"Bio mother had child and her girl friend was at the hospital. The hospital checked the box as thought the girlfriend was a registered domestic partner and put girlfriend as parent on birth certificate. Parties were not registered domestic partners. Vital Stats says they will not correct the hospital error without a court order."
'CERTIFICATE OF TITLE'
Once upon a time, birth certificates contained the child's name, date and place of birth, and the names of the child's biological parents. Then the
"authorities"--governors, state legislators, registrars of vital statistics--came up with the idea of creating amended birth certificates showing adoptive parents as the parents, the adoptive mother giving birth in a place she wasn't at a time she was doing something else. In some states they went so far as to create a fictional city of birth, one a place where the adoptive parents lived at the time of birth. The idea was to spare the child the stigma of illegitimacy and make adoption "normal." Later legislators enacted laws sealing the original certificates to protect the privacy of the adoptive family and set in cement that the child was "as if born to" the adoptive parents.
Because of this chicanery, the idea was implanted that a birth certificate was something akin to a certificate of title, a document showing legal relationships, rather than the actual facts of an individual's birth. After various court cases around the world, today birth certificates in many places show the parents as Parent 1 and Parent 2 where the adoptive parents are of the same sex rather than a mother and a father. The birth certificate then shows that one has two mothers, or two fathers, but no relationship to a parent of the opposite sex. Yet clearly...such a parent was somewhere and somehow involved.
FATHERS OFTEN ACED OUT
From what the lawyer quoted above wrote, it would seem that anyone could get their name on a birth certificate, just by hanging around a maternity ward. It would seem. But in the case of unmarried biological fathers, sadly this is not the case. As countless fathers have discovered when they try to gain custody of their children, they have to go through a legal maze to appear on the birth certificate--and if they don't act quickly, the baby may be adopted by genetic strangers and their identity totally lost and up to the birth mother if she wishes to reveal it. We've written about several cases here at FMF (see below) where the fathers were cheated out of the right to raise their own children when the biological mother wanted to give the child up for adoption. Many or most of the cases involved adoption agencies in Utah where state laws are heavily geared toward mothers who wish to give up their children and not involve the father. Agencies in Utah are only too happy to hurry the process to eliminate the biological father.
Another weird situation occurs when a parent named on a birth certificate allows another to adopt his child, and thus a "new" birth certificate is issued, thus negating what is true to the individual whose birth certificate has been falsified. This happens as a matter of course when step parents are allowed to adopt the children of a partner; it is often done with the best of intentions on the part of the adopting parent, but legally, it has the effect of wiping away the true parent. We know of cases where biological fathers and children later unite and wish to undo the fallacy of the new and amended birth certificate, but are stymied in their efforts. In short, the whole business of creating a false birth certificate for individuals creates legal confusion, and often, lifelong heartache.
We are sympathetic with people who obtain children through unnatural means--we understand the pull of parenthood as well as the desire to help children in need--but surely falsifying original birth certificates is not in an individual's best interests. A birth certificate should be exactly what it purports to be--a certificate with the actual information of birth: real mother and father, time, date and location of birth. Anything else is a document bearing false witness, a document that perpetuates a lie and becomes a burden for the individual. Somewhere there needs to be a document containing a child's true biological parentage. A second document, once containing all the adoptive information, should be sufficient for legal matters, such as support and guardianship. But one birth certificate ought to be just that: a true and accurate record of one's birth.--jane and lorraine
Is it a 'Birth Certificate or Certificate of Title?
Father's Names on Birth Certificate: More artifice than Fact
Unwed Fathers Can't Win Against the Mormons in Utah
Utah adoption laws becoming more hostile to birth fathers?
Adoption in Utah: No place for birth fathers
What's wrong with stepfather adoption?
Lethal Secrets by Annette Baran and Reuben Pannor
"Lethal Secrets" takes a long-range view of donor insemination by interviewing donor offspring, donors and parents years after the fact. Taking a hard look at the ramifications of secrecy and donor insemination is not the norm, nor is advocating for openness. Many, if not most, doctors, patients and sperm banks continue to advocate for secrecy, blithely ignoring the psychological dangers of this widespread practice. Baran and Pannor are ahead of their time. They support donor insemination, yet argue persuasively for openness: not only is it every child's right to know the truth of his or her genetic heritage, it is healthier for the parents and the donors, as well. If you are considering using donor insemination or even donor egg to have a child, this book is invaluable. I only wish the authors would write a book specifically about the psychological aspects of using donor egg."--A reviewer at Amazon