Changes to Birth Certificate rules by Harris

drunkmonkey

Is a birth certificate not a legal record of your bilogical parents?

These changes to replace a bilogical parent with a partner of one of the parents seems fraught with legal and medical issues or is the proposal to allow up to 3 or 4 people on the birth certificate but with different rankings depending on their role in the birth.

It seems like a part of the child's identity is being taken if the bilogical parents aren't being recorded correctly.

Will a second certificate need to be brought in now with biological make up listed?

https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-lgbt-4877603-Nov2019/

GerardKeating

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Is a birth certificate not a legal record of your bilogical parents? https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-lgbt-4877603-Nov2019/

Kind of on your defination of biological parents, if two parents use a surogate mother to give birth to a child, (to which the child has no DNA link, which "mother" should appear on the birth cert?

eviltwin

If its a record of biological parents then should egg and sperm doners be put on birth certs. I guess it comes down to how you define what makes a parent.

drunkmonkey

GerardKeating wrote: »

Kind of on your defination of biological parents, if two parents use a surogate mother to give birth to a child, (to which the child has no DNA link, which "mother" should appear on the birth cert?

Let's say in that case it's 2 guys are the caregivers and neither are a bilogical parent. Should there be no record of any bilogical ties from donors and surrogates. That's where you end in a situation where 5 people could possibly be listed or 3 could be listed and none of them having any genectic link to the baby.

Throw a divorce into the mix or a Tusla involvement on both the caregivers and it gets even more weird.

It does seem like we need a new registration certificate to acknowledge bilogical facts and another one for parenting rights. I think every child where possible is entitled to the former.

splinter65

eviltwin wrote: »

If its a record of biological parents then should egg and sperm doners be put on birth certs. I guess it comes down to how you define what makes a parent.

Scientifically there cannot be a child at all without a male and a female parent.
Everyone deserves to know who these two people are.

eviltwin

Why does there need to be a legal document. I understand the need for a child to know his or her origin but you don't need a document for that. There are many reasons why the biological parent is not on a birth cert. You are focused on same sex parents but this has implications for all couples who have to use assistance to have children.

eviltwin

splinter65 wrote: »

Scientifically there cannot be a child at all without a male and a female parent.
Everyone deserves to know who these two people are.

That doesn't answer my question. Should a sperm or egg donor be placed on the birth cert as they are the biological parent?

GerardKeating

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Let's say in that case it's 2 guys are the caregivers and neither are a bilogical parent.

This is exactly the situation many adopted people find them selves in.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think every child where possible is entitled to the former.

True..

The Inpatient

For the purposes of family trees, tracing your ancestry will become impossible in the future if the biological parents are omitted.

drunkmonkey

eviltwin wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question. Should a sperm or egg donor be placed on the birth cert as they are the biological parent?

Yes they should. The child should have a right to know or access the information in the future if they wish.
Should the donor have any rights to the child or visa versa it'll be an interesting legal conversation.

eviltwin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yes they should. The child should have a right to know or access the information in the future if they wish.
Should the donor have any rights to the child or visa versa it'll be an interesting legal conversation.

Egg and sperm donations would drop off a cliff then. One of the reasons people do it is the guarantee of anonymity. As a former donor myself I have no idea if a pregnancy was the result but if it was I'm not the parent, the parents name only should be recorded

drunkmonkey

eviltwin wrote: »

Egg and sperm donations would drop off a cliff then. One of the reasons people do it is the guarantee of anonymity. As a former donor myself I have no idea if a pregnancy was the result but if it was I'm not the parent, the parents name only should be recorded

Well you are a parent if it was a success. You do have a blood link to someone out there, it's your choice to care or not care about your offspring but I believe if there is a record kept somewhere that child is entitled to it.
I've a feeling a case like this had already came up...

Batty Boy

I remember not long ago when Joan Burton was minister for social welfare, the plan was to make it mandatory for fathers to be named on birth certificates, she put out a lot of arguments about why it was so important for someone to know who their biological parents are. Why the sudden dramatic rethink of policy?

Robbo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Is a birth certificate not a legal record of your bilogical parents?

