Re-registering children's births after marriage

Shybride2016

Hi,

Would appreciate if anyone could shed some light on this issue please.

Getting married next year and went to HSE office to give our notification. We were told at the end that after we get our marriage cert we have to re-register our children's births so that they can get new birth certs to reflect their parents marital status as they are currently "illegitimate".

Leaving aside the archaic language and how angry it made me to hear those words about my children, who can I contact to enquire about changing this law?

Not to mention we have the privilege of paying €25 per new birth cert also!

Why do they need new certificates? Are the ones from the time they were born not an accurate reflection of the time at which they were registered?
After couples divorce do they have to apply for new birth certs for their children?

It's 2015, the Children's Referendum was passed, why do we still live within a system whereby children born outside of marriage are considered illegitimate?

Any advice as to who best to contact would be very much appreciated.

Thanks.

huskerdu

That doesn't sound right. WE got married after our child was born and dod not have to reregister the birth.
The concept of illegitimacy does not exist in Irish law anymore.

Have read of this. It states that you CAN re-register after marriage if the fathers name is not on the original birth cert,
but not that you have to.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/after_your_baby_is_born/registering_birth_your_baby.html

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Shybride2016

Thanks to both for your replies.

I've copied and pasted from the email I received from the HSE with our appointment confirmation.

"Re-Registration of Birth(s) – where a couple proposing to marry in the Republic of Ireland have a child(ren) born to them before their marriage to each other a re-registration of birth should be affected to legitimate the birth(s). Please discuss this process with the registrar on the day of your appointment."

So basically our children's births are illegitimate as they were born to us as an unmarried couple. When I asked about this at our appointment we were told that yes we'd have to come back in after getting married and re-register the births to get new birth certs at €25 each.

Definitely going to look into this further.

Thanks again for your replies.

Victor

I wonder if this applies only to cases where the parents want to re-register the birth(s).

Shybride2016 wrote: »

affected

"effected"?

eviltwin

I got married when my first born was 12 and we didn't register her birth again? Why would you, it doesn't mention marital status on the birth cert.....

haveringchick

Your children's birth certs state that you and your spouse were single, as opposed to "married", on the day you registered the birth
Wether you agree or not It may be very important in some families (both the parents and children in later life) if the birth certificate is updated to reflect a civil marriage having been entered into
You certainly don't have to do this if you don't want to
But equally certainly families must be allowed to do it if they wish
So why would you want to change the law?

goz83

haveringchick wrote: »

Your children's birth certs state that you and your spouse were single, as opposed to "married", on the day you registered the birth
Wether you agree or not It may be very important in some families (both the parents and children in later life) if the birth certificate is updated to reflect a civil marriage having been entered into
You certainly don't have to do this if you don't want to
But equally certainly families must be allowed to do it if they wish
So why would you want to change the law?

I would see it as writing a lie into the truth of an important legal document. If the parents were unmarried, this is irrelevant in my opinion. At the time of registration, the written facts are the written facts. My first child was born outside of wedlock, but we thankfully had the forward thinking to use my surname on the birth cert to save for any need to register a change post marriage.

I would think it best practice to be able to add amendments, rather than delete original information from birth certs, which would allow changes to be seen, rather than erased.

I also think the fee is too high for a printed piece of paper, especially for copies. My latest bundle of joy was registered yesterday.

Shybride2016

haveringchick wrote: »

Your children's birth certs state that you and your spouse were single, as opposed to "married", on the day you registered the birth
Wether you agree or not It may be very important in some families (both the parents and children in later life) if the birth certificate is updated to reflect a civil marriage having been entered into
You certainly don't have to do this if you don't want to
But equally certainly families must be allowed to do it if they wish
So why would you want to change the law?

I would want the law to be changed so that in today's world where a large number of children born in Ireland are born outside of marriage these children are not considered different and illegitimate. Their birth certs are legal documents which allow them passports, access to school etc and I just cannot get my head around the fact that the language used in the paragraph I quoted above is still being used.

