I was listening to a discussion on Radio 4 this morning and apparently from last year lesbian couples, who have a child through IVF, have a legal right to put both their names on the birth certificate, rather than just the birth mother.

They have brought in special PARENT and PARENT birth certificates instead of traditional MOTHER and FATHER.

Furthermore, the sperm donor father can opt in or out of being named as a father on the birth certificate. BUT if the father wants to opt in and be named on it, and so does the lesbian partner, the LESBIAN PARTNER gets on the certificate! Her rights over-ride the true father.

Now, I have nothing against lesbian couples becoming parents, but isn't this a bit mad? Surely the true biological parents should have the over-riding right to be on the child's birth certificate? Doesn't the child has a right to have their true father on their birth certificate?

Now I have nothing against lesbian parents etc, and I am NOT homophobic in any way, but to me this goes against all common sense!

x

[Modified by: xx Mims xx on 19 March 2010 09:11:42 ]

the people named on the birth certificate get automatic parental responsability, in my opinion that should be mother and father, anyone else should apply for a parental responsability order or become adoptive parents.

the people named on the birth certificate get automatic parental responsability, in my opinion that should be mother and father, anyone else should apply for a parental responsability order or become adoptive parents.

iansprincess - just to clarify... when you say "the people named on the birth certificate get automatic parental responsibility" do you mean whether that be "Mother and Mother" or "Mother and Father" (or Father and Father if that's possible? I don't know!)

xxx

I'm just presuming so because thats how it works for 'mother father' so I dont think it would change if it were 'mother mother' instead x

I think it ends up depending on the couple and their situation. I know a lesbian couple with two children, one born to each woman. Both children have the same father, a family friend who is married to someone else (the wife being entirely happy with the situation). I don't know what they have done about birth certificates, but I know that they have a legal arrangement whereby the couple have parental responsibility (via adoption) and the father has regular contact with the children. All legally signed and sealed and extremely civilised.

Ideally, I think this is the best sort of situation with a known doner. Presumably it wouldn't even arise with anonymous (well, until the child turns 18) donation. So, no, I really wouldn't think of it as gay rights gone mad. Just my opinion.

I don't know the legal ins and outs with regards to the anonymous donor situation. But I have 2 friends who have twins conceived via IVF and an anonymous donor. My opinion is that the donor doesn't have any parental rights to my friends' twins.

Julie xxx

Edited to add: I agree with THG - it does depend on the specific situation. If the donor is known, then certain legal documents and agreements could be put in place to whatever 'they' (as in anyone!) all want & agree - I would hope they would act in the best interests of the child.

[Modified by: MummyJoo on March 16, 2010 11:19 AM]

I think that if the father is choosing to opt out then he had opted out of any kind of relationship with his child. The gay couple then should have parental rights. If the father is wishing to stay in contact and wishes to be on the certificate, then the other partner should not be put on or can their rights over rule the father.

I am not in this situation but I would imagine it should all be throughly thought about before the couple/father etc decide to have the child,.

i think if both parents of the same sex want to be named the name of the non paternal mother/father should be in an added section and still have mother and father or if the father is not known ie donar ( i thought it couldnt be annonymas anymore?) leave the father bit blank,

a birth certificate is a document that is suppoose to contain the biological mother and father, thats the point of it surely??

Piggypops that's what I thought!

Possibly I wasn't clear in my original post. The law now says that In the event that BOTH the sperm donor father and the non-biological mother want to be on the birth certificate - the bio father loses out - and does NOT appear on the birth certificate at all. This just does not seem right to me.

I think a father, even if only the sperm donor, has a right to be on the child's birth cert if he wants to be.

I have no problem with both the mothers having a legal responsibility - but a birth certificate is a record of birth - a biological fact surely?

x

Just modified to make it clear that I have no problem with the non-birth mother actually being named on the birth certificate, esp if the (as is more likely) the sperm donor doesn't want to be on there - just that her rights should NOT over-ride the actual father's.

x



[Modified by: xx Mims xx on March 16, 2010 02:29 PM]

Actually, it's a legal document, not a record of biology. The main point is for census reasons and to establish rights of citizenship, rather than to establish parenthood, hence why the father's name could be left off for most of the historical existence of such certificates. And plenty of certificates historically list a man who is not the actual father of the child (whether or not the father was aware of that fact).