These changes to replace a bilogical parent with a partner of one of the parents seems fraught with legal and medical issues or is the proposal to allow up to 3 or 4 people on the birth certificate but with different rankings depending on their role in the birth.

It seems like a part of the child's identity is being taken if the bilogical parents aren't being recorded correctly.

Will a second certificate need to be brought in now with biological make up listed?

https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-lgbt-4877603-Nov2019/

Would you care to elaborate upon any of these legal issues you see with the proposed regulations?

drunkmonkey

Robbo wrote: »

Would you care to elaborate upon any of these legal issues you see with the proposed regulations?

The divorce is the obvious one, what happens when a relationship ends is the child forced to remain with a non bilogical parent. Can the child have the right to get that person removed from their birth cert.

Batty Boy

Amazing the change in direction https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/fathers-name-will-have-to-appear-on-birth-cert-29442675.html

splinter65

eviltwin wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question. Should a sperm or egg donor be placed on the birth cert as they are the biological parent?

Yes of course.

Balf

GerardKeating wrote: »

This is exactly the situation many adopted people find them selves in.

Indeed, but at least the certificate they receive clearly states that their legal parents are adoptive parents.

I have to admit, I struggle to see how this is achieving equality.

But, indeed, similar issues arise in respect of the legal rights and obligations of all of the parties, including those contributing gametes to a conception, in cases of AHR.

And it would seem very necessary for people to know their genetic heritage, for health reasons if nothing else.

MilitaryRoad

eviltwin wrote: »

If its a record of biological parents then should egg and sperm doners be put on birth certs. I guess it comes down to how you define what makes a parent.

It's not called a parent cert, it's called a birth cert. Maybe the best solution is for the state to issue two certificates, one showing the biological creators of the child and another showing the childs parents.


Two men or two women cannot biologically create a child, equally some heterosexual couples who create a child cannot properly parent them so maybe it's time to fully separate out the two roles and document them accordingly, such a solution would appear to keep everyone happy.

splinter65

It’s totally wrong to deprive someone of the identity of both their biological parents

Marcusm

Define biological parents; egg donor, sperm donor both from countries with identity shield laws. Gestational surrogate (I.e. woman who carried child for 9 months) who has no DNA connection with the child.

How would a state identify the relevant people and identify them.

The parents are the people who will raise the child. Maybe we should start referring to them as parental/guardian registers not birth registers.

splinter65

Marcusm wrote: »

Define biological parents; egg donor, sperm donor both from countries with identity shield laws. Gestational surrogate (I.e. woman who carried child for 9 months) who has no DNA connection with the child.

How would a state identify the relevant people and identify them.

The parents are the people who will raise the child. Maybe we should start referring to them as parental/guardian registers not birth registers.

The egg came from a biological female the sperm from a biological male. Why would you pretend to someone that those two people aren’t relevant? Every single tiny piece of your DNA, the building bricks of who you are, came from those two people.
Are you crazy?

lozenges

The most recent article I've seen in the Irish Times (sorry, can't figure out how to link on mobile) states that anonymous sperm donation is to be done away with and a register for donor conceived people is to be created shortly under sections 2 and 3 of the children and family relationships act.
Not sure how I feel about that. Certainly if I was a man who had been considering sperm donation I would never do it if it wasn't anonymous. However I am glad to see that some attention is being paid to regulating the area of surrogacy and assisted fertility, it's long overdue.
Also simply contributing genetic data doesn't make someone a parent. Parenting does that.

Balf

Marcusm wrote: »

Maybe we should start referring to them as parental/guardian registers not birth registers.

Although, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is the facts of the birth that we want to record.

Plus, there's lots of complexity around folk seeking different treatment for ostensibly the same set of facts.

For example, in surrogacy, there are situations where couples will want the surrogate regarded as (effectively) a third party with no connection to the child. On the other hand, some lesbian couples practice reciprocal IVF - one donates an egg, which is fertilised and implanted in her partner - where they effectively want the surrogate to be regarded as a parent.

That complexity needs to be faced - as people are going and doing stuff, so its not that the law can ignore facts that exist about how some people came to be born. At the same time, we do need to ground ourselves and recall that (for want of a neutral term), overwhelmingly, people are conceived naturally.
We could end up with an unnecessarily convoluted process, when even the presumption of paternity within marriage is still a valid enough principle in about 60% of births.

drunkmonkey

Has Harris free reign to do what he wants here?, going by his quote in the article once we voted for same sex marriage he was given a mandate to do it.

