Lesbian partners allowed to name each other as parents on children's birth certificates

Lesbian women undergoing fertility treatment will be able to name female partners as a ‘second parent’ on their children’s birth certificates under controversial changes to be implemented next week. Ministers are pushing ahead with new regulations despite criticism that they represent another blow to traditional family values. The Government is also removing the need for IVF clinics to consider a child’s ‘need for a father’ when approving fertility treatment. For women who are in a civil partnership and who use donor sperm, the lesbian partner will automatically be named unless they make a written objection.

Single women who give birth using IVF will be allowed to nominate another woman to share legal parentage, whether or not they are in a civil partnership. The ‘second parent’ in such circumstances will have to give their written consent. The change will apply to many of the 2,000 women a year who have IVF using sperm from anonymous donors. There is concern that the new arrangements will create a legal minefield, since ‘second parents’ named on birth certificates will assume the legal rights and responsibilities of biological parents. They could fight for visitation rights and be chased for child support payments if their relationship with the mother breaks down.

Critics also warn that ‘second parents’ could be nominated in much the same way that godparents are now, since it will be impossible to prove whether someone selected by a single mother not in a civil partnership really is a long-term partner or not. Labour MP Geraldine Smith said: 'To have a birth certificate with two mothers and no father is just madness. 'Common sense has completely gone out of the window. It’s very unfair on the children for the state to be colluding to hide their real genetic parentage. The birth certificate 'I think it’s putting the interests of adults first, rather than the welfare of the unborn child, and that’s contrary to the way the system has always worked in the past.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries said the change sent the wrong message to society on the importance of the traditional family. ‘Everything indicates that a mother and father looking after children in the traditional unit works best,’ she said. ‘This move further undermines that model and sends out the wrong message.’

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: 'It’s a peculiarly postmodern way of looking at the world, with almost any family arrangement seen as equally valid. 'My criticism of this is that effectively it creates a legal fiction around the parentage of children. The names of people on the birth certificate will have no relationship at all to the child. 'It will create a legal minefield when it comes to issues like maintenance and inheritance. ‘The best interests of the child should always take precedence over parental choice. It’s tragic that we are creating life in these kind of circumstances when there’s a huge amount that could be done for existing children, in terms of adoption.’

Under provisions in Labour’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, fertility doctors will no longer have to have to consider a child’s need for a male role model, simply ‘supportive parenting’.

The Archbishop of York led religious objections to the Government’s proposals, claiming they were designed to remove the father from the heart of the family. Dr John Sentamu warned that ministers were putting the interests of ‘consumers’ who wanted to become parents before the welfare of children. Polls found that eight out of ten people believe a child has a right to two parents and that six out of ten believe that a child should have male and female parents. Critics accuse Labour of a systematic attempt to undermine traditional family roles. It has removed the traditional terms ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ‘spouse’ from a wide range of official forms, and replaced them with the word ‘partner’.

Ruth Hunt, of gay rights group Stonewall, said the change in the law would end discrimination. ‘Now lesbian couples in Britain who make a considered decision to start a loving family will finally be afforded equal access to services they help fund as taxpayers,’ she said.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209829/Lesbian-partners-allowed-parents-childrens-birth-certificates.html#ixzz0PZZjVaTz

Well, it only makes sense. The sperm donor plays no role in actually raising the child, so why would he be listed as a parent?

I wonder if there is any restrictions a man is allowed to put on the use of his donated sperm. Do men give any considerations that their sperms will create a human beings who will live in a situation that might not be in their best interest? I’m not only thinking of this but also of the Octomom.

Can they not say if my sperm is used it must be given to a woman who is married, financially set, and mentally stable?

Putting another woman’s name on a birth certificate does not of course change the fact that there is an actual biological Dad out there somewhere.

I presume that the child will not grow up thinking that he or she was actually conceived as a result of same sex intercourse.

Seems to me a little bit of political correctness run amok. A birth certificate should be the legal record of the biological parents. Perhaps not listing a sperm donor, but maybe leave the father blank. Putting a female in place of the father is a bit of a joke.

I’ll have to check but I think in our province they redesigned the birth certificate to say parent & parent. My younger son’s grad prom date & her partner were the first couple to be allowed to enter both women’s names as parents.

Ok, verified. Since December 2007, in our province a baby can be registered as having a mother and a father, two mothers or two fathers.

All I can say…is those poor children will be totally and completely confused. More reasons to pray.:frowning:

I guess you can make a law be written to be as politically correct as you want. Its still not practical. One woman is the actual mother and one woman is not.

Why not have a birth certificate that lists “best friend”, or " favorite tv show"? Makes as much sense.

it does say parent and parent, and its to protect both parents if anything happens in their relationship, if they split, if the woman on the birth certificate dies and a whole host of other reasons, Its a good idea and brings a little extra security ?

I don’t think they’ll be totally and completely confused. Actually, it would be more confusing if a man they’ve never met was listed as their father on their birth certificate.

The argument they used is that the legal spouse would automatically be considered the father regardless of who had fathered the child and so the legal spouse in their case should automatically be considered the other parent. The province agreed.

You don’t get it. A man the child has never met and will never meet is indeed the true father. Lying about it on a certificate or in person does not change the truth. Manipulating language to call a partner, who is a joint custodian, a “parent” does not change the truth.

Satan: The Father of Lies. And Fr. John Corapi has preached often about how the devil uses language to corrode moral & social structures so that he can have an easy entryway.

A single woman ***of any sexual persuasion ***who seeks implantation from a sperm donor - whether a known or unknown sperm donor – is an accomplice to the perversion of truth – in other words, to lies.

By a known spem donor, does this mean her husband too. Can a Catholic woman be implanted with the sperm of her own husband if there is a difficulty in conceiving?

No, they are not the true father. They are the biological parent. Fatherhood and motherhood imply more than mere genetics. It is actually a deep perversion of the truth to make the implication that biology is the sole determining factor of fatherhood.

After all, adoptive fathers and step-parents can play far greater roles in a child’s life than the biological father.

Apparently you overlooked the important adjective single in my statement.

(1) Motherhood and fatherhood start with genetics.
(2) I never said that biology is the sole determining factor. (Does more than one person on this thread need adjustments to their reading glasses?) Therefore, there was neither a shallow nor a deep “perversion” of truth. There does seem, however, to be a deep perversion of eyesight on the thread.
(3) Adoption is nevertheless properly the first right of heterosexual couples (among other adopting choices), as they are the ones most mirroring the natural biological love of an adopting mother and adopting father engaged in natural primordial conjugal union. Lesbian partnership (the subject of this thread) does not belong in the category of natural primordial conjugal union.

A remarkable biological achievement which should probably be written up for the medical journals. :wink:

It’s a legal thing, surely? Just as many people have supported gay marriage as it gives partners the same rights for things like hospital access, taxes etc. I dont think it should be seen as such a big deal - but the child should, of course, understand that a man and a woman are biologically needed to create a baby.

I think that, whether you agree with the homosexual relationship or not, the childs two main influences/carers in life should be the ones with the bulk of the rights to it. It would be more confusing and hurtful for a child to be completely separated from a primary carer purely because their name was not on the right bit of paper, should the couple break up.

I believe this is unlikely to be a law that would encourage the homosexuality, just make the parenting of the child more stable when the couple are already engaged in a same-sex relationship.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.