If people want to re-register then that's what they should go ahead and do but I take exception to the situation at the moment whereby it is required.

An amendment or addition "on the system" to reflect the new marriage would be fine but to actually re-register and receive an updated birth cert for a fee is not, for me anyway. People are different.

Edited to add: Are divorced couples required to re-register their children's births to reflect that both parents are single? I doubt it!

Shybride2016

Victor wrote: »

I wonder if this applies only to cases where the parents want to re-register the birth(s).

"effected"?

I'd agree with that change. Must be a typo on their website.

ohnonotgmail

[QUOTE=Shybride2016;97936682]I would want the law to be changed so that in today's world where a large number of children born in Ireland are born outside of marriage these children are not considered different and illegitimate. Their birth certs are legal documents which allow them passports, access to school etc and I just cannot get my head around the fact that the language used in the paragraph I quoted above is still being used.

If people want to re-register then that's what they should go ahead and do but I take exception to the situation at the moment whereby it is required.

An amendment or addition "on the system" to reflect the new marriage would be fine but to actually re-register and receive an updated birth cert for a fee is not, for me anyway. People are different.

Edited to add: Are divorced couples required to re-register their children's births to reflect that both parents are single? I doubt it![/QUOTE]

Legally they are not considered different or illegitimate. Illegitimate does not exist as a legal concept in this country and hasn't for a number of years.

Shybride2016

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Legally they are not considered different or illegitimate. Illegitimate does not exist as a legal concept in this country and hasn't for a number of years.

I haven't a clue about these things legally and maybe it's simply a case that the language needs to be changed. Apologies for repeating myself but it clearly states that after marriage the births should be re-registered to "legitimate" them. So perhaps children aren't considered illegitimate anymore (thankfully!) but their births are.

Either way the wording should be changed and I'd love to know who to get in touch with to discuss this further.

ohnonotgmail

Shybride2016 wrote: »

I haven't a clue about these things legally and maybe it's simply a case that the language needs to be changed. Apologies for repeating myself but it clearly states that after marriage the births should be re-registered to "legitimate" them. So perhaps children aren't considered illegitimate anymore (thankfully!) but their births are.

Either way the wording should be changed and I'd love to know who to get in touch with to discuss this further.

does that information come just from an email or from an official document? you could just be dealing with somebody who uses old-fashioned language.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Shybride2016

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

does that information come just from an email or from an official document? you could just be dealing with somebody who uses old-fashioned language.

It was within an email which was a confirmation of our appointment to notify. Plenty pf other information contained in it and it looks like a standard reply from HSE rather than from an individual stuck in the dark ages!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

seamus

http://www.hse.ie/go/birth/

For births on or after 5 December 2005, parents who marry each other after the birth may re-register the birth to reflect their marital status, and may change the child's surname.

The ridiculousness of trying to rewrite history notwithstanding, there is nothing which requires you to re-register a birth after marriage. It's an optional one.

Shybride2016

seamus wrote: »

http://www.hse.ie/go/birth/

The ridiculousness of trying to rewrite history notwithstanding, there is nothing which requires you to re-register a birth after marriage. It's an optional one.

I know I sound like a broken record so I'll stop after this I promise but in the HSE email I received it specifically says "should" re-register in order to legitimate the birth.

This is different to the link you posted there seamus so there needs to be clarification around this. My reading of it is that while there may be no obligation to re-register the birth, if you choose not to, then your children born before marriage are not "legitimate", or if we're splitting hairs, their "births" are not legitimate.


I'll stop now until I get more information from a family law solicitor as suggested previously.

flutered

what happens if a couple marry and her kids are from a previous marrage

seamus

Shybride2016 wrote: »

I know I sound like a broken record so I'll stop after this I promise but in the HSE email I received it specifically says "should" re-register in order to legitimate the birth.

And looking at the law, I see why.