On another matter entirely, Piggypops, I had no idea that the law on informing children of IVF was so comprehensive. Why do they need to be told if the parents' egg and sperm were used? It seems a bit redundant to me.

But THG, don't you think the biological father should be able to have his name on the birth certificate if he wants to?

I agree with The history girl....

I do think her friends' arrangement sounds the best, that the bio father gets to visit *if* he wants to but if the donor is anonymous then surely it doesn't matter anyway and both carers would be named on the birth certificate regardless of whether they are male or female...

My mum's gay but she didnt find out till I was 6 & my sister 4. She left my dad for her first partner and she was with her for 7 years but of course she didn't adopt us or anything, we lived with our dad, he was our main carer ... (Which I don't think is ideal - I've been a single parent myself and I found it tough, I think the best situation for all children is to have a mother and father figure in their lives! ) I used to feel resentful of this as a child, and I don't have a great relationship with my mum.

Ok, so I just read through the replies again, and this has interested me!

I looked it up and the legal right for anonymity for sperm donors ended in 2005. All children conceived with donated sperm after this time have a legal right to know who their biological parentage is when they reach the age of 18. I believe this is also true of adopted children.

This is because it was deemed a right of the child to know their biological parentage - for many reasons, including just wanting to know where you came from/ any genetic conditions etc. This has been researched a great deal, and although to the parents the sperm donor may not matter, it has shown that it *can* be of great importance and interest to the child.

Anyhoo, whether this info is on the birth certificate or not is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. I have always thought of a birth certificate as a document of my birth and parentage, rather than any legal census doc, but there you go!

I do stand by my original opinion though, I think if the biological father wants to be on the birth certificate, his rights should not be over-ridden by the lesbian partner of the birth mother (wow that's a mouthful!). Ideally I think wherever possible a child's true parentage should be shown on the birth certificate and other legal/parental responsibilities held on other/legal/adoption papers.

Mx

it is illigal to knowing put the wrong name on a birth certificate, so surely putting the biological mother's partner's name on it goes against this?

I do stand by my original opinion though, I think if the biological father wants to be on the birth certificate, his rights should not be over-ridden by the lesbian partner of the birth mother (wow that's a mouthful!). Ideally I think wherever possible a child's true parentage should be shown on the birth certificate and other legal/parental responsibilities held on other/legal/adoption papers.



I totally agree. I don't agree that the father rights be over-ridden, is this the same the other way round? If biological mother wnats to be on the birth certficiate but the gay partner and father don't want her to be..is it the same?

Sorry, Mims, expressed myself badly there. I didn't mean that certificates shouldn't be about biological parentage, just that historically the reason why we have birth certificates at all is for census reasons.

I think that the development of knowledge of genetics has presented very good reasons for children knowing who their biological parents are, whether via the birth certificate or not. In general I support the 2005 law regarding this. But I am not sure on the question of a lesbian partner taking precedence over the biological father. I would say that, as long as the child knows who their biological father is, it shouldn't ultimately make a difference, but that isn't a very well thought through opinion, so I might come back to you again when I am not feeling quite so run down. :\)

I'm still surprised by the IVF laws. Goes to show, you learn something new every day!

I have to disagree with most of the views on here. I think if the donor father wants to be on the birth certificate then this should be discussed before hand and if they can't agree then they shouldn't go ahead with being a donor.

The names on the birth certificate should be the parents of the child which has nothing to do with biology.

I was an egg donor a few years back and I certainly wouldn't have wanted or expected to be named on the birth certificate anywhere. As someone else mentioned any child had the right to look me up and I was fine with that and I also had the opportunity to write a 'letter' about me and my family and they also had all my medical history for information.

Sarah jb, I agree with you on the female egg donor thing - imo the mother that gives birth is then the mother and the egg donor should not go on the birth certificate. Not 100% sure that the Law agrees with us on this though - I am open to correction here, but in the event of IVF mix-ups, I believe the biological mother would still have rights. Obviously, we are talking about very rare events here!

Do think the father is a different scenario though.

I've been thinking about this a lot today, and I just can't shake off the feeling that the birth certificate should, wherever possible, show the biological truth x

I'm very confused, but I think this is my opinion...

Surely the people raising the child should have the most rights? Not sure whethere that means everyone's names go on the birth certificate or not...