How shall birth certs change post SSM?

gk5000

Currently a married father and mother are automatically put on the birth cert when they have a child within marriage.
How shall this change post SSM? Shall there be space for two men or two women? and also the biological, birth parents?

For women, shall there be two married mothers or one mother + one partner? Shall there be space for the biological father?
For men, I guess the birth mother shall have to be on the birth cert irrespective. So then do both married men go on or just the father, with the other partner being excluded?

And what happens when existing people seek a new birth cert?
Shall there be multiple fathers and mothers?
Shall the biological information be blank or are they allowed to assume its the same as the old father and mother?

seamus

The same sex marriage referendum will have no impact on birth certs.

The Children and Family Relationships Act has already amended the treatment of parents. While married a married man is assumed to be his wife's child's father, this only applies provided they were together at the time of conception.

Otherwise the original birth cert still records the name of the biological mother and father of the child, and the other parent is given legal guardianship.

It's relatively straightforward. SSM doesn't change simple biology - children still require men and women to be conceived.

In cases where children are conceived through a DAHR procedure, basically the intended parents are recorded on the birth cert, but a note is added to the file which is then accessible by the child when they reach 18.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

The same sex marriage referendum will have no impact on birth certs.

The Children and Family Relationships Act has already amended the treatment of parents. While married a married man is assumed to be his wife's child's father, this only applies provided they were together at the time of conception.

Otherwise the original birth cert still records the name of the biological mother and father of the child, and the other parent is given legal guardianship.

It's relatively straightforward. SSM doesn't change simple biology - children still require men and women to be conceived.

In cases where children are conceived through a DAHR procedure, basically the intended parents are recorded on the birth cert, but a note is added to the file which is then accessible by the child when they reach 18.

But is that not discrimination against the married couple?

Edit to add: Does that mean the gay married couple are not parents to their children, but are only guardians?

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

But is that not discrimination against the married couple?

How so? Everyone's being treated equally.

Edit to add: Does that mean the gay married couple are not parents to their children, but are only guardians?

They are as much parents to their children as adoptive parents are. Typically however one of the gay couple will be a biological parent as well.

There's a distinction between legal and biological parents.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

How so? Everyone's being treated equally.
They are as much parents to their children as adoptive parents are. Typically however one of the gay couple will be a biological parent as well.

There's a distinction between legal and biological parents.

For existing married people, both are automatically considered parents to their children.

For Gay married people, only one would be considered legally a parent, while the other is only a guardian.

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

For existing married people, both are automatically considered parents to their children.

For Gay married people, only one would be considered legally a parent, while the other is only a guardian.

No, that's not correct. For gay married people the other person is considered a parent for all legal purposes.

You don't have to be named on the child's birth certificate to be a legal parent. This is how adoption works.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

No, that's not correct. For gay married people the other person is considered a parent for all legal purposes.

You don't have to be named on the child's birth certificate to be a legal parent. This is how adoption works.

But which document specified them to be a legal parent?
For adoption, there is an adoption cert.
For current married there is a birth cert with both parents.

So what document shall specify that the "other" married person is a legal parent?

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

But which document specified them to be a legal parent?
For adoption, there is an adoption cert.
For current married there is a birth cert with both parents.

So what document shall specify that the "other" married person is a legal parent?

So, let's actually boil this down to scenarios because that makes it clearer. I was actually wrong in an original assertion that the biological parents are always recorded, this is because DAHR makes things complicated in recognising who is an isn't the parent.

Female/Female relationships:
Woman A gives birth to a child from donor sperm. Woman B is recorded on the child's birth cert as the second parent. The Act means that the sperm donor gives up all rights to parentage, however their details are recorded and available to the child at the age of 18.

Woman A has a child from a previous relationship or goes through a non-legal donor process. The father is recorded on the birth cert with legal right to parentage and Woman B applies for adoptive rights.

Male/Male relationships:
Basically all work the same way. One of the men has a child with a woman and is recorded as the father of that child. The second man adopts the child.