My only response to this law is, "what the actual ****".

Civil Registration Act 2004, Section 24.

(4) It is the duty of the parents of a legitimated person or, if one of the parents is dead and the re-registration of the birth concerned can be effected on information furnished by the surviving parent, within 3 months of the date of the marriage of the parents, to furnish to the registrar concerned the necessary information with a view to obtaining the re-registration of the birth of that person.

(5) Where the parents of a person whom the registrar concerned believes to have been legitimated under the Legitimacy Declaration Act (Ireland) 1868 fail or either of them fails to comply with subsection (4), the registrar may, by notice in writing served on them, or either of them, require them or, if the notice is served on one only of them, that parent to give to him or her such information concerning the matter as he or she may consider necessary for the purpose of the re-registration of the birth of the person verified in such manner as he or she may direct and for that purpose to attend before the registrar at the office of the registrar or at any other place appointed by the registrar within such time, not being less than 14 days after the receipt of the notice, as may be specified in the notice and a person on whom a notice under this subsection is served shall comply with the requirement it contains.

TL;DR - Parents who get married after the birth of their child have a "duty" to re-register the birth of that child within 3 months of marriage in order to satisfy an archaic act that doesn't actually affect anything.

Failure to do so requires the registrar to serve you notice to attend at the registrar's office to re-register the birth. Failure to attend this meeting is a criminal offence.

The "should" or "may" means that if you don't bother, nothing will happen and there are no consequences. If the registrar discovers the records, then you will have to attend, but there is not actual legal compulsion to re-register the birth since failure to do so is not an offence and has no effect.

Absolutely no harm clearing this with a family law solicitor though.

Shybride2016

seamus wrote: »

And looking at the law, I see why.

My only response to this law is, "what the actual ****".

Civil Registration Act 2004, Section 24.



TL;DR - Parents who get married after the birth of their child have a "duty" to re-register the birth of that child within 3 months of marriage in order to satisfy an archaic act that doesn't actually affect anything.

Failure to do so requires the registrar to serve you notice to attend at the registrar's office to re-register the birth. Failure to attend this meeting is a criminal offence.

The "should" or "may" means that if you don't bother, nothing will happen and there are no consequences. If the registrar discovers the records, then you will have to attend, but there is not actual legal compulsion to re-register the birth since failure to do so is not an offence and has no effect.

Absolutely no harm clearing this with a family law solicitor though.

Good god, the wording just makes me cringe and angry in equal measure. Archaic indeed! Thanks for posting that and also for the layman translation, it's very helpful!

Next question: who does one contact to get this changed/removed/obliterated from our statute books then?!

I've contacted a local family law solicitor so will wait to see what they say.

Thanks again all for your replies, interesting if infuriating discussion.

haveringchick

As regards changing the law, you can lobby your local TD or any other TD, start a campaign, write to the Minister, chain yourself to the railings outside the Dail, ring Joe Duffy, start a Facebook page and update it hourly.
Or you can get on with your great life.
You choose.

Shybride2016

haveringchick wrote: »

As regards changing the law, you can lobby your local TD or any other TD, start a campaign, write to the Minister, chain yourself to the railings outside the Dail, ring Joe Duffy, start a Facebook page and update it hourly.
Or you can get on with your great life.
You choose.

Thanks for the suggestions. I definitely won't be letting this go for now and can't see myself chaining myself to the railings at the Dail, so somewhere in the middle of those two extremes will do!

goz83

Shybride2016 wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestions. I definitely won't be letting this go for now and can't see myself chaining myself to the railings at the Dail, so somewhere in the middle of those two extremes will do!

Super. While you're at it, can you also lobby them about the motor tax office requiring insurance details they're not entitled to, in order to pay the motor tax on a car? A bit off topic, but possibly more relevant, as it requires action, rather than inaction.

eviltwin

Sounds like a money making racket more than anything. Why would you bother doing it? Where's the benefit?

