citizenship while her wife does not - submits that if she has to claim to be the "father" of the child as part of the application, it would be an "offensive, discriminatory and unjust attack" on her person, gender identity and legal status.
At the High Court this week, the woman was granted leave to challenge a refusal by the State, which does not recognise her as the birth mother, to enter the child on the Foreign Births Register.
The case is being taken by the child through the woman against the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney General and Ireland.
The woman is seeking a declaration from the High Court that she is legally and genetically a parent of the child.
She is also seeking an order compelling the State to register the child on the Foreign Births Register and for the child to be granted citizenship under Section 7 (1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956.

Persons born outside of Ireland who have an Irish national grandparent born in Ireland may obtain Irish citizenship through registration with the Foreign Births Register, which is maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
In submissions to the High Court the woman, who was born male, states that she is a UK resident but with Irish citizenship through her own lineage.
The submissions state that the woman had stored sperm with a UK fertility clinic, intending it to be used at a future date. She changed her name and transitioned from a man to a woman under UK law, receiving a UK gender recognition certificate.
The woman married her female partner and frozen sperm was then used to have a baby with her wife by an IVF procedure at a UK clinic.
The woman says she fears any UK withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights would mean her family could lose its protections and status in that country.

It is submitted by the woman that her child was refused entry into the foreign births registry - thereby denying Irish citizenship - as the woman was not the biological mother of the child and because her wife, who gave birth to the child, was not an Irish citizen.
The woman submitted that the Department of Foreign Affairs informed her that "under Irish law, as applied to date, the mother of the child is the woman who gives birth to the child and therefore the child would derive their citizenship through that mother".
It is claimed by the woman the department's position is that, because she is not the biological mother of the child, she therefore does not meet the requirement of an Irish citizen parent and the application cannot proceed.
The woman further submits that she could have claimed to be the "father" of the child and "could have possibly obtained citizenship by descent that way". "I feel it would invalidate me as a trans woman, invalidate my legal status as a woman and invalidate my same-sex marriage," she said.
The woman submits that if she had to claim to be the "father" of the child, it would be an "offensive, discriminatory and unjust attack" on her person, gender identity, legal status and on same-sex marriage.
The woman also submits this would also be an unjust attack "on the State's obligation to protect the family as the natural and fundamental unit group of society".
Ms Justice Sara Phelan granted the woman leave for judicial review of the matter and adjourned the case to January.

It will be the biggest shock if Ireland goes against this delusion.

I think social services should be involved to look out for the child's interest, then again they're about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

He'll have been registered as father in the UK already. He's just doing this to be awkward.

Yes, its 100% a Trojan horse attempt.

I’ll be looking forward to the Court Case!

😂😂😂😂😂

This court case is all about the transwoman and nothing to do with his bullsh*t claim about loosing rights if the UK left the ECHR. The article doesn't state whether he is on the child's UK birth cert. He is married to the child's mother so it would be incredibly odd if he wasn't. And as others have mentioned, that would mean he is registered as the father.
If he really was concerned, he would have easily achieved Irish citizenship for himself and his child if he'd filled in the paperwork and ticked 'father'. The child would now have Irish citizenship and all his 'concerns ' would evaporate.
Instead, Ireland is viewed (rightly) as a soft touch on these issues. We're going to give him what he wants and Ireland will get to pat itself on the back for being so progressive.
My question is, how do we fight that? How can we influence a court?

Why doesn't Ireland allow people to self-identity as Irish citizens??

I'd say the conversations have to be had, even though there are many who will try to stop them from happening. When people hear and know whats going on, things shift.

So - make noise.

Brilliant!

You're dead right. Time to start raising this with friends and family. I have a little hope, 3 young men I work with, who come across as progressive, 'outed' themselves to me as GC last week. They thought I'd disagree with them, and were pleasantly surprised I was on the same side. It definitely feels like the tide is turning.

"Sperm donor wants to shit on motherhood from great height"
There's your accurate headline.

Bonkers

He is the father no matter what he says.

Sperm that meets an egg and makes a baby is a dad.

I hope the birth certificate says he is the father.

How dare he use sperm to make a baby then claim he is a woman. This should be illegal.

I wonder what the actual birth mother makes of all this. Where is her role if he's listed as the mother? Does she just have to capitulate to his demands too?

Oh god, I have little hope. I've tried raising the issue tentatively with lots of people and most just give strong signals they don't want to talk about it. Some outright agree with me that TW are not W but some can't see any issues. But I'm going to keep speaking truthfully about it. I feel ready to be able to put my points across properly.

