Gay Couple Wins Right To Amend Child's Birth Record

[dumpthemonarchy]

The carrier isn't of note any more so than the car seat the kid goes home in is. When it comes to birth certificates, the new paradigm should link the certificate to a file, with all pertinent genetic contributors listed there, but for the sake of travel, passports, etc., the parents who will be raising the child should be on the birth cert.

Sounds a little too bureaucratic and impersonal, not to mention possibly hard to access the information.

Travel docs don't matter, the child should be the major concern as I see it. A pasport is different, it is not the birth certificate and another issue entirely. Let's stick to the topic shall we.

 

[karrie]

This can be argued till the cows come home...but we all know that that this birth certificate was changed to project the illusion of normalcy, just like another legal document.....

Now waiting patiently for Gerryh to blow a gasket...

No, it sounds like it was amended for precision sake. The mother listed was zero genetic relation.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

No, it sounds like it was amended for precision sake. The mother listed was zero genetic relation.

I actually have no issue with the removal of the mother --- many kids have only 1 parent on their birth certificate. I do believe to be on the certificate, one should be biologically involved in the conception in some fashion. Bill was not.

 

[karrie]

Sounds a little too bureaucratic and impersonal, not to mention possibly hard to access the information.

Travel docs don't matter, the child should be the major concern as I see it. A pasport is different, it is not the birth certificate and another issue entirely. Let's stick to the topic shall we.

Everything I've ever done with my kids from getting them bank accounts to applying for passports, required that I show their birth certificate, and be the parent listed there. My girlfriend who was widowed has to have the death certificate for her husband handy as well when applying for stuff, since the father listed now no longer matches up with the father present. It's part of the topic whether you like it or not.

This site will explain a little bit more for you on how this has been done all through our history... amended birth certificates are nothing new.
Original birth certificate - Adoption Information. General Info on Adopting a Child

I actually have no issue with the removal of the mother --- many kids have only 1 parent on their birth certificate. I do believe to be on the certificate, one should be biologically involved in the conception in some fashion. Bill was not.

My cousin and her husband are listed on their son's birth certificate even though they had no hand in his conception, they simply adopted him.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Everything I've ever done with my kids from getting them bank accounts to applying for passports, required that I show their birth certificate, and be the parent listed there. My girlfriend who was widowed has to have the death certificate for her husband handy as well when applying for stuff, since the father listed now no longer matches up with the father present. It's part of the topic whether you like it or not.

This site will explain a little bit more for you on how this has been done all through our history... amended birth certificates are nothing new.
Original birth certificate - Adoption Information. General Info on Adopting a Child

The history is short.

As long as people can EASILY find out who their biological/gestation parents are, that's the key.

The birth certificate is not a passport. Everyone has a birth certifcate, not everyone has a passport. Don't muddy the issue.

 

[karrie]

I'm not muddying the issue, I'm pointing out WHY you need a birth certificate, and why it's important that your actual parents, not just your biological ones, be listed on it. Amending birth certificates has been happening for as long as people have been adopting children, and that's been for as long as we've had birth certificates in the first place.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

My cousin and her husband are listed on their son's birth certificate even though they had no hand in his conception, they simply adopted him.

Really? I guess I have to withdraw my objections. I have assumed that the birth certificate was recording biological information only. If it is already not doing that, there is nothing different between that and John/Bill.

 

[CDNBear]

Genetics.

What about them?

Just because everyone agrees to falsity the records, doesn't mean they should be faslified.

They weren't.

There are important health and genetic facts being ignored.

Like what?

How the gestational mother is not the biological mother is playing with words, translation: it's a lie.

Do you ignore the facts on every topic you try and discuss?

Whatever happened to full disclosure?

In what?

 

[SLM]

For goodness sakes, if this wasn't a same-sex couple I'm sure they wouldn't have had to go before a judge to get this taken care of. They can't be the first couple ever to use a surrogate and a donor.

 

[karrie]

For goodness sakes, if this wasn't a same-sex couple I'm sure they wouldn't have had to go before a judge to get this taken care of. They can't be the first couple ever to use a surrogate and a donor.