Male/Female relationships:
Aside from standard parentage, basically work in exactly the same way as F/F relationships. Where a donor sperm, donor egg, or donor embryo are used, the couple are recorded on the birth cert as the parents and the donor(s) give up all parentage rights. Information is available to the child at 18.

It's clear that gay men have the most bureaucratic hoops to jump through, but that's biologically unavoidable.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

So, let's actually boil this down to scenarios because that makes it clearer. I was actually wrong in an original assertion that the biological parents are always recorded, this is because DAHR makes things complicated in recognising who is an isn't the parent.

Female/Female relationships:
Woman A gives birth to a child from donor sperm. Woman B is recorded on the child's birth cert as the second parent. The Act means that the sperm donor gives up all rights to parentage, however their details are recorded and available to the child at the age of 18.

Woman A has a child from a previous relationship or goes through a non-legal donor process. The father is recorded on the birth cert with legal right to parentage and Woman B applies for adoptive rights.

Male/Male relationships:
Basically all work the same way. One of the men has a child with a woman and is recorded as the father of that child. The second man adopts the child.

Male/Female relationships:
Aside from standard parentage, basically work in exactly the same way as F/F relationships. Where a donor sperm, donor egg, or donor embryo are used, the couple are recorded on the birth cert as the parents and the donor(s) give up all parentage rights. Information is available to the child at 18.

It's clear that gay men have the most bureaucratic hoops to jump through, but that's biologically unavoidable.

So you are saying :
Woman B is recorded on the child's birth cert as the second parent. i.e. that birth certs shall change to have 2 women on it?

And that one of the married men shall have to adopt their own children?

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

So you are saying :
Woman B is recorded on the child's birth cert as the second parent. i.e. that birth certs shall change to have 2 women on it?

And that one of the married men shall have to adopt their own children?

Yep, that's the way it reads to me. Although remove the word "married", as the rules are the same for married, civil partners and cohabiting couples.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

Yep, that's the way it reads to me. Although remove the word "married", as the rules are the same for married, civil partners and cohabiting couples.

So birth certs shall change for everybody to have space for two women, or shall the father be designated as "other parent"?

seamus

I imagine the birth cert will be amended to say "second parent" or maybe "Father/Second Parent".

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

I imagine the birth cert will be amended to say "second parent" or maybe "Father/Second Parent".

So we accept a likely legal change to existing marriages/children?

Edit - we accept a likely change to the legal documentation of existing marriages and children?

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

So we accept a likely legal change to existing marriages/children?

Edit - we accept a likely change to the legal documentation of existing marriages and children?

What do you mean, "we accept"?

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

What do you mean, "we accept"?

I mean you and I accept/agree that their likely shall be a change to birth certs post SSM

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

I mean you and I accept/agree that their likely shall be a change to birth certs post SSM

No. This change has already been made. It was legislated in the Children and Family Relationships Act which I believe comes into force today. Friday's vote will have no impact.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

No. This change has already been made. It was legislated in the Children and Family Relationships Act which I believe comes into force today. Friday's vote will have no impact.

No. The Children and Family Relationship's act has no impact on birth certs themselves- only on the additional register of doner's to be available when the child is 18.

There would be no legal basis to put two women on the birth cert unless necessitated by SSM.

So shall there be two women on the birth cert or not?
- If there is, then all certs shall have to change going forward
- If not, then that is discrimination to the married women

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

No. The Children and Family Relationship's act has no impact on birth certs themselves- only on the additional register of doner's to be available when the child is 18.

There would be no legal basis to put two women on the birth cert unless necessitated by SSM.

Except for the children and family relationships act which specifies that a parent of the child born of DAHR is the mother and that mother's husband, civil partner or cohabiting partner?

SSM will have zero effect on the register of births, except that the person may potentially be recorded as "spouse" instead of "civil partner".

Where a gay woman becomes pregnant outside of a donor process, the father of the child will be registered on the birth certificate and the woman's spouse can apply to adopt.

Edit: Just for clarification on where this is coming from:

Parentage of child born as a result of DAHR procedure
5. (1) The parents of a donor-conceived child who is born as a result of a DAHR procedure
to which subsection (8) applies are—
(a) the mother, and
(b) the husband, civil partner or cohabitant, as the case may be, of the mother.