Balf

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Has Harris free reign to do what he wants here?, going by his quote in the article once we voted for same sex marriage he was given a mandate to do it.

Some might say that this is not consistent with the arguments advanced by Government when proposing the amendment, as it was presented that it had nothing to do with parental rights.

https://www.finegael.ie/speech-by-the-minister-for-justice-and-equality-frances-fitzgerald-td-on-the-marriage-equality-referendum/

5th February 2015

... The referendum is about who can marry. It is not about parental rights for children. ... Enacting the Child and Family Relationship legislation in the coming month will mean that the only question in the minds of the people, when they vote on the Referendum question in May, should be about marriage equality, and not about children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it.

GM228

Balf wrote: »

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Has Harris free reign to do what he wants here?, going by his quote in the article once we voted for same sex marriage he was given a mandate to do it.

Some might say that this is not consistent with the arguments advanced by Government when proposing the amendment, as it was presented that it had nothing to do with parental rights.

https://www.finegael.i...equality-referendum/

5th February 2015

... The referendum is about who can marry. It is not about parental rights for children. ... Enacting the Child and Family Relationship legislation in the coming month will mean that the only question in the minds of the people, when they vote on the Referendum question in May, should be about marriage equality, and not about children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it.

All that the minister is doing is issuing a commencement order to bring into force Parts 2 and 3 (and associated amending provisions) of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, he may also issue regulations dealing with matters provided for under Parts 2 and 3 under S41 of the Act.

The 2015 Act was a result of the 2012 Children's Rights Referendum, not the 2015 Marriage Equality Referendum.

Marcusm

splinter65 wrote: »

The egg came from a biological female the sperm from a biological male. Why would you pretend to someone that those two people aren’t relevant? Every single tiny piece of your DNA, the building bricks of who you are, came from those two people.
Are you crazy?

I don’t pretend they are not relevant but in a number of assisted reproduction cases, sperm and eggs are obtained from donors and the names are neither known to the prospective parents nor acknowledged on the birth certificate. An Irish birth cert registers the woman who carried the baby as mother even where the egg, ie the genetic material, came from a donor. Likewise with spermicide donations where the “father” will be the spouse or partner of the mother. This already exists.

splinter65

Marcusm wrote: »

I don’t pretend they are not relevant but in a number of assisted reproduction cases, sperm and eggs are obtained from donors and the names are neither known to the prospective parents nor acknowledged on the birth certificate. An Irish birth cert registers the woman who carried the baby as mother even where the egg, ie the genetic material, came from a donor. Likewise with spermicide donations where the “father” will be the spouse or partner of the mother. This already exists.

Yes and it’s absolutely wrong.

Balf

GM228 wrote: »

All that the minister is doing is issuing a commencement order to bring into force Parts 2 and 3 (and associated amending provisions) of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, he may also issue regulations dealing with matters provided for under Parts 2 and 3 under S41 of the Act.

The 2015 Act was a result of the 2012 Children's Rights Referendum, not the 2015 Marriage Equality Referendum.

Just to be clear, it is Simon Harris who is grounding his action by referring to the Marriage Referendum. He also seems to be saying that referendum demands further action to be taken in respect of children, which is very much not the argument made at the time the amendment was proposed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-laws-to-allow-same-sex-parents-register-both-names-on-child-s-birth-cert-1.4071199

“Today is a really important day. We will sign the regulations to commence parts of the Children and Family Relationships Act. This is something many families have fought for for years and I am so pleased we now have a start date.

“When we voted in the marriage equality referendum, we voted for every relationship to be treated equally. However, it is clear our legislation still needs to evolve.”

GM228

Balf wrote: »

Just to be clear, it is Simon Harris who is grounding his action by referring to the Marriage Referendum. He also seems to be saying that referendum demands further action to be taken in respect of children, which is very much not the argument made at the time the amendment was proposed.

Why would that argument be made at the time? It didn't need to be as that was covered in the 2012 referendum. I think your missing the point I'm making, he is simply bringing into force legislation which was drafted 3 years before the 2015 referendum, the referendum it is not the basis for the legislation.

