 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
New York's Public Health Code, Title 3, Registration of Births, concerns birth certificates. § 4135 provides as follows: "Birth certificate; child born out of wedlock. 1. (a) There shall be no specific statement on the birth certificate as to whether the child is born in wedlock or out of wedlock or as to the marital name or status of the mother. (b) The phrase "child born out of wedlock" when used in this article, refers to a child whose father is not its mother's husband. 2. The name of the putative father of a child born out of wedlock shall not be entered on the certificate of birth prior to filing without (i) an acknowledgment of paternity pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law or section four thousand one hundred thirty-five-b of this article executed by both the mother and putative father, and filed with the record of birth; or (ii) notification having been received by, or proper proof having been filed with, the record of birth by the clerk of a court of competent jurisdiction or the parents, or their attorneys of a judgment, order or decree relating to parentage. 3. Orders relating to parentage shall be held confidential by the commissioner and shall not be released or otherwise divulged except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction." So, assuming the OP and her partner are not marred, and that one of them gave birth to the child, they would need a court decree adjudicating parentage of the other partner. I frankly don't know if they can get a court decree taking this fiction seriously; e.g.: announcing that a woman is the "father" of the child. Could be, I suppose. But it seems to me this nonsense has nothing to do with the raison d' etre of birth certificates. |
||||
|
||||
|
Debra H. v. Janice R. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3ds...2009_02723.htm Synopsis : Debra H. and Janice R. agreed to raise a family together in a two-parent household and conceived their son using in vitro fertilization. Janice promised that Debra would formally adopt their child, and they met with an adoption lawyer prior to their son's birth. In 2003, before he was born, they entered into a civil union in Vermont, which at that time was the most legally significant relationship available to same-sex couples under U.S. law. The New York Court of Appeals – the state's highest court – granted "legal parent" status to a woman whose same-sex partner gave birth to a child during their relationship. The child was conceived via artificial insemination, with sperm from an anonymous donor, and was born about a month after the two women entered into a "civil union" in Vermont. The court's ruling gives Debra H. standing to seek visitation and/or custody of the son whom she and her former partner had co-parented. While this ruling is ultimately supportive of lesbian co-parenting rights, it is narrowly drawn to recognize such rights only when the couple involved is part of a formal, recognized relationship such as a civil union or same-sex marriage. In so limiting the protection its ruling afforded, the court rejected an argument for broader recognition of so-called "functional parents" . |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by AK lawyer
"In a decision and order filed on October 9, 2008, Supreme Court ruled in Debra H.'s favor. The judge reasoned that "it [was] inconsistent to estop a nonbiological father from disclaiming paternity in order to avoid support obligations, but preclude a nonbiological parent from invoking [equitable estoppel] against the biological parent in order to maintain an established relationship with the child" since, in either event, "the court's primary concern should be furthering the best interests of the child" (2008 NY Misc LEXIS 6367, *25). Supreme Court concluded that the facts alleged by Debra H., if true, "establish[ed] a prima facie basis for invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel" (id., at *25-26). In this regard, the judge considered the parties' civil union to be "a significant, though not necessarily a determinative, factor in [Debra H.'s] estoppel argument" because, under Vermont law, "parties to a civil union are given the same benefits, protections and responsibilities.. . As are granted to those in a marriage," which "includes the assumption that the birth of a child during a couple's legal union is 'extremely persuasive evidence of joint parentage'" (id., at *26, quoting Miller-Jenkins, 180 Vt at 466, 912 A2d at 971). "-2008 Here the correct link is. No. 47: Debra H. v Janice R. That's the last decision. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by GV70
I haven't changed my thinking on this: birth certificates are an official record of the parentage of a child. Whether it involves in vitro fertilization with an unknown sperm donor, "step-parent" adoption of the partner's child from another relationship, or whatever, changing the BC to put the OP as the (what-to-call-it?) "father" (?), would merely make a mockery of the BC system for the sake of some misguided PC notion of "equality" (or whatever). |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by AK lawyer
