Whose name is on your 'birth' certificate?
When Lisa Phillips Stackman of Indianapolis gave birth to her daughter, Lola Jean, seven weeks ago, she expected that her spouse's name would appear on Lola's birth certificate. If Lisa's spouse had been Jack, instead of Jackie, it would have.
Under Indiana law, the husband of a woman giving birth is presumed to be the father and his name goes on the certificate--even if he's not the father. But because Lisa's spouse was a woman, Indiana officials have refused to put her name on the certificate. Lisa and Jackie are suing with six other same sex couples claiming their constitutional rights have been violated because Indiana officials refused to place both spouses names on the birth certificate. Lisa and Jackie's case may be more compelling because Jackie is Lola's biological mother. She had embryos created with her eggs and frozen two years ago, before she met Lisa.
I have no problem with Jackie's name on Lola's birth certificate. Gay and Lesbian married couples should not be treated differently than straight married couples.
WHOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?
What causes me to scratch my head is how this is Lisa's and Jackie's constitutional right. The birth certificate belongs to Lola. It's what will be used for her to enroll in school, obtain a passport, and qualify for social security, likely long after Lisa and Jackie are gone.
There's an irony here. Courts have held adoptees have no constitutional right to see their original birth certificates--but the plaintiffs here are claiming a constitutional right to control what goes on their child's birth certificate.
Shouldn't little Lola have a say on what goes on her certificate? Of course we don't know what Lola wants but should Lola get what Lisa and Jackie want? It's reasonable to think Lola might want to know the names of her biological parents, in this case, Jackie and Mr. Sperm Donor. Lola might also want a document with the names of her legal parents, Lisa and Jackie for purposes of inheritance.
In a perfect world, Lola would have two documents, one with the names of her biological parents and one with the names of her legal parents. She could use the legal parents certificate for enrolling in school, signing up for softball, and so on. When Lola turns 18, she should get the certificate with the names of her biological parents. This document would help her find them if she desired to do so. Of course this isn't a perfect world.
OBCs REFLECT SOCIETAL NORMS, NOT ALWAYS REALITY
Laws governing birth certificates are contorted to reflect the wants of adults and societal values. Thus, amended birth certificates show the name of adoptive parents as "the parents,"--as if they gave birth to the child, when obviously, they did not. (Unless of course, a biological parent who terminated parental rights later reunites and "adopts" their biological child. It's happened.)
Unmarried fathers cannot have their names on their children's birth certificates unless they and the children's mothers go through lots of legal hoops. That's why so many original birth certificates of adoptees say "father unknown" or similar language, leaving the individual at first to believe his mother did not know who his father was. The reasoning behind this is that "illegitimate" children have no fathers. One consequence is that biological fathers have an uphill battle to prevent the mothers of their children from placing them for adoption--especially in some states where adoption is seen as the preferred course of action for any child born to a single mother and religious custom enforces this. Then look for unscrupulous adoption agencies to set up shop and swoop in and tell mothers to lie to the fathers about the particulars of their location and the birth.
Of course, if mothers apply for welfare, states will chase down these non-existent fathers.
All of this brings to mind Sir Walter Scott's famous line: "Oh what a tangled web we weave--when first we practice to deceive." Now that states have gone down the long road of using birth certificates to meet perceived social goals rather than provide factual information, it will take an Alexander to untangle this Gordian knot--jane
Lorraine here, with a somewhat related fugue: While I am sick with a sinus infection, I have been watching movies on demand and caught up with "The Delivery Man," a quasi-comedy about a man who donated sperm over 693 times in 1991 and due to a mixup at the sperm bank, now has 533 children--and they want to know who their father is. Starring everybody's idea of a good-natured Polish guy, Vince Vaughn, the movie treats the subject both lighthearted (from Wozniak, the Vaughn character's perspective) and seriously but humorously (from the children's point of view).