My take on his mention of the 2015 referendum is that the referendum did so much, now he should do some more as in implement what has already been provided for in legislation.

Also note what he stated:-

*1 "The referendum is about who can marry. It is not about parental rights for children. ... Enacting the Child and Family Relationship legislation in the coming month will mean that the only question in the minds of the people, when they vote on the Referendum question in May, should be about marriage equality, and not about children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it"

*2 "When we voted in the marriage equality referendum, we voted for every relationship to be treated equally. However, it is clear our legislation still needs to evolve"

He basically stated that (*1) the 2015 Act when enacted meant we only had to worry about marriage equality (and rightly so) for the purposes of the referendum as children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it was already provided for previously, but, (*2) that legislation whilst enacted never commenced, it does need to evolve by being brought into force and that is what he is doing.

That's my take on it anyway, I don't see any issues with the 2015 or latest comments.

Iodine1

A birth certificate should be a record the biological make up of the person. A parental certificate should be used to record the family and fulfil all the legal issues re next of kin, inheritance etc etc that people are finding deficient in the birth cert.
Have we learned nothing from history? People were distraught over illegal adoptions where the birth cert was found not to be accurate.
Now, more importantly than ever, everyone is entitled to know their genetic make up, and the idea of anonymity for either egg or sperm donors is in my view simply wrong.

Balf

GM228 wrote: »

Why would that argument be made at the time? It didn't need to be as that was covered in the 2012 referendum. I think your missing the point I'm making, he is simply bringing into force legislation which was drafted 3 years before the 2015 referendum, the referendum it is not the basis for the legislation.

My take on his mention of the 2015 referendum is that the referendum did so much, now he should do some more as in implement what has already been provided for in legislation.

Also note what he stated:-

*1 "The referendum is about who can marry. It is not about parental rights for children. ... Enacting the Child and Family Relationship legislation in the coming month will mean that the only question in the minds of the people, when they vote on the Referendum question in May, should be about marriage equality, and not about children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it"

*2 "When we voted in the marriage equality referendum, we voted for every relationship to be treated equally. However, it is clear our legislation still needs to evolve"

He basically stated that (*1) the 2015 Act when enacted meant we only had to worry about marriage equality (and rightly so) for the purposes of the referendum as children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it was already provided for previously, but, (*2) that legislation whilst enacted never commenced, it does need to evolve by being brought into force and that is what he is doing.

That's my take on it anyway, I don't see any issues with the 2015 or latest comments.

Just to be clear, the first quote is Frances Fitzgerald, who as Minister in 2015 sponsored the amendment. The second is Simon Harris, speaking now. There is a very clear contrast between the two quotes.

In the first, we are told the Marriage Amendment has no impact on law relating to children and parents. In the second, we are told the Marriage Amendment mandates an agenda of change in law relating to children and parents.

And the significance of this is that a campaign now exists to press beyond the 2015 Act, to which the regulations relate.

Simon Harris is claiming this is what people voted for in 2015. The records shows that's not the proposition made at the time.

Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting the Courts will care too much about political rhetoric when interpreting the Amendment. Its just worth noting these little lies we get told in the hope, as Roger Daltry might say, that we don't get fooled again.

GM228

Balf wrote: »

Just to be clear, the first quote is Frances Fitzgerald, who as Minister in 2015 sponsored the amendment. The second is Simon Harris, speaking now. There is a very clear contrast between the two quotes.

In the first, we are told the Marriage Amendment has no impact on law relating to children and parents. OIn the second, we are told the Marriage Amendment mandates an agenda of change in law relating to children and parents.

And the significance of this is that a campaign now exists to press beyond the 2015 Act, to which the regulations relate.

Simon Harris is claiming this is what people voted for in 2015. The records shows that's not the proposition made at the time.

Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting the Courts will care too much about political rhetoric when interpreting the Amendment. Its just worth noting these little lies we get told in the hope, as Roger Daltry might say, that we don't get fooled again.

How does the second quote state the 2015 referendum mandates a change in the law, and how is it going beyond the 2015 Act, he is bringing into force parts of the 2015 Act (which have absolutely nothing to do with the 2015 referendum), not amending the Act.