I'm in a very captured school though.

Very trixy - what an interesting way to try and piggyback being named as a mother via a child’s passport.

This whole process feels very sequential (well ordered) - freeze sperm, transition, get a GRC, marry (now have a same sex marriage license = validation).

It’s another roll of the dice al la Freddie McConnell & Steven Whittle. How far can we push / where are the soft spots / what certification & how can I be named on the certification.

& after a while, there’s so much certification that the end goal doesn’t seem such a big deal - after all, it’s just one little piece of paper…. So yes, Trojan Horse.

Interestingly there does seem to be some legal ambiguity over Irish Citizenship for children of same sex couples born overseas (I know this isn’t such a situation).

https://www.fieldfisher.com/en-ie/locations/ireland/ireland-blog/supreme-court-to-hear-states-appeal-against-citizenship-ruling-for-children-of-same-sex-couples

Irish citizenship appears to be granted through either the birth mother or the biological father, with, it appears, potentially no citizenship through a biological mother who did not bear the child, nor a same sex partner of the mother. A same sex partner of the father would never be on the birth certificate so would presumably be covered under adoption, which would grant citizenship.

I do not think this person should be able to transmit citizenship as the ‘mother’ as he clearly isn’t. But in the UK, the birth certificate has never been a record of the biological father exclusively. It is the person married to or (more recently) in a relationship with the mother. And I think it can be recorded as ‘parent 2’ rather than the father.

Obviously this man is wanting more to bend everything to his wishes, but I would respect his position more if he was wanting to be a ‘parent 2’ on the certificate and for Ireland to change the rules to allow citizenship to be transmitted that way, rather than to claim equivalence with a birth mother.

I mean, "she" is not the birth mother. Whatever about wanting to consider himself as female and a mother, he certainly didn't give birth to the child.
I am Irish, living in the UK and pretty much all my friends in Ireland are captured by this sort of thing.
So depressing.

I don't have enough brain to deal with this, several circuits were blown by the words
A UK trans woman, who used her frozen sperm to have a baby with her wife..

AnSolas · Today 14:06 has done a brilliant job re the legalities of this case over on the other thread Legal challenge in Ireland | Mumsnet.

The Irish GRA is silent on "post GRC" but the logic flow of using the word "prior" and the other sections says that the State would have to register a child as having two of the same sex parents if one has a GRC.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/section/19/enacted/en/html#sec19

Parenthood

19. The fact that a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person shall not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child born prior to the date of the issue of the certificate.

And there is imo a legal quirk if the mother has a GRC and is unmarried and not living with the father both she and the father would need a court order to be recognised as the "father" as there is no legal mother to confirm and give permission to the Registar to list a father.

In Irish case law mothers (married or not) but not fathers have a "natural" right to guardianship of their children

So its not a "simple" case of allowing him to tick the box and moving along.

And my points on the other thread that his UK GRC is not a recognised as a valid document as the Irish State requires the Minister to issue or refuse a Irish one.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5443064-legal-challenge-in-ireland?reply=148483956

And citizenship is always hotish topic plus the Consitution was amended in 2004 to limit how citizenship is established

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving-country/irish-citizenship/foreign-births-register/

So fun times ahead 😬

It's his sperm so he literally is the biological father? Having that on the birth certificate doesn't make his transition any less relevant, it's just the name for sperm owner?

Sorry but this is unnecessarily complicated. I would personally be more delighted to have a precious newborn and having been able to change gender than care about the inference on a certificate no one will see!

You really couldn't make this stuff up! What some people do to create unprecedented unnecessary problems...

Nope its a big political head pounding on the table issue for the Judges involved.

Remember the Irish Citizenship was asked to remove Woman and Mother from the Constitution in 2024 and only 1 area of Dublin had a Yes majority of 0.29%
The vote total vote was 67% no

And the child has a stronger right to parents and a family than parents have to their children as the Children amendment was designed to "break" the family section and allow the State to remove parental rights from parents who refuse

[(Edit : gurrrr MN ate my formating 🤨)

THE FAMILY
ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

1 2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2 2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

CHILDREN
ARTICLE 42A
1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

2 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

2 2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3 Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4 1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings—i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, orii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

4 2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child. ]

This is a brilliant comment.

How ridiculous and what a waste of tax payers money having to deal with this utter nonsense.

But it's a total straw man to use to argue that a man can throw a tantrum about not being recognised as a mother for the purposes of the citizenship of his child. This is just petulance.