As a comedy the plot has other twists and turns but I will cut to the chase for us: When the case finally gets to court, the lawyer for the children and the children themselves make all the statements that adoptees in search make: Knowing his father ...."is central to who I am. It's really all I think about"..."There have been a lot of transitions in my life"..."I just want to feel like I have a part of myself"..."I would like to meet the guy--man--who created me." Their lawyer: "...blocking off this vital information has had, and will continue to have, a negative psychological impact on each and every one of his children."
The word "real" as in "real family" is used, criticized, and questioned--by a "real" son. None of the "child" actors look like Vaughn, but that's alright, though it would have been fun to have at least one that looked like him a great deal. Of course that must happen in real life.
It's on Showtime On Demand. I wasn't disappointed, and found it at turns funny, touching and heart-warming.
There is a French movie on the same topic. Anybody know its name? I'd like to see it but can't figure out how to search for it.
Click on the photo or title to rent from Amazon. Order anything and FMF is credited. This is FMF's tip jar.
Indianapolis same-sex couple fights to get both names on daughter's birth certificate
FROM FMF:
Birth Certificate or Certificate of Title?
Wrong Name on Birth Certificate?
TO READ/TO WATCH
The Delivery Man
"It seemed like a good idea at the time: David Wozniak used his talents to donate to a fertility clinic in his youth, thereby banking a nice chunk of change for a specific goal (which will be revealed late in Delivery Man). Twenty years later, this youthful business plan comes back to haunt David, because he abruptly learns that the clinic farmed out his donations to hundreds of clients--and his biological progeny now number over 500. That's shock enough, but 142 of these chips off the old block are suing to learn the identity of the donor. All this is going on while hapless David is fending off loan sharks and the disapproval of his neglected girlfriend. If any of this sounds familiar, it's because director Ken Scott already made this story in 2011's Starbuck, and adapts his own movie quite closely here. The big change is the presence of Vince Vaughn in the lead role, a chance for Vaughn to do his likable-goof routine while also tugging a few heartstrings. Vaughn is an ingratiating actor, and gets able support here from Chris Pratt and Cobie Smulders, but the movie goes a little too blandly for feel-good solutions and ignores one too many 'Why didn't he just do this' moments that might have solved the whole problem. After a while even Vaughn's efforts can't bail out a storyline this convoluted.--Robert Horton
When the reviewer asks--Why didn't he just do that? He needs to know how many fathers and mothers stay in the closet.
Lethal Secrets
By Annette Baran and Reuben Pannor
The book came out in 1999, as fee-donor insemination was becoming mainstream in the U.S. It is outlawed in Great Britian and elsewhere, dramatically reducing the number of children born with purchased sperm.
"Lethal Secrets" takes a long-range view of donor insemination by interviewing donor offspring, donors and parents years after the fact. Taking a hard look at the ramifications of secrecy and donor insemination is not the norm, nor is advocating for openness. Many, if not most, doctors, patients and sperm banks continue to advocate for secrecy, blithely ignoring the psychological dangers of this widespread practice. Baran and Pannor are ahead of their time. They support donor insemination, yet argue persuasively for openness: not only is it every child's right to know the truth of his or her genetic heritage, it is healthier for the parents and the donors, as well. If you are considering using donor insemination or even donor egg to have a child, this book is invaluable. I only wish the authors would write a book specifically about the psychological aspects of using donor egg."--Amazon reviewer
Labels: anonymous sperm donors , egg donor , gay parents , Jackie Philips Stackman , Lisa Phillips Stackman , names on birth certificates , original birth certificates
Lee December 28, 2015 at 2:50 PM
When I gave birth to my daughter in California, I got to put her father's name on the birth certificate. I thought, if she comes searching years later, I did NOT want her to think that I did not know who her father was! He did not have to sign this birth cert either; he was in Canada, and did not find out about her until a year after her birth.
My brother was a sperm donor in Berkeley, and he is wondering if he has another kids out there! He has none of his own, but would like to find out. Is there a way?
And an early "Happy New Year everyone!" Hope 2016 is a LOT better than 2015 was...
Lorraine Dusky December 28, 2015 at 3:36 PM
I've never heard of sperm donors cracking the code of anonymity at sperm banks and IVF clinics. People don't think about what it means to sell sperm or eggs--that they may lead to the birth of an individual who gets half his DNA from that sperm cell, that ova.