"Subsection (8)" basically applies when the mother and her partner both consent to being the parents. Otherwise the mother alone is the only parent.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

Except for the children and family relationships act which specifies that a parent of the child born of DAHR is the mother and that mother's husband, civil partner or cohabiting partner?

SSM will have zero effect on the register of births, except that the person may potentially be recorded as "spouse" instead of "civil partner".

Where a gay woman becomes pregnant outside of a donor process, the father of the child will be registered on the birth certificate and the woman's spouse can apply to adopt.

Edit: Just for clarification on where this is coming from:

"Subsection (8)" basically applies when the mother and her partner both consent to being the parents. Otherwise the mother alone is the only parent.

None of this is law yet for starters.
https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-04-23a.270

"I note again for the record that I committed jointly with Minister Varadkar that Parts 2 and 3 of the Act, concerning parentage of children born through donor-assisted human reproduction, would not be commenced for a minimum period of one year from enactment.."

Edit and delayed again today.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/irish-women-undergoing-fertility-treatment-can-continue-to-use-anonymous-donor-sperm-for-at-least-another-year-31233480.html

So the birth certs are going to have to change post SSM, otherwise married women are being discriminated against

seamus

Alright so. Until that's brought into force then the father will be recorded as the male sperm donor.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

Alright so. Until that's brought into force then the father will be recorded as the male sperm donor.

There may or not be a donor.

But how can married people not be on the birth cert of their child?
That would destroy one main reason for SSM in the first place - or would be discrimination against the married woman. That will never stand legally post SSM.

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

There may or not be a donor.

I mean that in the broadest sense. There has to be a "donor", officially or otherwise.

But how can married people not be on the birth cert of their child?
That would destroy one main reason for SSM in the first place - or would be discrimination against the married woman. That will never stand legally post SSM.

How so? Being married does not confer on one the right to be a parent.

You're right that it would likely not stand post-SSM, but luckily the legislation already exists to correct the anomaly and will be brought into force regardless.

So a Yes vote on Friday will not have any impact.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

I mean that in the broadest sense. There has to be a "donor", officially or otherwise.
How so? Being married does not confer on one the right to be a parent.

You're right that it would likely not stand post-SSM, but luckily the legislation already exists to correct the anomaly and will be brought into force regardless.

So a Yes vote on Friday will not have any impact.

The legislation only covers official doner in approved centres in Ireland, and in any case is at least one year away, so there is no legislation post SSM for most cases.

What good is the supposed legal protection of the family when the children of the family are not legally part of it, unless the married SSM mothers and fathers adopt their own children as you have suggested - a protracted and difficult process fraught with its own pitfalls.

So effectively you shall have a legal quagmire for SSM folk and most likely a protracted legal battle in the courts.

And the hetero's who have naievely supported this shall be not well pleased when all sort of legal nonsense starts affecting their children and marriages - or when their status as fathers disappears from legal documents , to be replaced by "other parent" or something.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gk5000 wrote: »

And the hetero's who have naievely supported this shall be not well pleased when all sort of legal nonsense starts affecting their children and marriages - or when their status as fathers disappears from legal documents , to be replaced by "other parent" or something.

While we don't know the detail, there are a fistload of issues that I suspect will require the kind of solutions that you mention. I think the pivotal part of the recent advice given by the Referendum Commission is this

http://refcom2015.ie/news/

As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.

So, indeed, that raises a question over how exactly the presumption of paternity will be handled. And I'd guess other stuff they'd rather people didn't think about.

Most of which is probably unproblematic, if they just made it explicit. If this vote fails, Government will have raised and dashed expectations mostly because they've been less than plain in saying what they're proposing.

Formally, any person will be able to marry any other person. There can't be any concept of consummation, so there can be no requirement for marriage to have any sexual component. That's what we're voting about on Friday. We're creating a Constitutional right for any person to marry any other person, one consequence of this being that gay couples will be able to marry.

And the implications of that haven't really been worked out. The problem is that the expectations of many people, both at home and abroad, have been raised by the fact of this vote. That has to give us pause, in a situation where we'd normally just reject a half-baked proposal.

