NSW Birth Certificates - caveat!

[Christine in Herts]

I'm on the Sydney DPS mailing list and Mick Reed, there, has drawn the list's attention to a risk with obtaining certified birth records from NSW. I hope he won't mind me quoting him:

When you get a birth certificate from NSW BMD (at substantial expense),
it contains the following statement:

'I hereby certify that this is a true copy of particulars recorded in a
Register in the State of New South Wales, in the Commonwealth of
Australia' and it will be signed by the Registrar.

Problem is it may not be true if the child was born outside of marriage.

NSW Births, Marriages and Deaths

Act 1995 Section 49 (3) reads as follows:

"If the word “illegitimate”, or any other word or expression referring
to the fact that a child was born outside marriage, appears in an entry
in the Register , that word or expression is not to be included in any
certificate issued by the Registrar."

He emailed the authorities for clarification and obtained this reply:

In Australian history illegitimate children have been discriminated
against both socially and legally. It was previous practice for a
child's illegitimacy to be noted on their birth certificate. To describe
a child as illegitimate is derogatory.

In 1976 legislation was passed in NSW that concerned the removal of
legal disabilities to illegitimate children. This included the removal
of any words or expressions on a persons birth certificate that
identified them as illegitimate.

All certificates that the Registry issues must comply, including family
history certificates. There will be no indication that this information
has been excluded from the certificate.

The words "illegitimate" and "spinster" are the common words that were
used in our register, that is why they are specifically listed.

Section 49(3) relates to a word or expression, and does not include any
other details such as a mother's family name.

The legislation relating to the removal of these details is the current
law, I cannot comment on whether this will change in the future.

"Fletch", on the list (and who, I hope, will also forgive me for quoting him), has added this as a way around the problem, if there is no legal need for an actual cert:

I don't bother obtaining ' registration certificates ' issued by the NSW BDM
simply because of the cost. I instead use a transcript agent. The
information contained in those transcripts is exactly what appears in the
official registers and on quite a few of those that I have in my possession
the words " illegitimate " and " spinster " do appear. I am aware that
these transcripts are not OFFICIAL documents but it does get around the
problem and does tell the whole story.

I can still use the information and document as souce citations quoting the
register numbers and the repository

A few replies have commented on the risk of additional transcription errors when using a transcription agent.

Christine

~~~~~~~~~~
In this context, researching: CHRISTMAS (Queensland), MARKS & FREEMAN/FRIEDMAN (NSW & Victoria - also NZ).

[Mary from Italy]

Yes, I've just been reading those posts, and I was a bit horrified, to say the least.

It's a problem, because I do normally use one of the three authorised transcription agents, but I have found mistakes in her transcriptions in the past, so it's hard to know what to do.

It also seems like a pointless rule, because you can't get birth certs less than 100 years old anyway.

[Kit]

I got this email too.

I must say I use a transcription agent all the time - Marilyn Rowan. She is very good and professional. I had a query about one transcription and she went and rechecked the records before answering.

I'm sure NSW birth certs have date and place of marriage so if they are blank it is going to be obvious that the child is illegitimate even if the word isn't stated.

The only downfall is that older certs are copies of the actual register so you get to see your ancestors handwriting. You don't get that on a transcription.

[margaretmarch]

Yes, I've just been reading those posts, and I was a bit horrified, to say the least.

It's a problem, because I do normally use one of the three authorised transcription agents, but I have found mistakes in her transcriptions in the past, so it's hard to know what to do.

It also seems like a pointless rule, because you can't get birth certs less than 100 years old anyway.

I guess this is for living people who want their own certificate to show for some reason. They can since 1976/1995 according to what's said have a copy now that doesn't refer to their status in relation to a marriage.
Margaret

[dicole]

It's not only transcription agents who make the mistakes. I have an official copy of my own NSW birth certificate that I got before my marriage 30 years ago. When I went to use it to get a passport last year, the Passport Officer said the names on it did not match my registered marriage certificate.

When my father filled in the forms to register my birth, some clerk has typed or written into the register my mothers maiden name as EOCLES. For 50 years we all knew it was ECCLES and just assumed it was a poor typewriter that was used for the copy. Alas no, the original register was wrong.

The Passport Office will not issue a passport where the certificates are different. So how can the Registrar alter the original register to make it correct, and then issue another certificate with the correct maiden name, claiming it to be a true copy of the original.

My fathers certified copy of his birth registration is also wrong. We dare not question whether the copy is wrong (LAWRENCE for LAURENCE) or the original register. Fortunately when he got his passport, there's a crease just over the W and in those days, identity documents were not scrutinised to the "nth" degree.

So even a certified certificate may in fact be incorrect, not getting into the legal fact that the wording has been altered. An if "illiegitimate" is left off and so alters the copy of the original, how can a birth certificate for a child adopted, in their adopted name, claim to be a true copy of the original ?

This challenges the whole idea of proof of identity.

[mickreed]

Go ahead Christine in Herts. Quote all you like. I sent the following to NSW Attorney General. If we all live long enough, I send you his reply.

Mick

For the attention of the Attorney-General

Dear Sir

As the senior law officer in NSW please would you provide me with your opinion as to the legality of certain actions conducted on your behalf within your own department.

When the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages issues a copy of a birth certificate for Family History purposes, it contains the following statement over the Registrar's signature:

'I hereby certify that this is a true copy of particulars recorded in a
Register in the State of New South Wales, in the Commonwealth of
Australia'

I now have written confirmation, from the Executive Unit of the Registrar's office, that a certificate may be issued with certain information relating to illegitimacy removed and that there will be no indication that such removal has occurred. It is further confirmed that this will be the case even where the event covered by the certificate occurred well over a hundred years ago.

I ask for your views as to how this is compatible with the statement appearing on the certificate over the Registrar's signature and referred to above.

I am aware of the legislation under which this information is removed, but I am unaware of any legislation that permits the Registrar to still maintain that a true copy has been issued.

You will be aware that a significant fee is paid for each certificate, but that surely pales into insignificance against knowingly certifying something as a true copy, when it is not.

I would also ask what would be the response should any one else (such as a JP) certificate a document as a true copy of the original, knowing that information has been omitted.

I look forward to your early reply

Mick Reed

[Christine in Herts]

Thank you, Mick, for the permission.

I feel it's important to know what's being done in that respect. In one sense, I don't object to the editing, if that's how the law is framed - but the certificate wording should draw attention to the possibility of the editing, by quoting the relevant law. The current wording doesn't mention that it may have been edited, and that is misleading - to say it actually has been would immediately defeat the object, of course.

Needless to say, for research purposes, such editing is a complete pain. In the case of certs for births where "living person" is not at all likely, it would seem more appropriate to make an explicit exception. In Florida, for instance, you can obtain a death cert, but only family members can apply for the version with the cause of death included in the case of a death within the last 50 years. (I'm not sure how rigorous their checking of relationship is, mind you!)

Christine

[Christine in Herts]

Oh - and Welcome to FTF, Mick!

Christine

[mickreed]

Thanks for the welcome Christine,

My guess is that the law was framed with the intent of protecting the living, but it's now being interpreted to cover the long dead as well. I suspect that it wouldn't need a law change but rather some sort of regulation or reinterpretation. Mind you I'm no lawyer.

Mick (once from Sussex)

[Steve61]

You could apply for a F.O.I ,that might give you the info you need.