Florida judge approves birth certificate to include one man and two women

There are 31 comments on the www.proudparenting.com story from Feb 9, 2013, titled Florida judge approves birth certificate to include one man and two women. In it, www.proudparenting.com reports that:

A Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge has decided that a lucky child will have three loving parents (pictured here). Over two years ago, this couple asked their acquaintance to donate his sperm to help them become pregnant. Without any written contract, they became pregnant - and the man decided he wanted to have a role in the parenting. The women disagreed, and a court battle dragged on. Although under Florida law, sperm donors have no legal rights to children...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.proudparenting.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#22 Feb 10, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
But it might matter if you DIDN'T know your pedigree going back centuries.
I know a beautiful young girl who was adopted as a foundling, and no one knows who her biological parents were. Now that she is on the cusp of puberty, she is in danger of losing her eyesight. Her doctors suspect there might be a rare genetic basis for her condition; if so, it would be very helpful to be able to trace it.
We're racing against the clock here. A birth certificate with her biological parents' names would sure be of help in these dire circumstances.
Such usually exists, sealed, in adoption cases.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#23 Feb 10, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Such usually exists, sealed, in adoption cases.
Not when the child is a foundling.

And since the child in question is a family member, I'm very familiar with the case.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24 Feb 10, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when the child is a foundling.
And since the child in question is a family member, I'm very familiar with the case.
I understand, but there's no original birth certificate at all in that case. Right?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25 Feb 10, 2013
A birth certificate is essentially the title to a child. In cases where a child is adopted at birth, or a sperm or egg donor or surrogate, the actual biological/birth parents are recorded, but the birth certificate is issued in the name of the people actually taking responsibility as parents. In this case, the couple who are going to raise the child and the donor all want to take responsibility for the child, their agreement should be honored by the state as being in the child's best interests.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#26 Feb 11, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand, but there's no original birth certificate at all in that case. Right?
No, wrong. There is most likely an original birth certificate somewhere. The parents just weren't thoughtful enough to leave it with the baby, who was 6 to 8 weeks old when they abandoned it. Maybe they didn't want to be charged with child abandonment?

We have been trying to trace the certificate within a certain geographical radius, but it's still like looking for a needle in a haystack. We'll probably never find it ... but if we do, it will be helpful if there is just one woman and one man listed on it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#27 Feb 11, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
No, wrong. There is most likely an original birth certificate somewhere. The parents just weren't thoughtful enough to leave it with the baby, who was 6 to 8 weeks old when they abandoned it. Maybe they didn't want to be charged with child abandonment?
We have been trying to trace the certificate within a certain geographical radius, but it's still like looking for a needle in a haystack. We'll probably never find it ... but if we do, it will be helpful if there is just one woman and one man listed on it.
footprint hospital records.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Feb 11, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
A birth certificate is essentially the title to a child. In cases where a child is adopted at birth, or a sperm or egg donor or surrogate, the actual biological/birth parents are recorded, but the birth certificate is issued in the name of the people actually taking responsibility as parents. In this case, the couple who are going to raise the child and the donor all want to take responsibility for the child, their agreement should be honored by the state as being in the child's best interests.
Well that's what needs to change.

A birth certificate should be to prove your citizenship and to hold people financially responsible for the children they create.