Suz Bednarz December 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM
Your brother may want to try DNA sites. 23orme for example. If any of his donated sperm/now children or adults use it, they will match with him.
momengineer December 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM
Hello Lee,
If your brother was associated with -The Sperm Bank of California- in Berkeley, luck may be with him. They were one of the few banks back in the late 1990's supporting a level of openness. Anyone over 18 would be given as much information as possible about their conception.
I didn't conceive, but truly loved the time I worked with them.
Jane Edwards December 28, 2015 at 5:36 PM
My daughter was also born in California. I gave the person collecting information for the birth certificate her father's name. I assume it was put on the certificate. She's never been able to get a copy of it so we don't know.
Oregon, where I live now, does not allow unmarried fathers' names on certificates unless he and the mother sign a sworn statement saying he is the father. I've seen several original birth certificates since Oregon allowed adoptees to access their OBCs in 2000. Some had the space for the father's name blank; some had "unknown" or "N/A". One certificate had "negro." This was in 1969!
Suz Bednarz December 29, 2015 at 8:01 AM
THis was true in 1986 in Illinois as well. Despite the fact the agency allowed my daughters father to sign pre birth surrender papers, the hospital would not allow his name unless he was present. He was not at that time. Her OBC (which I recently got from IL) leaves the father field blank which I oddly prefer over seeing the word UNKNOWN typed in there. He was very much known.
Are people still having any trouble with First Mother Forum? I've been getting a strange pop up that leads to a blank page. Yesterday I ran a scan of my computer; running a malware scan right now. Some people say they are having trouble commenting; others have seen the same stupid page I have. Please let me know if you are having any trouble commenting or otherwise.
I had no issue. I posted just now via Chrome browser on a PC.
Okay. Somebody let me know that when she tried to click onto the site from the FMF page on Facebook, she got the red alert from McAfee about the site. I am running my 2nd malware scan right now. So far nothing has turned up. From yesterday however, I deleted three things (some url) that were supposed to be blocked.
Is anybody still getting diverted to what seems like an ad but turns out to be a blank page that goes nowhere?
new and old December 28, 2015 at 10:37 PM
I don't see that anymore, but tonight I was diverted from FMF to gogardenclub.com. This has happened once in a while for a long time, since I've been coming to this site. Also a Myspace page for some fellow (next time I see that, I'll remember and mention his name). He seems to be an entertainer of some sort. I've been re-directed to both of those from time to time from FMF.
interesting that something does get flagged about your site. at my old employer, it was always flagged as a bad/suspicious site. I could never access it from work. Not the case at my new employer but I suspect they do not have the same level of site filtering/firewall my old employer did. I never understood why your site would be filtered out?
I searched my browsing history. The Myspace page is for Sam Smith:
http://media.myspace.com/fiveminutestothestage/video-theater/sam-smith/109502471?hover=1&locationId=417896
I always get redirected to his page, or the gogardening club page, from FMF, on a fairly regular basis. It doesn't happen that often. I thought maybe they were friends of yours, or advertisers?
I haven't gotten the blank page any more though.
Lorraine Dusky December 29, 2015 at 9:54 AM
Good lord---an English rocker who I've never heard of and a gardening company based in New Zealand--two sites I've never visited. Please keep me informed as I try to work on this.
new and old December 29, 2015 at 5:30 PM
It seems to be caused by Sitemeter widget, do you have that? Sitemeter was bought by a company who installed malware. It's a scheme to inflate the price of the gogardenclub domain name by increasing the number of "hits", and many blogs have been redirected:
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2015/05/apologies-for-the-gogardenclubcom-problem.html
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2015/05/if-like-me-you-still-use-this-long.html
http://www.askbutwhy.com/2015/12/sitemeter-caused-gogardenclubcom.html
(The above are posts from other blogs which have been affected).
