A major push to counter paternity fraud is the need of the hour

... Carnell finally won his case!

Towards the end of the video, Mr. Smith, says he is working on more legislation which he referred to as "truth in pregnancy disclosure." I am all for this as I feel women should have a legal obligation to be truthful about parentage. This is owed to fathers and to children.

I don't think we should ever casually allow a birth certificates or adoption documents to indicate a father is "unknown." I realize we will never get a 100% accurate paternity rate as some situations will genuinely be "unknown," but we can sure get closer to it.

I agree and I believe the only names that should go on the birth certificate are the natural mother and natural father.

I also suspect that I'm not going to get my wish. With the advent of same-sex parenting, the name of the natural mother will likely go on the BC along with the name of her same-sex spouse or SO. The BC should be an accurate record of events, not a means of turning a non-parent into a parent. Fathers, of course, will become optional in this scenario; the birth mother can put the name of the father or someone else as the "second parent."

By the way, I think this could be a huge issue for men. When does a man become a "father"--when he has sex and conceives a child or when his name goes on the birth certificate? If his name is not on the BC, is he still a father? And who gets to decide? Can he sue to have his name on the BC or sue to take it off? Or does only the birth mother have the right to decide?

If I were a birth mother, I'd put the name of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett on the birth certificate, then just wait until the time for contesting paternity is past and go collect on your winning lottery ticket.

FYI - mothers do not put the fathers name on birth certificate. Fathers must do it themselves*, as a birth certificate requires the actions of both parents unless father is "unknown." The birth certificate requires father's signature if they are married or unmarried. There is a separate section for unmarried fathers to fill out and sign which includes an affidavit of accepting paternity. Hospital staff must also sign as a witness. Most states have done it this way since the 1970's but in the 1990's all states went to this procedure to close up any gaps. If a father is not present at birth, he has a few days he can sign later at the hospital otherwise he needs to go to the courthouse and do it.

It is an MRA myth that mothers can just put who ever they want on birth certificates. (at least in the USA)

* I think there is some exception for military fathers who are deployed, but they must be married to the mother and it will ask the mother a bunch of questions about it.

PS- and yes a father sues if things are not to his liking about his name being on or off the birth certificate. Same for a mother. Courts will order a DNA test if a parent is unable to do it themselves. Legal DNA tests require the DNA from both parents and child.

What I described is already the law where I live. I do not know about other states. The law was passed about six years ago. It was a departure from previous practices.

Beyond that, I'm discussing things that could come to pass with same-sex parents. Advocates for gay marriage want to be able to put the name of the second parent on the birth certificate as a way to make them a legal parent. Courts have already allowed this to happen. But it's not universal yet.

The other issue is "presumption of parenthood." This is the doctrine that if two people of the same sex are married, and one has a child, the other is presumed to be the parent of the child. It is derived from the doctrine of "presumption of paternity," but it applies that doctrine to women--while presumption of paternity applied only to men. The doctrine was part of civil unions legislation where I live. Almost nobody paid any attention to it but it's also a doctrine advocates for same-sex marriage are pushing. It makes sense for same-sex parents. It makes no sense for opposite-sex parents. Even the presumption of paternity no longer makes sense since we can determine exactly who the father is.

What you describe is practices of the past. Same-sex marriage was just legalized--and with that comes same-sex parenting. And same-sex parents want legal protections for their children. For now, most same-sex parents still adopt, as necessary. But that could all change if advocates for same-sex marriage get their way and change the way parenthood is defined. They're already trying to eliminate "husband and wife." Next is "mother and father"--as the terms clearly discriminate against same-sex parents. So birth certificates could read "Parent A" and "Parent B." At that point, things get really confusing.

So you're right about what has happened in the past. But those practices may become outdated. I've followed the debate on same-sex parenting and am familiar with what gays are proposing. Past practices were based on the biological model--which doesn't work for same-sex parents. So a new model will become necessary.

Let me clarify, It is a myth that a mother can just randomly choose names to put on birth certificate for "the father" like many MRAs believe she can, or like your suggestion that she put "Bill Gates or "Warren Buffett."

I concede that I may be out of touch with the same sex procedure. But I am still confident that it is not one parent (lets call her mother # 1 ) making the sole choice as to whom gets on the birth certificate. If a lesbian mother wants to take the place of where the father goes on the birth certificate (lets call her mother # 2) she would still have to make the effort herself. Mother #1 cannot do it for her (just like in heterosexual situations). Aside from court order, it still holds true that each parent must answer questions and sign for themselves plus a hospital staff witness.

Like you, I believe a birth certificate should be an accurate record of birth and parentage.

I meant the Gates reference to be more humorous than serious, but can understand how it may have seemed a serious suggestion. The law I was referring to is very real, however: the birth mother in Colorado can even put the name of her own mother on the BC. I worry that approach might become standard.

Also, mothers do put the wrong name for the father on the birth certificate. Even if the supposed father signs off, he may not know he is not the real father. The only way to be sure is to require DNA tests for all births.

Apparently, Canada has already made the shift from "natural parents" to "legal parents." That shift has the potential to be huge. And it will take a lot of hours in court to sort out. Under the "presumption of parenthood" doctrine, I can imagine scenarios in which even the birth mother is not the legal mother of the child. I prefer to ground parental rights in nature; the natural parents have natural rights though they can give up those rights, as in adoption. That begins with an accurate birth certificate.

And one other thing I want: universal code names for sperm donors so people can tell if they're related. There have already been cases where half-siblings have married, unaware they had the same father. This code name should appear on the birth certificate. We all have a right to accurate information about our parentage. That should be the purpose of a birth certificate.

You keep saying "the mom put..." (insert whichever other person you want). What I am saying is that each person puts their own name on the birth certificate, which requires the witness of a hospital staff. If they are unwilling, then a court decides. This will not change even for same sex parents.

Many MRAs seem to think that a mom can just scribble down any name for the father while she is in a hospital bed after giving birth and just turn it in. I am trying to dispel this myth, because it isn't true (at least since the 1990's). Each person puts their own name and signature. If done in a hospital it is witnessed by hospital staff. If done by court order it is a legal procedure very difficult to cheat. A mother or father can initiate a court order for paternity but it is ultimately decided by a judge and if done soon after birth or before a parent/child relationship has been established, it typically requires a DNA test (assuming a typical heterosexual situation. I am sure same-sex relationships will not require DNA, but evidence of the relationship or evidence of a commitment to child)

Any father can get a DNA test before signing the birth certificate, even a married father.

If a married father is on birth certificate and he is not the biological father, it is NOT because the mother put him on. It is either because he put HIMSELF on without requesting a DNA test first or the state used the "presumed father" law that pertains to married fathers. In all states I am aware of a married father can protest the presumed father thing either before birth or soon afterwards and either prevent his name from ever being on BC or get it removed. The most public example of a married father not on birth certificate is Kris Humphries who was legally married to Kim Kardashian while she was pregnant with Kanye West.

So, please stop saying "the mother put so and so on birth certificate..." Other than her own name, the mother cannot put anyone else on the birth certificate. This will not change even in same sex parenting. (But I agree with everything else you are saying.)

PS-I knew you were kidding about Gates and Bufett, but even as humor it perpetuates the myth that the mother can just write down whatever name she wants.