Jentle Grenade

The email you were sent, Shybride2016, was it from a personal employee email address? Was it signed off at all?

Qualitymark

Isn't it the case that if both parents want to be recognised as parents, they have to adopt the child - and to allow Tusla to behave as if they're adoptive parents?

Yup, found it:

http://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/information_sheets/files/CFRBillBriefingNote0315_0.pdf

The Government should reform the provisions on step-parent adoption. Reform is needed to address the unacceptable situation where a lone parent who marries must adopt their own child if their new husband/wife wishes to adopt that child

Shybride2016

Jentle Grenade wrote: »

The email you were sent, Shybride2016, was it from a personal employee email address? Was it signed off at all?

It was sent from noreply_registrar@hse.ie address. Signed off as Registrar, Civil Registrar.

Johnboy1951

seamus wrote: »

And looking at the law, I see why.

My only response to this law is, "what the actual ****".

Civil Registration Act 2004, Section 24.



TL;DR - Parents who get married after the birth of their child have a "duty" to re-register the birth of that child within 3 months of marriage in order to satisfy an archaic act that doesn't actually affect anything.

Failure to do so requires the registrar to serve you notice to attend at the registrar's office to re-register the birth. Failure to attend this meeting is a criminal offence.

The "should" or "may" means that if you don't bother, nothing will happen and there are no consequences. If the registrar discovers the records, then you will have to attend, but there is not actual legal compulsion to re-register the birth since failure to do so is not an offence and has no effect.

Absolutely no harm clearing this with a family law solicitor though.

So failure to attend at the registrar's office is a criminal offence, but having attended the parents can refuse to re-register the birth.

Is that correct?

Any indication what are the consequences of committing this criminal offence of ignoring the registrar's summons to the office?

seamus

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So failure to attend at the registrar's office is a criminal offence, but having attended the parents can refuse to re-register the birth.

Is that correct?

No. The notice to attend will include a list of things you will be required to bring and present to the registrar. Failure to meet these requirements is an offence.

What I really meant is that you can get married and not bother re-registering unless the registrar notices your file(s) and issues a summons*. Which may be never. And there are no consequences until that point.

Any indication what are the consequences of committing this criminal offence of ignoring the registrar's summons to the office?

Up to a €2k fine and/or six months in jail.

Which is hilarious and terrifying when you consider that re-registering does nothing. Literally - the act states that failing to re-register a birth in this manner does not affect the the person's legitimacy.

(6) The failure of the parents of a legitimated person, or of either of them, to furnish information in accordance with this section in respect of the person shall not affect his or her legitimisation.

It's crazy.

*This is not a court summons

Qualitymark

seamus wrote: »

Which is hilarious and terrifying when you consider that re-registering does nothing. Literally - the act states that failing to re-register a birth in this manner does not affect the the person's legitimacy.

The concept of legitimacy was wiped out of Irish law with great fanfare some years back.

It's not correct to say that re-registering does nothing, though. A friend's niece said she had Tusla on her case because of her supposed failings as a parent because she was now considered an adoptive parent of her own child. She's a bit laxy-daisy in the tidiness department, but a wonderful mother.

Johnboy1951

seamus wrote: »

No. The notice to attend will include a list of things you will be required to bring and present to the registrar. Failure to meet these requirements is an offence.

What I really meant is that you can get married and not bother re-registering unless the registrar notices your file(s) and issues a summons*. Which may be never. And there are no consequences until that point.

I am not clear about one aspect ....... it was mentioned by someone earlier in the thread ....

what affect does the re-registering have on the official paperwork regarding the birth of the child ..... long form birth cert I suppose is what I am thinking of.

Is something changed on that form?

Surely date of birth does not change and neither could marriage status of parents at that data; so what does change with re-registering?

Thanks for the info about this

Up to a €2k fine and/or six months in jail.