This is truly the messiest referendum I can think of to date.

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

The legislation only covers official doner in approved centres in Ireland, and in any case is at least one year away, so there is no legislation post SSM for most cases.

The legislation for SSM is the same as exists for normal marriage.

And the hetero's who have naievely supported this shall be not well pleased when all sort of legal nonsense starts affecting their children and marriages - or when their status as fathers disappears from legal documents , to be replaced by "other parent" or something.

Scaremongering nonsense. You have yet to prove any issue that may arise from this.

meglome

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This is truly the messiest referendum I can think of to date.

It's the simplest but the no side would have you believe that it's all scary and threatening. I dunno perhaps if they stopped making stuff up that would be a start.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

The legislation for SSM is the same as exists for normal marriage.

A child cannot have a father and a mother on a birth cert , and two women (or two men). Something has to change post SSM.

seamus wrote: »

Scaremongering nonsense. You have yet to prove any issue that may arise from this.

The bakery in the north is just minor compared to family law (case law) which is theoritically up in the air - because you can never be sure of how a court will rule.

gk5000

meglome wrote: »

It's the simplest but the no side would have you believe that it's all scary and threatening. I dunno perhaps if they stopped making stuff up that would be a start.

Well if the Yes side would accept that families include children then we might be better off.

meglome

gk5000 wrote: »

Well if the Yes side would accept that families include children then we might be better off.

huh? Of course families sometimes contain children, who said they didn't?

And any gay families that contain children will still contain those children after we vote Yes or no. The only difference is some extra people will be married after a Yes vote. Better protecting those children.

I really am getting tired of people who are being completely disingenuous with questions only designed to muddy the waters. Questions that really have nothing to do with what we're voting on now. Then you already know that.

Anita Blow

gk5000 wrote: »

Well if the Yes side would accept that families include children then we might be better off.

Constitutionally though, they don't. The constitutional definition of a family is a married couple with or without children. That is a definition upheld by the Supreme Court in Murray V Ireland 1985 and is therefore indisputable.

dubscottie

They wont change. They will have the mother and father.

In the same way my birth cert never had my step mothers name added after my dad remarried.. After both my parents died, she was my guardian..Through marriage. And did most of the stuff a parent should do and all was OK in the eyes of the law..

gk5000

dubscottie wrote: »

They wont change. They will have the mother and father.

In the same way my birth cert never had my step mothers name added after my dad remarried.. After both my parents died, she was my guardian..Through marriage. And did most of the stuff a parent should do and all was OK in the eyes of the law..

Not change after the fact, but when new children are born post SSM.

So the day after an SSM vote, for any children born:
- not putting both married women (or men ) on a birth cert would be discrimination

- not putting both 2 women or 2 men on defeats the purpose of the referendum - to give constitution protection to the family

The point being that there is a lot of legal stuff not ironed out that shall affect children's legal documentation

gk5000

Anita Blow wrote: »

Constitutionally though, they don't. The constitutional definition of a family is a married couple with or without children. That is a definition upheld by the Supreme Court in Murray V Ireland 1985 and is therefore indisputable.

I said families include children, as in also include children, as in children can not be excluded from the definition of families or some families if you prefer.

Irrespective, you cannot exclude children from this referendum as many would like to.

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

Not change after the fact, but when new children are born post SSM.

So the day after an SSM vote, for any children born:
- not putting both married women (or men ) on a birth cert would be discrimination

- not putting both 2 women or 2 men on defeats the purpose of the referendum - to give constitution protection to the family

"The day after an SSM vote". Goes to show how little you understand the whole process.

You also seem to be ignoring the rules on natural parentage which are exactly the same for heterosexual couples where a child is conceived with a non-marital partner.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

"The day after an SSM vote". Goes to show how little you understand the whole process.

You also seem to be ignoring the rules on natural parentage which are exactly the same for heterosexual couples where a child is conceived with a non-marital partner.

Yes non-marital, i.e. not married so of course marriage law does not apply.

So when do you think the constitution change would kick in?

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

Yes non-marital, i.e. not married so of course marriage law does not apply

How do you envision a same-sex couple naturally conceiving a child with a marital partner?

