Australia: Sperm-donor dad off birth certificate

From the Article:

"Solicitor Janet Loughman, of the Women's Legal Service NSW, said 'the case is an important step in transforming rights into reality for many families.' "

IMO, it is quite the opposite.

Children should have a right to correct paternity documentation on their birth certificate. Fathers should have the right as well.

I have been repeating this alot lately, but paternity should be determined by biology and not assigned by the court system.

I'm also not really sure how this guy "donated sperm". As I kind of get the impression he had sexual relations with the mother and not artifical methods in a clinic. Bad idea. However, I find it ironic that it is working against him in this case. Typically rulings are that a father cannot be removed from birth certificate if he wants to as it is best interest of the child, they have an established relationship, he is the proven biological father, etc.

""Their daily lives will be made easier through a record of parent-child relationships that reflects their lived experience and family structure," she said.

But the service said not being listed on the birth certificate isn't a barrier to known sperm donors having a relationship with a child."

It's all about the women's best interest, not the child's. It somehow makes the women's lives easier to have the ex partner (not even a current partner) on the BC, but if the women's lives are made easier by it, that makes the man's life harder for it, but that increased difficulty is dismissed by saying "it's not a barrier". But if it's not a barrier, then it didn't need to be changed in the first place, and it could have and should have been left biologically accurate for the childs best interests.

(comment removed - sorry)

This has been one of my issues with same-sex marriage.

Nature gives a child a mother and a father--and it doesn't care about sexual orientation. Even children of same-sex couples have a mother and a father--even if one is not part of the marriage. The law has always followed nature; the BC lists a mother and a father. It is supposed to provide the facts of birth, nothing more. From those facts, parental rights are derived.

But how do you give a child two mothers? You replace the father with the "second mother." But what about the natural father's rights? Can any father simply be replaced by someone else? And who gets to decide? The birth mother? Or any party with a legal claim?

If the courts are to decide, how will they? What guidelines will they follow? Does marriage determine parenthood? Or nature? Or some obscure legal precedent? What if the husband in an opposite-sex marriage has a child by another woman? Is his wife now the legal mother because she's married to the father and marriage determines parenthood? Men have been subject to that rule for centuries; women will be surprised when it's applied to them.

Lots of questions. And these issues don't just apply to same-sex marriage; they apply to all births and all marriages. Same-sex marriage will re-define how all parental rights are defined legally. That could be problematic for everyone.

"If the courts are to decide, how will they?"

In the US, the supreme court already determined the rights of a second mother can be removed by the biological mother at her whim (see the Michele Hobbs case, fathers and families has a lot on it). Here we see the mother removing the biological fathers rights as well. If these two outcomes get combined within the same country, you then have mothers literally holding the rights of the child solely her her hands/discretion. It shows where the courts loyalties sit.

One of the likely outcomes is that birth mothers or natural mothers will hold all the cards. The second parent will become her choice--dad's an option, but that's all. Already in lesbian divorces the courts have favored the natural mother over the social mother.

The bad news is that the foundation of fathers' rights will be undermined. The other side of the coin is that men who do not want to be fathers can argue it was just an arbitrary choice on the part of the mother that is insufficient to impose any legal obligation on the father. Family courts will likely resist that argument, though it makes perfect sense. The man didn't become a father when he had sex but when mom decided to put him on the BC. Does she need his permission? Can he object? I don't know, but I've always suspected this approach to parenthood would open a Pandora's box of problems.

It's human to want to bend things to our will, but in doing so we set up principles that can work against us.

Agreed cid, except we don't live in a rational world that can see if one things true, the counter/opposite is not. The idea that the mother being able to remove the father from the BC will have zero impact on mothers wanting to put fathers on it against the fathers wish's and extort money. It's already argued that men should not be able to opt out of parenthood, despite women having several such options, because a child deserves to be supported by both parents, despite the fact it seems perfectly acceptable for a single woman to go to a sperm bank and get herself impregnated without the support of the father (for the moment, I suspect that will be challenged soon, at least in Canada), or despite her choice to support the child on her own in order to keep the child secret from the father for several years (then collect backpay for those years already financially covered). Child support and custody matters aren't currently based on anything rational, I don't see that changing as a result of this ruling.