As for the British Myspace performer, maybe it's the same story? Not sure
Just found this from Blogger Help Forum!! From Nov. 25.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/VKLV1r9UVOM;context-place=forum/blogger
The ? re: gogardenclub and Sam Smith Myspace, and the answer on how to solve the problem!
thank you! Yes I have sitemeter and will delete pronto. Right now I am listening to Adele 25 and just came upstairs to get my glasses. I will read more and delete later. SO MANY THANKS!
new and old--I had trouble finding the sitemeter code but I found a site telling me what it is and I found it--even though the blog no longer carried the visible widget--I don't know when that disappeared, but I could tell sitemeter was still operating because I could access data on firstmotherforum...well, now that it's gone, let's see if all the bugs have disappeared. So far, I have not had the screwy popup and then white page appear since I ran malware two days ago, or was that only yesterday. Please anybody who sees anything screwy on the blog, LET ME KNOW.
Adoptee December 29, 2015 at 1:07 AM
I think we either need to expanded birth certificates to allow all parties (natural, adoptive) to be included on the document, or we only have the original birth certificate listing the natural parents. And the adoptive parents and child could use a certificate of adoption or something similar to prove the relationship.
Unless expanded to included others, a birth certificate should be an accurate statement of the birth.
kaye December 29, 2015 at 3:55 PM
IMHO, the birth certificate should NEVER be altered. After all, the actual facts of one's birth don't change. If adoption occurs, then a separate document detailing that information should be permanently attached to to the OBC.
And the adoptee should have the right to have copies of everything upon the age of majority.
It matters not to me if there is one document or multiples, but i think all the correct and known information is there.
why should birth certificates be secret at all? at any age? it makes no sense to be to deny someone access to their birth certificate including OBC, at any age. we can get social security numbers and cards as children, and our parents can assist us in so doing. why should birth certificates be some secret, privileged, and changeable-under-secret-circumstances sort of thing? really, it seems to me that the current nature of birth certificates and how they are handled disqualifies them more and more from having any legitimate purpose in the eyes of the law.
can the location of birth be changed/fudged on a birth certificate? if so, seriously, what good are these damnable things, if the names, locations, can all be changed ?
Joan Mary Wheeler January 1, 2016 at 9:08 PM
Yes, many states allow for the birth place and birth date to be changed. Back in the 80s, I heard of open baby moving from the south to the north, and was issued three different birth certificates in three different states.
Most adopted people have one actual birth certificate and one amended birth certificate. But, many children who were adopted several times actually have several birth certificates. Michael Allen Potter, a friend of mine and editor of my memoir, was adopted twice. He has three birth certificates, two are sealed.
Mashka December 29, 2015 at 2:01 PM
I have access to my OBC but I have a question on it. If Jill marries John and has Jerry, then John dies. When Jerry is 10, Jill meets Bob, they marry and Bob adopts Jerry. Does Jerry's birth certificate get changed to erase poor John and put Bob on there, though Jerry's 10 or 11? It may be a stupid question but I honestly don't know much about it. If at 10 we don't erase John for Bob, why would we at 3 months?
Yes. The birth certificate gets amended each time a child is adopted. I know this from first-hand experience, having been adopted first at the age of 2(-ish), and then re-homed and adopted again at the age of 11. The State of California won't let me have my OBC, but I have two different amended birth certificates -- each naming different adults as my "parents".
When an adoption takes place, the adoptive parents' attorney fills out a form as part of the court paperwork to be sent to Vital Stats directing VS to issue a new birth certificate. I understand that some states allow the adoptive parents to direct that a new birth certificate not be created.
Typically, however, the adoption judgment signed by the judge changes the child's name to the name selected by the adoptive parents. If the name was changed but no new birth certificate was issues, the child would face endless confusion.
In the instance you cite, in order not to erase John, the adoptive parents would have to agree to leave Jerry's name intact. This might not sit well with Bob who as the legal father would want his son to have his last name.
While I understand the new "parent's" wishes, and the possible confusion for the child, look at the horrendous issues we are facing now, decades after this injustice was done to us. I say NO to any falsification of a "new" birth certificate for any reason! A child is born only once! After that, even if a parent dies and a step parent wants to adopt, too bad. Legal guardianship should replace adoption and the child's birth certificate - and name - should remain intact!