Lots of adoptions go through the courts just to be made all official. This one judging from the article was just a typical case, unremarkable, but someone saw the names involved in the court records, and decided it would make good news. The title is the biggest mislead.... they sought an amendment from the court like everyone else does, and got it... they ALWAYS had the right to an amendment, they did not win 'the right' to amend a birth certificate, it was just paperwork shuffled through like any other.

 

[SLM]

Lots of adoptions go through the courts just to be made all official. This one judging from the article was just a typical case, unremarkable, but someone saw the names involved in the court records, and decided it would make good news. The title is the biggest mislead.... they sought an amendment from the court like everyone else does, and got it... they ALWAYS had the right to an amendment, they did not win 'the right' to amend a birth certificate, it was just paperwork shuffled through like any other.

True enough about the process, I doubt it would have made the papers either if the parents had not been a same-sex couple.

 

[TenPenny]

The history is short.

As long as people can EASILY find out who their biological/gestation parents are, that's the key.

The birth certificate is not a passport. Everyone has a birth certifcate, not everyone has a passport. Don't muddy the issue.

Don't muddy the issue by wanting a mother listed who isn't the mother.

 

[karrie]

I already know that and that is why I said this case differs significantly. My issue is that it sets precedent and for medical purposes that information could be a valuable asset down the road.

If you read the link I posted, an amendment doesn't erase the original. The original is still on record, and the amended version is the version the child will carry for school, passports, drivers' licenses, etc.

Well that was odd... the post times and layout made it look like RCS's post was newer than my previous posts in the the thread.... oops. It's all gone back now, but that was weird.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Quite a topic.

I believe it has gotten all the attention simply because of the same-sex parents.

Whatever the BC says doesn't really matter as long as the child has a loving, caring home and family.

Once we consider that birth certificates are fairly new in human history and mostly a tool of govt to track you from birth to death I have to say I don't care who is listed. The whole argument of health concerns doesn't come into play in my mind as there are many people who are orphans with no idea of who the biological parents are and modern medicine can treat them just as well as the rest of us.

PS: Hi to all of you, been away for a while working and just got a chance to check in. Have really missed being here.

 

[gerryh]

This can be argued till the cows come home...but we all know that that this birth certificate was changed to project the illusion of normalcy, just like another legal document.....

Now waiting patiently for Gerryh to blow a gasket....;-)

Now isn't that special.

 

[wulfie68]

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle on this debate.

I think the genetic contributors to the child should be listed, so the child can have as accurate a family medical history as possible.

I see the point in what Karrie is stating about the legal parents/guardians needing recognition as well.

I see no relevance in the sex or orientation of the parents.

Now if only the legal system could be this simple and straightforward...

 

[karrie]

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle on this debate.

I think the genetic contributors to the child should be listed, so the child can have as accurate a family medical history as possible.

I see the point in what Karrie is stating about the legal parents/guardians needing recognition as well.

I see no relevance in the sex or orientation of the parents.

Now if only the legal system could be this simple and straightforward...

Again... an amended certificate doesn't erase the original birth certificate from the records, and you can still go back and request the original. Even then though, if someone who was genetically involved in your birth doesn't want you knowing 'your' medical history, you have no right to it anyhow. Knowing who your bio-mom was gives you no right to access her medical records. So it's kind of a moot point. If your genetic line wants you to have the information, you probably already have it.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Again... an amended certificate doesn't erase the original birth certificate from the records, and you can still go back and request the original. Even then though, if someone who was genetically involved in your birth doesn't want you knowing 'your' medical history, you have no right to it anyhow. Knowing who your bio-mom was gives you no right to access her medical records. So it's kind of a moot point. If your genetic line wants you to have the information, you probably already have it.

For geneologists, the biological record is important. I think the case of surogates probably hasn't been planned for in geneology.

But if the original is available, this is fine.

 

[karrie]

For geneologists, the biological record is important. I think the case of surogates probably hasn't been planned for in geneology.

But if the original is available, this is fine.

Sure, but, do I have to plan my kids' lives to suit what geneologists want?

 

[CDNBear]

For geneologists, the biological record is important. I think the case of surogates probably hasn't been planned for in geneology.

Nor should it have to be.

Sure, but, do I have to plan my kids' lives to suit what geneologists want?

Nope.