Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Father replaced on IVF baby birth certificates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Father replaced on IVF baby birth certificates

    I Just wondered what the general feeling was about this piece of news I've just been sent, I knew it was in the pipeline, but didn't realise that it's implementation was so close.

    As people who are always searching for the truth, what do you think?

    (Sorry if this is considered the wrong board at the mo, but it's effects could well be on here in a few years time)


    Single women using IVF treatment will soon be able to name whoever they like as the second parent on a birth certificate.

    The new rules, which stems from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, are set to come into force next month.

    From April 6th a friend or female partner can be named as a second parent, with the only restrictions being close blood relatives or if the second person does not agree.

    However critics fear the role of the father is being undermined.

    Family Matters Institute Chief Executive Matt Buttery says it is liberal policy gone mad.

    “For me it's a crazy situation where we’re not telling the truth on a birth certificate,” he says.

    “We are able in a sense to fabricate who your parents are. And I think we've just gone too far and we are not going to know the consequences of these changes for probably 15, 16 years, when children whose fathers aren't named grow up and tell us how that feels.

    I think it's just a huge shame and a hugely dangerous social experiment.”
    Sue x


    Looking for Hanmores in Kent, Blakers in Essex and Kent, Pickards in East London and Raisons in Somerset.

  • #2
    On the whole I agree with Mr Buttery. The physical end result of IVF is the same as any other conception involving an unknown father (says he trying to be diplomatic).
    Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, I have to agree, this is a very worrying precedent.

      Of course, people have told lies on birth certs before now, but that has always been WRONG and punishable by fine or imprisonment (not that it ever is, but the threat is there).

      To officially sanction the telling of a lie on a birth cert makes a nonsense of the registration process.

      We already see the results on here and on GR etc, of people who don't know who their biological father/parents are. None of them have ever said how delighted they are NOT to know.

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        With any birth certificate we take it on trust that the father is who the mother says, and in some cases who the mother is. The father is named on my mother's birth certificate but her mother had been a widow for at least 3 years, and had claimed the same father for all her children, five children were born while her husband was alive and two after he died!

        Comment


        • #5
          The morality of it doesn't bother me but I think every child has the right to know its genetic identity where possible and I'm not keen on the law denying anyone that right.
          Asa

          Comment


          • #6
            If two women will be allowed to be recorded as the parents of a child, then I presume two men would also be allowed the same right? It would seem very strange for a child to have no mother.

            Comment


            • #7
              Its not quite as cut and dried as it sounds.

              Depend what sort of IVF we are talking about, and there are many.
              donor sperm, mothers egg
              Donor egg, fathers sperm
              donor egg, donor sperm

              I assume sperm & egg donors will retain the right to anonimity, should they so choose.
              If not, I can see the availibility of an already scarce commodity becoming even less.

              Having had IVF, I can assure you that even if we had donor sperm, I wouldn't have dreamed of naming anyone BUT my OH as the father.

              Can you imagine, as a woman, that having carried a child for 9 months following the trauma of IVF, giving birth and then not being named as the childs mother? Geez, doesn't bear thinking about.

              If i'd had a donor egg, I'd have named myself as childs mother, everytime. If that makes me a liar, feel free to call me one!

              How many single woman undergo IVF treatment anyway ?- not many
              Jess

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jessbowbag View Post
                Its not quite as cut and dried as it sounds.
                Nothing is ever black and white. It's helpful to have input from someone who's been through it. But it's difficult to weigh up which option(s) are "acceptable" and which are not.

                I incline towards limiting the options to those which are biologically possible (male "father" plus female "mother") even though the declaration by the informant may be factually incorrect or incomplete. A pair of males or a pair of females is biologically impossible, though it may represent the marital "condition" of the child's legal parents.
                Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

                Comment


                • #9
                  How many single woman undergo IVF treatment anyway ?- not many
                  Quite right - hardly any

                  And of the few women who do not have a male partner and want a child, the vast majority would not need IVF (I won't mention chicken basters ), so I don't see why IVF should particularly be mentioned?