Lorraine Dusky December 29, 2015 at 10:48 PM
Is anybody still being diverted to gogarden or that British singer? I seem to need to delete some code but so far has been unsuccessful because I can't seem to access the blog the way ... I need to, even though I can see the friggen' code...making me nuts. Going to bed now, but please anybody if you are directed to another stupid set, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
Wiped out tonight, but on the mend...I will feel better when this is repaired!
Looks clean so far. I've come back to this page multiple times since last night, and don't see anything odd. Mission might be accomplished.
It seems Sam Smith is VERY well-known in the UK and wrote and sang the theme song for the latest James Bond movie. So he does not have to pay anybody to direct internet traffic to his Myspace page. I'll bet whoever programmed the malware is a fan.
The French (Canadian) movie is called "Starbuck," it's listed on IMDB.
Lorraine said:
Not anymore! It did it to me only once the day I came in - I "think" it was December 27th. Now it works fine!
momengineer said:
Thank you for that info - I'll let him know!
Okay call me naïve, but when I gave birth I thought she would keep her name - LOL! The way I found her was from a lady in San Diego who "somehow" had access to the birth records; I gave her the # I had on my copy, and she found her that way.
Personally, I think EVERYONE - adopted or not - should have access to ALL their records!!
Okay - back to lurk!
new and old: =Investigation reveals that Starbuck (2011) the movie was directed by the same director, Ken Scott, but starred less well known actors. If at first you don't succeed...try, try again.
Thanks for the thumbs up on the site. I too am no longer getting diverted or seeing wild pop up ads at the bottom. I wonder if it was the sitemeter mess, as at least one other blogger claims. If so, they are going to lost a lot of clients!
IMO, the biological father's name should be on the birth certificate along with the biological mother's. The problem is that it is not possible to know who the biological father is unless one does DNA testing. That is why a male husband is so presumed, because it is possible that he is. We KNOW that a female husband cannot possibly be the father.
These days, one can't even presume the mother who gave birth to a child is indeed a biological parent.
Having access to ones records is not so useful when the info in them is not correct. I know any number of folks who, through DNA testing, have found that they are not the biological children of their parent(s) and this can happen with surrogacy, artifical insemination, etc so that one would never suspect. Technology has made that possible. Rules and regs have not kept up with the technology.
So whose names should go on the birth certificate--the woman who physically gave birth, or the one whose egg became part of the child? My neighbor's twins were conceived with a mix of his sperm, his brother's and donations so they are lottery babies, the mom told me. No telling who is the biological father there. Access to records aren't going to give that info, and if the eggs were donated too, and this can happen, what the heck. A sister in that family has embryos in a freezer, and rather letting them expire, will giving them a chance for life in someone's womb. Adoption at the cellular level here. Whose name on the birth certificates there?
Please read my two articles written on this topic:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/08/end-identity-theft-caused-by-adoption/
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/10/no-one-should-place-false-facts-on-birth-certificates/
Great articles. But the fact of the matter is that NO ONE who has not gotten DNA testing done knows for certain if the info on birth certificate is correct, particularly the father part. There is a funny poem making its way around the internet called "The Red Neck Love Story" that pretty much addresses that point. THe father is often who the mother says is so. If mom lies, half that birth certificate is incorrect. These days with surrogacy, IVF, etc, it isn't even a sure thing if the mother is a biological parent, but one did not know about the father for a long, long time. . So there is that other group who has false info on the birth certificate.
Joan Mary Wheeler January 5, 2016 at 8:05 AM
Cath Young, yes, I agree. (And thanks for reading my articles).
If there could be a way for DNA tests to prove the parents, mother, father, sperm donor, egg donor, AND surrogate mother, then all of those names should go on a birth certificate. This is vital information for the child produced.