So when do you think the constitution change would kick in?

When it's signed into law.
You can see more details on the process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

The amendment does not automatically become active once the votes are tallied, and can be delayed as may be necessary to properly line up affected or associated laws.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

How do you envision a same-sex couple naturally conceiving a child with a marital partner?
When it's signed into law.
You can see more details on the process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

The amendment does not automatically become active once the votes are tallied, and can be delayed as may be necessary to properly line up affected or associated laws.

You are clutching at straws or wasteing time. Have a look at article 46 of the constitution. The president must sign. The constitution is above all other laws.

gk5000

Anyway Seamus....
Have a look at my proposal in the LGBT forum - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95553280#post95553280

Why not just go for "Same Sex Marriage" with no confusion, and keep 90% of the people happy?

L1011

gk5000 wrote: »

You are clutching at straws or wasteing time. Have a look at article 46 of the constitution. The president must sign. The constitution is above all other laws.

You don't seem to understand the legal system in this country very well.

The referendum passing does not automatically create the laws required for it to operate. This should take minimal time (I believe it realistically requires the deletion of one line from the Civil Registration Act) but it is still a separate process.

gk5000

L1011 wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the legal system in this country very well.

The referendum passing does not automatically create the laws required for it to operate. This should take minimal time (I believe it realistically requires the deletion of one line from the Civil Registration Act) but it is still a separate process.

The referendum supercedes all other laws, and becomes law the day the president signs it, which shall be shortly after referendum.

Other law shall have to catch up, as they are subservient to the constitution.
The constitition waits for no one - and the courts wait for now on.
It is either law, or it is not.

L1011

gk5000 wrote: »

The referendum supercedes all other laws, and becomes law the day the president signs it, which shall be shortly after referendum.

Other law shall have to catch up, as they are subservient to the constitution.
The constitition waits for no one - and the courts wait for now on.
It is either law, or it is not.

As I said - you don't really understand the legal system here very well.

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

You are clutching at straws or wasteing time. Have a look at article 46 of the constitution. The president must sign. The constitution is above all other laws.

I never said the president didn't have to sign.
But he doesn't have to sign immediately. The amendment on the death penalty for example was signed into law ten months after it was ratified.

The last successful referendum on Children's Rights wasn't signed into law for 2.5 years, but I believe that was because there was a challenge to the validity of the vote which wasn't resolved until 3 weeks ago.

You seem to be under the impression that if a Yes prevails, then on Monday morning there'll be a queue of gay couples lining up outside registry offices to apply to get married. But this isn't the case because the old law will still be in force until the president signs off on the amendment.

gk5000 wrote: »

Anyway Seamus....
Have a look at my proposal in the LGBT forum - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95553280#post95553280

Why not just go for "Same Sex Marriage" with no confusion, and keep 90% of the people happy?

Because it doesn't make any sense. Why have two different names referring to the same thing?

It means you would have to change every single piece of legislation that mentions "marriage" to ensure that it also includes "same-sex marriage".

The constitutional amendment would also be more complicated. Rather than a single line, you would also need to amend every line referring to marriage, to ensure that same-sex marriage has the same protections.

Rather than a simpler, less confusing situation, you'd have a far more complicated one which was wide open to legal challenge.

pwurple

seamus wrote: »

Male/Male relationships:
Basically all work the same way. One of the men has a child with a woman and is recorded as the father of that child. The second man adopts the child.

Seamus, I don't think this is correct. There's no adoption. The spouse has full automatic guardianship rights because of the marriage. No adoption is required.

It will work similarly to how opposite sex marriage works when there is donor gamete, or the father is non-biological. Whoever is married to the parent is the guardian.

That's one of the rights conferred by marriage which civil partnership did not offer.


Where I think it's going to get fooking complicated, is two married women and two married men having biological children between them. 4 guardians?

gk5000

pwurple wrote: »

Seamus, I don't think this is correct. There's no adoption. The spouse has full automatic guardianship rights because of the marriage. No adoption is required.

It will work similarly to how opposite sex marriage works when there is donor gamete, or the father is non-biological. Whoever is married to the parent is the guardian.