                  Could a woman name another woman as the "other" parent if the conception was not an assisted one? (by that I mean donated sperm introduced by whatever method)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Jess

                    I didn't mean to imply that the absolute bare truth should be put on certs where the baby has been conceived by IVF.

                    What I meant was wrong, was that two WOMEN'S names, or two MEN'S names should appear on a birth cert.

                    As one of that couple cannot POSSIBLY be the natural parent - and the law pretends that only natural parents are named on a BC - that is the bit which is wrong, and completely unnecessary as far as I can see.

                    Before IVF, we had A.I.D. Couples were told by their Doctors to put the husband's name on the BC and I imagine most of them did so.

                    What would matter more to you - discovering as an adult that your parents were not your biological parents (perhaps through a necessary DNA test or something) or having the fact forced on you by what was on your BC? Either way, you would almost certainly NEVER find out who your biological parents were - if indeed that mattered to you.

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It seems to be driven by the economics, doesn't it?

                      If the biological father is never going to be legally financially responsible for the child, then I suppose the logic is - name a second person who can then be pinned with that responsibility.

                      In a sense, it's only what has always happened?

                      Part of me doesn't have a problem with it really as the male half of any tree is putative information, at best.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jessbowbag View Post
                        Its not quite as cut and dried as it sounds.

                        Depend what sort of IVF we are talking about, and there are many.
                        donor sperm, mothers egg
                        Donor egg, fathers sperm
                        donor egg, donor sperm

                        I assume sperm & egg donors will retain the right to anonimity, should they so choose.
                        If not, I can see the availibility of an already scarce commodity becoming even less.
                        snip
                        The right to anonymity ended in 2005 when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004 No. 1151) came into force.

                        One year later the figures show a 6% rise in sperm donations according to the Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority (HFEA).

                        This new law flies in the face of the Human Rights Act and is bad law in a similar vein to the Dangerous Dogs Act.
                        Cheers
                        Guy
                        Guy passed away October 2022

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          My feelings are coloured by me being an adoptee - while I suppose the birth certificate isn't the be all and end all, I would have been very unhappy not being able to have the opportunity to know who my genetic parents were, whether they were egg or sperm donors or whatever.
                          Asa

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have no proof of this and it is an Australian case, WA to be precise. My OH's relative, say Mary, is in a relationship with another woman. They have 2 children and I have been told that Mary and her partner are both named on the birth certs, although Mary is not the biological mother. I have no idea how the children were conceived, whether IVF or other methods.

                            I tend to believe the story but don't want to go into details as to why.
                            Kit

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              my dad was adopted, to hide an affair his mother had with her future brother in law. it hasn't been easy finding out if my 'uncle' is grandpa or if grandma's first husband is.

                              i guess, fair enough using next of kin for parent if it was a donor and the name was unknown, but if you know who the other parent is, they should be on the cert.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Single women using IVF treatment will soon be able to name whoever they like as the second parent on a birth certificate.
                                Surely the consent of the person they chose to name would be required? Otherwise any male person could be lumbered with the need for DNA and possible legal action to avoid being held responsible for the upkeep of a completely unrelated child.

                                Maybe even a female person, the way things are going with badly thought through legislation being interpreted by the courts

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  From April 6th a friend or female partner can be named as a second parent, with the only restrictions being close blood relatives or if the second person does not agree.
                                  Presumably it would be the same as for an unmarried couple now, where the "father" has to attend the register office or sign an affidavit stating he is the father.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    OOPs, missed that:o:o

                                    *makes note not to post before properly awake*

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      But "ordinary" legislation is moving towards women being "forced" to name a father on a birth cert, which again is a bad move in my opinion.

                                      I think Penelope is right, this is a money-driven idea, to make someone responsible for the upkeep of a child. I don't know why we don't just bring back the old bastardy examinations and have done with it.

                                      OC

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X