Let's not forget that in The Glorious and The Most Stupid And Mindless State Of Delaware a child may have 11 / ELEVEN/ legal parents.:eek:.That means a child has two parents on his/her BC and another nine LEGALLY recognized /legal /parents! GOD SAVE THE CHILD FROM DE LEGISLATION AND COURT PRACTICE!!! |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually, some states DO allow same-sex adoption. I just don't know if those states have step-parent adoptions by a same-sex partner. I would guess not, because some of those states do not have same-sex marriages, and that would be necessary to have a step-parent to begin with. And frankly--if putting same-sex partners on a birth certificate as the parents of a child is a "mockery" of who the "parents" are--then so is changing a birth certificate to make it the adoptive parents instead of the birth parents. I mean, it's not a BIRTH certificate if you change the names of the parents just because the child is RAISED by someone other than the person/people to whom the child was born. Either it's a record of birth or it's a record of legal parents--take your pick. But it's not BOTH right now, and it wouldn't be both if it were same sex parents too. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Synnen
The practice was adopted, I guess, because, in the past, preserving the privacy of unwed birth-mothers was deemed more important than factually accurate birth certificates. Perhaps not so important today when illegitimacy is accepted without any stigma and unwed parenthood is no big deal. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by AK lawyer
Adoption has a VERY interesting history--there were reasons for the initial adoption of the policy of hiding birthparent identity and hiding the fact that an adoption happened at all. It got kids out of orphanages, though, and protected the reputation of all parents involved. One of the main reasons, though, is that it was considered that the sins of the parents would be visited upon the child--and no adoptive parents wanted the child of a rapist or a prostitute to raise. By hiding identities all the way around, more people adopted and more chose adoption rather than abandoning the child to either the state, the church, or the elements. Either way, it was a complicity that was accepted by everyone--until there were fewer infants than there were parents that wanted them. This is due in part to the acceptance of illegitimate children and single parents. It put the power back in the hands of birthparents, who then pushed for the changes we know now as open adoptions. It was also driven by studies that showed that adoptees were better adjusted if they knew that they were adopted from birth rather than finding out the lie later and having it impact their self-image. Either way, the birth certificate either had to be amended to show the adoptive parents--or they'd have to find another document that people could use to prove who they were. Changing the birth certificate was easier--especially since children unable to view their birth certificate would KNOW they were adopted, and the whole point was to hide the adoption from the world. I foresee another change to the birth certificate to show "legal parents" rather than "Mother" and "father" as the definition of legal parent slowly changes. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Synnen
I think the main reason we have BCs is so that, when the child requires other documents, whether they be a Social Security card, a driver's license, a passport, or whatever, there is a basic documentation available to show that, yes, such a child does exist (or did at one point, anyway). Other information (date & place of birth, parents, etc.) is included only to distinguish the child from others with the same name, etc. The BC doesn't clearly show such things as custody, heirship, etc. Many people tend to want it to mean too much. I think that to them tends to be a trinket to hang on the wall. Or, as Synnen put it, "preserving the ego of the adoptive parents." |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
What to do if no record of birth?
[ 1 Answers ]
Midwife did not record the birth in 1947-48
How to add father to birth record
[ 6 Answers ]
I have attorney papers and it was nortorised and he signed it stating that he acknowledges our daughter as his own and takes responiablty of her, can I use that to put him on her birth record.
What to do if hospital cannot find the record of my daughter's birth
[ 1 Answers ]
My children were adopted by my sister,my sister died and I want a copy of my children's birth records with my name on it. And vital records in my town said the only birth certificate I can have is the one with my sister's last name.can I receive a copy of my children's birth record from the...
Adding name to birth record and changing name years after birth.
[ 3 Answers ]
I need to know how to add the fathers name to birth certificate years after child is born and changing child's last name.
View more questions Search
|
