Changes to Birth Certificate rules by Harris

drunkmonkey · 04-11-2019 09:48AM #1

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 · 04-11-2019 12:01PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:04PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:15PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:18PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:21PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:22PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:24PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:29PM

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

drunkmonkey · 04-11-2019 12:43PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:50PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:53PM

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 · 04-11-2019 12:58PM

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 · 04-11-2019 01:00PM

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 · 04-11-2019 01:05PM

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 · 04-11-2019 01:06PM

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

splinter65 · 04-11-2019 01:12PM

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 · 04-11-2019 01:15PM

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 · 04-11-2019 02:17PM

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 · 04-11-2019 02:57PM

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

Marcusm · 04-11-2019 03:45PM

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 · 04-11-2019 04:02PM

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 · 04-11-2019 04:11PM

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 · 04-11-2019 04:16PM

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 · 04-11-2019 04:38PM

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 · 04-11-2019 05:12PM

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 · 04-11-2019 07:21PM

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 · 04-11-2019 08:51PM

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 · 04-11-2019 09:00PM

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 · 04-11-2019 10:06PM

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 · 04-11-2019 10:52PM

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.

Changes to Birth Certificate rules by Harris

Comments