A separate parenting document can be issued if someone other than the biological parents are to be reponsible for the child.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#30 Feb 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Well that's what needs to change.
A birth certificate should be to prove your citizenship and to hold people financially responsible for the children they create.
A separate parenting document can be issued if someone other than the biological parents are to be reponsible for the child.
Why? The people creating the baby and the people taking financial and other responsibility for the child may not be one and the same group of folk. As long as there remains a permanent state record of the pertinent info, where, when, bio mom/bio dad, it really doesn't matter who the title to that child is made out to if it is the ones who are going to be responsible for it from then on. A birth certificate is the parents proof of ownership of "their" child and it helps when that proof is in their names. Or as you suggest, they can carry a birth certificate naming bio mom (if known) and bio dad (ditto) and a document showing that said responsibilities have been transferred to one or more of the current owners. I think the little white lie told by an amended birth certificate is a lot easier for most folk to work with. in this case, it gives the child a legal second mother in a woman who was going to be in that role anyways. If her name hadn't gone on the birth certificate, she would have no legal claim as mommy short of adopting "their" own baby.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#31 Feb 11, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Why? The people creating the baby and the people taking financial and other responsibility for the child may not be one and the same group of folk. As long as there remains a permanent state record of the pertinent info, where, when, bio mom/bio dad, it really doesn't matter who the title to that child is made out to if it is the ones who are going to be responsible for it from then on. A birth certificate is the parents proof of ownership of "their" child and it helps when that proof is in their names. Or as you suggest, they can carry a birth certificate naming bio mom (if known) and bio dad (ditto) and a document showing that said responsibilities have been transferred to one or more of the current owners. I think the little white lie told by an amended birth certificate is a lot easier for most folk to work with. in this case, it gives the child a legal second mother in a woman who was going to be in that role anyways. If her name hadn't gone on the birth certificate, she would have no legal claim as mommy short of adopting "their" own baby.
Birth certificates are not ownership documents; we don't own people anymore. They were created to establish a person's legal name, age, nationality, and parentage at birth.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#32 Feb 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Birth certificates are not ownership documents; we don't own people anymore. They were created to establish a person's legal name, age, nationality, and parentage at birth.
You may not like my characterization, but it is accurate. The state still records the essential information about the child at birth, but the birth certificate itself is amended to reflect any transfers of parentage, primarily for the convenience of the parents taking possession.

If this couple had been married and living in a state where their marriage was recognized, both women would be listed as the only parents to the child and it would be the sperm donor who would need to appeal to the courts to be listed as parent, not mommy #2. Under common law, a baby born into a marriage, no matter how obvious the biological impossibility of it being the case, is a product of your making as a couple in the eyes of the law and your child's birth certificate, unless someone claims or denies parentage. Two men or two women, when legally married, can legally have babies together, just like straight folk.

In cases of adoption to a married couple, that child too is seen as product of your making as a couple and even though neither is a biological parent they can get a birth certificate which reflects what they did as a couple. They had a child together. That's been a practice pretty much since the beginning of the state's centralizing records like that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#33 Feb 11, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You may not like my characterization, but it is accurate. The state still records the essential information about the child at birth, but the birth certificate itself is amended to reflect any transfers of parentage, primarily for the convenience of the parents taking possession.
If this couple had been married and living in a state where their marriage was recognized, both women would be listed as the only parents to the child and it would be the sperm donor who would need to appeal to the courts to be listed as parent, not mommy #2. Under common law, a baby born into a marriage, no matter how obvious the biological impossibility of it being the case, is a product of your making as a couple in the eyes of the law and your child's birth certificate, unless someone claims or denies parentage. Two men or two women, when legally married, can legally have babies together, just like straight folk.
In cases of adoption to a married couple, that child too is seen as product of your making as a couple and even though neither is a biological parent they can get a birth certificate which reflects what they did as a couple. They had a child together. That's been a practice pretty much since the beginning of the state's centralizing records like that.
Then we need to stop calling it a birth certificate and change the name to a parentage certificate. Of course that will make it worthless in establishing citizenship which is one of the primary purosed of a birth certificate, along with establishing a legal name & age.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ted Cruz goes off the rails: 'ISIS is executing... 4 min goonsquad 74
News Thought for the Day: Being gay isn't a choice, ... 5 min Morton 1
News Ireland same-sex marriage 8 min skylight 9
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 17 min Blackburn 33,033
Will NE Jade Change His Diaper Today? 24 min Rainbow Kid 2
Will NE Jade Wax his Balls Twoday? 27 min Rainbow Kid 5
Will NE Jade Repent His Queerness Twoday? 31 min Rufus 1
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 34 min Terra Firma 136
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 36 min Wondering 5,621
News SoCal Rep Wants to Outlaw Gay-to-Straight "Conv... 1 hr Pope Out To Pasture 124
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 13 hr GayleWood 21,500
News Josh Duggar apology not enough? Fallout from mo... 20 hr Fa-Foxy 25
More from around the web