If people are not aware yet of epigenetics, please know that surrogate mothers are, indeed, mothers to a fetus who is not genetically hers. Why? Because her body produces hormones, feeds the growing unborn baby, and her cells float in and out of that baby and the baby's cells float in and out of that surrogate mother. If she is living in a third world country, living under deplorable conditions, if she eats poorly, if she is drugged, the baby is affected --- and so will successive generations. The baby is not aware that this mother is not her genetic mother. The baby bonds emotionally with this surrogate mother. When the baby is removed from this mother and shipped to the waiting sperm donor or adoptive couple or egg donor mother, then that baby suffers from the primal wound as well. That is why all surrogate mothers should be named, along with the egg donor, as mothers on the birth certificate.
This further splitting of parentage will cause serious problems in many aspects of life for the donor-conceived people.
maryanne December 31, 2015 at 2:20 PM
The new reproductive technology in all its permutations just makes my head explode. As Cath Young has said, who knows what should go on a birth certificate when as many as 4 or 5 people were involved in creating and birthing and raising the child? At this point it is all way beyond me as an old lady glad none of this existed when my kids were born.
Dana Seilhan January 1, 2016 at 8:45 PM
Same-sex couples deserve equal protection to that of opposite-sex couples, but they're not the *same as* opposite-sex couples, just like women deserve full rights as human beings and U.S. citizens but are not the *same as* men. Birth certificates should have nothing but biological information on them because four generations from now no one is going to care that you were hip and progressive and raised kids with a same-sex partner. They're going to want to know where their great-grandparent came from *biologically*. So only biological parents should be on the OBC. I feel the same way about opposite-sex social parents who aren't the biological parents. I do not agree with a husband automatically being on an OBC if it's known that he's not related to the child. If this is that big of a deal, has legal consequences or whatever, then let's come up with social-parent documentation that is equally legally binding. Lying on official documentation isn't any better with parents who keep kids than it is in an adoption.
You want postively accurate info on a birth certificate, you need to require DNA testing. Even then, you miss some. I have kids that have the same HLA type and woud come up the same. Identical twins always do. BUt that would bring the accuracy up. BUt then mom can always lie and say she doesn 't know who the dad is.
Gays have no right to make things worse for adoptees which is all they are doing. Their so called "rights" should never have trumped ours and personally I wish they would of just stayed the hell out of adoption. Infertile straights are bad enough.
Anonymous, try to tell gays and lesbians who fanatically defend their "rights" that they are self-righteously denying human and civil rights to these children they supposedly love, and you will get scorned. I know. My church is crawling with gays and lesbians who see me as the villain because I stand for truth for the children they either adopted or made by artificial means.
maryanne January 5, 2016 at 11:42 AM
Hey folks, can't you stick up for adoptee rights without bashing gays? How much positive influence can you have on the gay and lesbian families in your church with such a judgmental, hostile attitude? Or is it just a matter of hating anyone who adopts or uses alternate reproductive technology? That will not get you far with influencing any sort of change or get such families to try to get more information to share with their children who I am sure most do love as much as heterosexual families love their kids.
Lorraine Dusky January 5, 2016 at 12:49 PM
Not every comment that is against increasing number of gay adoptions is gay-bashing. Gays adopting simply expands the market for more babies that grew in the "wrong tummy" as some kids are told, per Rosie O'Donnell. The greater the market for adoptable babies, the greater the demand for infants. And where are they going to come from, if not women who do not realize the lifelong impact of relinquishment? On both mother and child?
In the same manner you can be against Israel's expansionist and exclusionary policies against the Palestinians (who once lived on that land) without being an anti-Semite.
The comments above are more about a woman's right/desire/inclination to keep and raise her baby rather than adoptee rights. They are intertwined, but they are not the same thing.
maryanne January 5, 2016 at 4:11 PM
To those who think there was a golden age for family preservation before adoption became popularized in the mid 20th century, think again. Most of the children who today would have been adopted or in foster care met a grim fate in the "good old days" when nobody wanted to adopt for fear of "bad blood.
(From Sarah Hrdy's "Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species.")