That's one of the rights conferred by marriage which civil partnership did not offer.


Where I think it's going to get fooking complicated, is two married women and two married men having biological children between them. 4 guardians?

So shall birth certs have to have space for two women if they are married?

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

I never said the president didn't have to sign.
But he doesn't have to sign immediately. The amendment on the death penalty for example was signed into law ten months after it was ratified.

The last successful referendum on Children's Rights wasn't signed into law for 2.5 years, but I believe that was because there was a challenge to the validity of the vote which wasn't resolved until 3 weeks ago.

You seem to be under the impression that if a Yes prevails, then on Monday morning there'll be a queue of gay couples lining up outside registry offices to apply to get married. But this isn't the case because the old law will still be in force until the president signs off on the amendment.

Because it doesn't make any sense. Why have two different names referring to the same thing?

It means you would have to change every single piece of legislation that mentions "marriage" to ensure that it also includes "same-sex marriage".

The constitutional amendment would also be more complicated. Rather than a single line, you would also need to amend every line referring to marriage, to ensure that same-sex marriage has the same protections.

Rather than a simpler, less confusing situation, you'd have a far more complicated one which was wide open to legal challenge.

It makes perfect sense.
One or two extra lines in the costitution v's a mess in the courts.
90% support for proper SSM v's
current 60% max, and a very annoyed 40% NO - Your choice

L1011

gk5000 wrote: »

It makes perfect sense.
One or two extra lines in the costitution v's a mess in the courts.
90% support for proper SSM v's
current 60% max, and a very annoyed 40% NO - Your choice

You haven't got any details of your supposed "mess in the courts"

90% is a figure you have invented from nothing.

Separate but equal is not "proper".

Laws are not drafted with people being "very annoyed" in mind.

You have a very, very poor knowledge of the legal system and laws of this country as you've shown in detail on this and other threads - your proposal here is nonsensical due to that.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

So, let's actually boil this down to scenarios because that makes it clearer. I was actually wrong in an original assertion that the biological parents are always recorded, this is because DAHR makes things complicated in recognising who is an isn't the parent.

Female/Female relationships:
Woman A gives birth to a child from donor sperm. Woman B is recorded on the child's birth cert as the second parent. The Act means that the sperm donor gives up all rights to parentage, however their details are recorded and available to the child at the age of 18.

Woman A has a child from a previous relationship or goes through a non-legal donor process. The father is recorded on the birth cert with legal right to parentage and Woman B applies for adoptive rights.

Male/Male relationships:
Basically all work the same way. One of the men has a child with a woman and is recorded as the father of that child. The second man adopts the child.

Male/Female relationships:
Aside from standard parentage, basically work in exactly the same way as F/F relationships. Where a donor sperm, donor egg, or donor embryo are used, the couple are recorded on the birth cert as the parents and the donor(s) give up all parentage rights. Information is available to the child at 18.

It's clear that gay men have the most bureaucratic hoops to jump through, but that's biologically unavoidable.

Why have you separated into 3 different scenarios?

Could it be that this would make much more sense - legally, and avoid lots of complictaions when you try to group 3 different scenarios together?

seamus

pwurple wrote: »

Seamus, I don't think this is correct. There's no adoption. The spouse has full automatic guardianship rights because of the marriage. No adoption is required.

Not for male/male relationships. The "automatic parent" right only kicks in for the spouse of the mother. The spouse of the father does not have an automatic entitlement to guardianship.

Because surrogacy is at present not legislated for, the birth mother of the child is always a legal parent. If it's not a DAHR procedure, then the father too is a legal parent.

What the new legislation does is allow for the father's/mother's spouse/civil partner/cohabitant to apply for guardianship on a familial basis.

pwurple

gk5000 wrote: »

So shall birth certs have to have space for two women if they are married?

I think what birth certs would need to have is a few sections.
One section for biological parents
One section for legal guardians

But practically, you can write whatever the heck you want on a birth cert.

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

So shall birth certs have to have space for two women if they are married?

Or in a civil partnership, or cohabiting, and if they go through a DAHR procedure.