I fail to see the issue with both statements and their relation to our laws and how there are "lies" associated with them? The first statement is very true, so what's wrong with the second, again it is true - he is bringing into force legislation drafted and promised long before the 2015 referendum.

Balf

GM228 wrote: »

How does the second quote state the 2015 referendum mandates a change in the law, and how is it going beyond the 2015 Act

I think its clearer when you see more of his statement

https://irishlegal.com/article/courts-could-be-granted-power-to-make-parental-orders-in-surrogacy-cases

Health Minister Simon Harris will later sign regulations to commence sections 2 and 3 of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 from 5 May 2020.

Mr Harris said: “This is something many families have fought for for years and I am so pleased we know have a start date.

That, as you say, really only relates to bringing into force legislation that already exists.

But there's more, and this is where Simon Harris cites the marriage referendum as giving support for future legislative change relating to children and parents, which conflicts with the line in 2015 to the effect that the marriage referendum had nothing to do with that.

“When we voted in the marriage equality referendum, we voted for every relationship to be treated equally. However, it is clear our legislation still needs to evolve.

“When I met with LGBT families a number of weeks ago, they pointed out the impractical realities of our current laws and while we know some of their issues will be addressed through the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill, there are areas that require some consideration.

“I have some proposals as to how to look at these matters but I want to discuss these with the families first and hope to make some progress on this next week.”

You'll notice he doesn't refer to the Childrens Rights Referendum; maybe he should.

Do you think that addressing these issues as part of marriage equality leads to a different place to dealing with them as rights of the child? I haven't thought about it in detail, but I suspect it could.

blacklilly

In my view we need to thread careful here.

Whilst I appreciate parents who have chosen surrogacy or egg/sperm donation feel they should be noted on the birth cert, it must be equally recognised that everyone should retain the right to know who their biological parents are.

It is my view that the birth cert should only state biological parents and an additional cert be provided in cases where surrogacy/donation has been used.

The right for one person to create a human by surrogacy/donation should not supersede the right for someone to know who their biological parents are.

Balf

I agree with the need to thread carefully. These are emotive issues, but I really feel that emotion is being used to avoid frank discussion.

For instance, there's an article in the Journal that sets out the kind of thing being said, that has many statements that need challenge and elaboration

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/parental-rights-lgbt-4878542-Nov2019/

WHEN IRELAND VOTED overwhelmingly for the marriage equality referendum, we thought that when we have children everything is going to be equal.

As I posted above, it was very explicitly stated at the time that the marriage referendum had nothing to do with children and parents - yet its now being used as justification for change in the law relating to children and parents.

This Act covers same-sex couples who use a non-anonymous donor through an Irish clinic. We tried this and in spite of a lot of different treatments and approaches, it wasn’t successful......

After an expensive and traumatic few years, our friend decided to help us and donate sperm. We were delighted that after two attempts, Gabriela became pregnant and our son Luca was born.

Is this a euphemism for saying that Gabriela had intercourse with a man? Because if we're re-assigning parentage of naturally conceived children, we'd want to think it over for more than a minute.

It’s frustrating as we have Irish friends in England and Canada who are in the same situation as us but they have full parental rights. Why can’t Ireland just copy their laws?

Is it as simple as that? This is what a UK Government website says

https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-for-egg-and-sperm-donors

If you’re a sperm donor, you could be the legal parent of any child born from your donation. ....
If you give birth to a child, you’re always considered the legal mother in UK law even when using a donated egg.

Some of these things are unalterable physical realities, and I expect we'll find other jurisdictions are facing exactly the same problems - and some of them may be bending to pressures that should be resisted.

drunkmonkey

It gets a hell of a lot trickier when you bring in artificial sperm and eggs pulled from two guys or girls, that's messing with the gene pool on a whole different level like we've never seen before. A baby created from 2 people of the same sex. It's a reality that's possible now.
I think it's a step too far but plenty won't if it's scientifically possible. It'll automatically become a right depending on what Harris pushes through.

drunkmonkey

Just like to say my last comment applies to anyone playing with IVG (not ivf) not necessarily a ss couple.
I'm not sure if it's legislated for under current laws but something that should be looked at.