Gay couple wins right to amend child's birth record

[alp227]

Source: CBC News

A same-sex couple in Saskatchewan have successfully won the right to have the name of the woman who carried their child removed from their daughter's birth certificate.

In a judgment published to an online legal database this week, the couple — identified only as John and Bill — won court approval to list John as their child's father and Bill as an "other parent."

According to the judgment, the couple had entered into a contract with a woman — Mary — who agreed to carry a child for them.

"Mary underwent in vitro fertilization of an embryo created by using the sperm of the petitioner, John, and ova from…an anonymous donor," Judge Jacelyn Ann Ryan-Froslie of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench wrote in her decision. "As a result of that procedure, Mary gave birth to Sarah, on Aug. 5, 2009 in Saskatchewan."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/09/10/sk-same-sex-child-registration-110910.html

[vaberella]

1. This is great news, thanks for sharing. K*R n/t

[Ilsa]

2. She was the "incubator", not the biological

Parent or the parent for the child. Her name doesn't need to be a part of the birth record. I hope the child's biological mother (ova donor) is noted for future reference, though.

[boppers]

4. Yeah, that's what I was looking for when I read it, too.

Following the genetic lines is sometimes important for health reasons, but the birthing parent isn't genetically related to the child.

[DissedByBush]

5. Neither does Bill's

He's not the biological father either.

The donor mother needs to be on that record.

Doesn't technology create all sorts of strange scenarios?

[elleng]

8. Sounds like a good idea.

My biological mother's name was replaced with that of my adoptive mother, after Mother passed on and Dad remarried Mom. (I was pretty upset when I noticed that.)

[Unvanguard]

17. Birth certificates are functionally indicators of legal parentage.

Generally, for example, adoptive parents are issued an amended birth certificate listing only them. The same rules should apply to donor conception and surrogacy.

There ought to be other ways to record the identity of biological parents, though, in a way that is accessible to the people they give birth to.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Incremental improvement.

[jberryhill]

6. You see...

...those nutjobs keep saying that you can't trust Barack Obama's birth certificate.

That's how they got "Kenyan" removed, lol.

[Tumbulu]

7. Both mothers should be in the child's health records

as producing an egg and the body that took that fertilized egg and brought it to life are both highly significant.

It is outrageously ignorant to think that the mother's are of no consequence.

[freedom fighter jh]

9. Yes. There are two biological mothers.

There is more to being a biological mother than just genetics. Carrying a baby is a biological process.

[bahrbearian]

10. Exactly

[Yo_Mama]

11. Also the child may need the information in the future

Seriously. There are certain genetic factors in some diseases that are important to know about.

[jberryhill]

15. It has been normal for a long time with adoptions

But, epidemiologically, it does create something of a mess.

Presumably, biological ancestry records are not as important in the age of genetic susceptibility testing, but it does seem to be a pretty normal part of any medical history to determine whether biological relatives have a history of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and a number of other conditions.

[krispos42]

12. I don't think information should be striken from a birth record, ever.

If they wanted to amend it, that's fine. But the mother AND the father should be on there, always and forever.

*sigh* Things can get complicated.

[ldf]

13. sorry, i disagree with everyone.

anyone giving up sperm, or ova, for artificial insemination purposes, has no claim to being a legitimate part of the family, with the exception of if the parents (and you know who i mean) make that arrangement from the beginning. but even then, if the situation develops where it is detrimental to the child, the parents can change the arrangement for the benefit of the child.

there are too many legal complications, and donors, or incubators do not always turn out as responsible or sane, as first believed.

i also do NOT believe every adopted child should automatically have access to their biological parents, just because they have some burning need to know.

the possibility of emotional and psychological damage to involved parties, is too great. that can be as damaging, or even more so, than hereditary concerns.

[Occulus]

14. Were you adopted, yourself?

[jberryhill]

16. Every medical intake form I've ever seen for a GP

Wanted to know things like whether there is a history of certain illnesses in the family.

I run a 50/50 shot of developing Parkinson's later in life, and it is a probability I keep in mind.

[Unvanguard]

Duplicate. n/t

[Unvanguard]

18. Why is any of that yours to decide?

Why shouldn't donors of sperm or ova, or even surrogate mothers, have some rights with respect to the child they helped create, with the initial agreement of the legal/social parents? Something like this already happens with some open adoptions. There are legal complications chiefly because the law is unclear; that can be changed. I'm sure donors and surrogates don't always turn out to be responsible, but that is obviously also true of the legal/social parents.

And why should anyone but the child be able to decide whether or not the child should make some connection with his or her biological parents? It's understandable that many non-bio parents are uncomfortable with this possibility, but it's not really their decision to make.