The impression I have from the article is that it is the 'other mother' (read: non-custodial parent) who has removed the father from the birth certificate in order to have her name added. Perhaps she was feeling that she might get pushed out of the child's life since she is no longer living with the biological mother. (I am in no way supporting the action - just suggesting her motive).

What you have here is two biological parents and a step parent. Step-parents can be significant parents. I believe in the past step parents have been awarded visitation and parenting rights after divorce as long as it is consistent with the role they have always played in the child's life. I would think this would have been a better angle to secure her parenting role and would not infringe on the father's rights.

IMO, this is a terrible and inconsistent ruling. The child has the right to an accurate birth certificate and the father has every right to have his name on it.

There is so much I don't like about this situation and I agree with the questions and concerns el cid put in his post above.

I agree with both Kratch and Kris. A birth certificate should state the facts of birth, not a legal precedent. And we don't live in a rational world, at least as far as family law is concerned. Too many reasons for people to "gin" the system in their favor. Fairness and truth play no role--just "Can I win and get what I want?"

My thought was this: if the "second mother" can get dad's name removed from the BC, could the natural father get the natural mother's name removed from the BC? He could cite the ruling is his own case as precedent. He has as much right to have his name on the BC as the natural mother? It would reflect the reality of the situation, as he has been an active and supportive father. All the arguments made against him could be made against the natural mother.

What goes around, comes around.

The problem here is the sperm 'donation' through non-official channels. Kris I don't think you're correct that they had traditional sex, I believe I recall this case and it was simply that the IVF doctor used a sample provided by this man. Normally it would be provided by a sperm bank where anonymity is part of the contract. Further complicating things is his involvement in the kids life and his desire to be a father figure. Basically no one involved here thought through what they were doing very well.

I think some of the comments here are dead on though. I think as we go forward with genetics and other research, knowing ones biological ancestry will become critical to targeted treatments for various diseases, and at some point that will have to change. Perhaps a birth certificate with 4 boxes for biological mother/father and legal guardians. I have no problem with families being of whatever shape and size they want and frankly as long as this couples odd parenting-threesome was working who cares. The courts should be looking at the situation, 3 people were acting in some fashion as a guardian to this child, 2 through biology and action, 1 through action. None of them should be torn from the kids life. They're adults, make them work out the details.

I googled some more info on the story, and although none said exactly how the sperm was donated, I do now think it was in a clinic as Dan described.

The father is a gay man, and it all started when he placed an ad in a gay community newspaper to find a female to help him have a child that he can be a father to. The lesbians also placed an ad for a sperm donor. I am not sure who answered who's add, but they came to an agreement to have a child. Everything was fine until the lesbian couple broke up and the 'other mother' wanted her name on the birth certificate, and only two names are allowed.

The father is now involved in getting laws changed to allow three names on a birth certificate like they do in Canada (really? and why stop at three?)

I still think birth certificates should only have two names, the biological mother and father. Any other legal parenting arrangement should be documented elsewhere, as biology never changes but legal arrangements do.

"Rights of the Child" a treaty signed by United Nations (including Australia, where this case took place)*

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about birth certificates and "Rights of the Child"

[quote] The right of every child to a name and nationality, and the responsibility of national governments to achieve this are contained in Articles 7 and 8 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality..." (CRC Article 7) and "States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations..." (CRC Article 8) [end quote]

* Sidenote: For the most part the United States does agree and follow the "Rights of the Child" but our president has never signed it because of legitimate concerns about it interfering with homeschooling. ROC puts the obligation to educate on the government and homeschoolers believe the obligation should be on the parents, of course parents can CHOOSE to allow the government to help. United States and Somolia are the only countries that did not sign it.