Which is hilarious and terrifying when you consider that re-registering does nothing. Literally - the act states that failing to re-register a birth in this manner does not affect the the person's legitimacy.



It's crazy.

*This is not a court summons

It surely does seem a pointless exercise .... but trying to figure out why it is still required.

4ensic15

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

When did the status of illegitimacy go?

4ensic15

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Legally they are not considered different or illegitimate. Illegitimate does not exist as a legal concept in this country and hasn't for a number of years.

Since when?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

I wonder if this applies only to cases where the parents want to re-register the birth(s).

"effected"?

You are correct about the misspelling. It makes me wonder if this is a local initiative as usually central stuff gets checked properly or gets noticed quickly and corrected.

Qualitymark

That's not a misspelling. To effect something is to bring it about by your action, to do it.

4ensic15

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That Act did not abolish the concept of illegitimacy. What it did was outlaw various forms of discrimination based on illegitimacy.
Even after that Act only illegitimate children and orphans could be adopted. This means that illegitimacy continues to exists as a legal status and concept.

Qualitymark

4ensic15 wrote: »

That Act did not abolish the concept of illegitimacy. What it did was outlaw various forms of discrimination based on illegitimacy.
Even after that Act only illegitimate children and orphans could be adopted. This means that illegitimacy continues to exists as a legal status and concept.

So orphans count as 'illigitimate'?

I was working in a newspaper at that time, and we were warned that we could under no circumstances use or let pass the term 'illegitimate' from now on.

4ensic15

Qualitymark wrote: »

So orphans count as 'illigitimate'?

I was working in a newspaper at that time, and we were warned that we could under no circumstances use or let pass the term 'illegitimate' from now on.

Orphans are not necessarily illegitimate. A person could be bot but unless one or the other could not be adopted.
As for working in a newspaper, I don't know what relevance that has to a legal discussion.

Qualitymark

4ensic15 wrote: »

Orphans are not necessarily illegitimate. A person could be bot but unless one or the other could not be adopted.
As for working in a newspaper, I don't know what relevance that has to a legal discussion.

Newspapers are very careful about legal definitions.

A bit of online searching finds:

http://www.lawyer.ie/family-law/irish-family-legislation

Status of Children Act 1987: abolished status of illegitimacy and amended law on maintenance and succession for non-marital children. Allowed unmarried fathers to apply for guardianship of their children. Provided for blood tests to establish paternity. - See more at: http://www.lawyer.ie/family-law/irish-family-legislation#sthash.oG6H9oM3.dpuf

https://lauraonlaw.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/the-rights-of-the-non-marital-family-under-irish-law/

The notion of illegitimacy has, in the legal sense, been abolished by section 3 of the Status of Children Act 1987, so that now all children, whether born in or out of wedlock, have the same legal rights.

etc etc

4ensic15

Qualitymark wrote: »

Newspapers are very careful about legal definitions.

So what? Just because a newspaper has a policy which is to avoid being sued for defamation does not amount to a statement of the law. The legislation itself is the only guide , not what some newspaper solicitor directed.

Qualitymark

Are you a family lawyer yourself, @4ensic15?

Qualitymark

Qualitymark wrote: »

That's not a misspelling. To effect something is to bring it about by your action, to do it.

The original text has 'affected'. It should be 'effected'. Basic mistake that shouldnt get on a verified web site, hence my conclusion that this was a local effort.

Qualitymark

Deleted User wrote: »

The original text has 'affected'. It should be 'effected'. Basic mistake that shouldnt get on a verified web site, hence my conclusion that this was a local effort.

Ah, sorry, misunderstood. Yeah, affect/effect is a common mis-choice nowadays; I think these pairs ('tow' the line; 'reign' in; 'grizzly' accident; 'it's' for its…) come from the fact that people under 40 or so haven't been taught English grammar, and people don't read so much as they used to. And the death of sub-editing means that when they do read newspapers and online news sites, they're going to see egregious errors and assume that they're correct.