"In the era before women had any control over their fertility, child abandonment—a de-facto form of infanticide—"affected not tens of thousands, not even hundreds of thousands, but millions of babies," according to the anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Hrdy. In Florence, for instance, the average annual rate of infant abandonment between 1500 and 1843 ranged from twelve per cent to forty-three per cent. In response, societies eventually began establishing foundling hospitals, but the mortality rates at these were equally high."
Also,unwed mothers in the 19th century often sent their infants to "baby farms" to die, and hired out as wet nurses for the wealthy in the days before safe infant formula.
There will always be a need for some adoption, there will always be some mothers who will not or cannot raise their children, and abolishing adoption altogether is not a realistic solution, nor is blaming gay or straight people who want to adopt for all the corruption in adoption today and thinking what a perfect world it would be if nobody wanted to adopt. I am sure many prospective adoptive parents would be just as glad to have the high fees and money gouging and profit motive taken out of adoption as we in adoption reform would be.
Joan Mary Wheeler January 12, 2016 at 7:23 PM
maryanne --- I am not bashing gays! Did you read my articles above? They were edited by a gay adoptee who is against gay adoption. No one has the right to claim someone else's child as their own.
Maryanne - I am not bashing gays and lesbians! No one has the right to claim someone else's child as their own. Did you read my two articles posted above? They were edited by a gay man who was adopted and he is totally against gay ans lesbian adoption. Why? Because adoption is identity theft. You can love a child and provide a home through guardianship. But you want ownership, don't you.
Lorraine Dusky January 4, 2016 at 1:22 PM
FYI--From The Atlantic, Who's Your Daddy?
"In graduate school, genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of their children. In other words, as many as one of every seven men who proudly carry their newborn children out of a hospital could be a cuckold.
"Non-paternity rates appear to be substantially lower in some populations. The Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, which is based in Salt Lake City, now has a genetic and genealogical database covering almost 100,000 volunteers, with an overrepresentation of people interested in genealogy. The non-paternity rate for a representative sample of its father-son pairs is less than 2 percent. But other reputed non-paternity rates are higher than the canonical numbers. One unpublished study of blood groups in a town in southeastern England indicated that 30 percent of the town's husbands could not have been the biological fathers of their children."
I personally know two cases where this occurred; eventually the adult daughters learned the truth. In one case, her mother...married her biological father a few years after the truth came out. Even the mother herself was not sure until a DNA test was done.
I think we all know of situations like this in our time, and it a staple of literature and drama since the ancient Greeks. Of course this makes much of genealogy which some people are so pretentious about a joke. What a comedown to find you were not descended in the royal line from King Henry, but from handsome Jack the Kitchen Boy who was diddling the Fair Lady but did not get caught and killed like so many in the old ballads. Only DNA holds the real truth, not any sort of legal records.
Jane Edwards January 6, 2016 at 2:09 PM
Yes, mothers can lie about paternity; grandparents can claim the new baby is their son when in fact he is their grandson. Governments, however, should not be in the business of falsehoods.
Mashka January 22, 2016 at 12:56 PM
Just a question, Joan, what identity was stolen from me? I've seen my OBC. Should I change the name my parents gave me and revert back to the one listed there....baby girl? That's right, according to my OBC a legal name was never filed for me so I have, according to you, the name of Baby Girl (last name). Bio mom gave birth, then checked out of the hospital and turned me over to foster care before the birth certificate was filled out because hospitals "creep (her) out." The only identity I have is the one I have now.
Jane Edwards January 22, 2016 at 9:08 PM
Mashka, some mothers were told there was no point in naming the child because the adoptive parents would change the name. Thus Baby Girl (or Boy) Last Name of Mother was put on the birth certificate. Sadly, adoptees see this and assume their mother didn't care enough to name them.
Lorraine Dusky January 22, 2016 at 10:12 PM
I felt I did not have the right to name my daughter. However, because she was so small at birth (under 5 pounds) my social worker--who was the only one at the hospital for me when I woke up--and the priest suggested she be baptized...Mary...Which turned out to be her adoptive mother's name. I have no idea what her birth certificate says. I would not read anything into "Baby Girl" on your birth certificate.