courts decide that bio father be removed from birth cert at lesbians request

[Long Duck Dong]

a australian court has ruled in favour of two lesbians, to have the biological fathers name removed from the birth cert, and legally, that would end his rights in regards to his own child.

my mind boogles at why people would deny a childs right to have their biological parent removed from a legal document.... and the impact its gonna have on that child later on in life, when they realise that their father was denied the chance to be recognized as that childs proud parent....



this is the article I was emailed

A man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple will have his name stripped from their child's birth certificate after a successful legal bid by the birth mother's ex-partner.

The woman took the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and biological father, to court in May to have his name replaced with her name in the document.

The female child was born in 2001 and the women split in 2006, although they continued to share parental responsibility.

The man also played a role in the child's life.

NSW District Court Judge Stephen Walmsley today ruled in her favour, but expressed sympathy for the biological father.

"I am not persuaded there is any contractual right which can affect this application," he said.

"As [the biological father] concedes, there was no agreement before [the child's] birth that he would be on the register when he agreed to donate his sperm."

The judge said the man and the child obviously had a strong emotional attachment.

"I have considerable sympathy for [the man] - he has done what he considers has been his very best for the child."

Outside court the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said he was devastated and labelled the outcome an injustice.

"She's not my daughter as far as the law is concerned," he said.

"The laws are totally inadequate, there are no laws to protect people like me.

"It's a very bad day for fathers, that's all I can say."

[Diva667]

As far as I can see there was no contractual agreement to have him listed as a parent.

After doing some research I do not know how much he was involved with this child, either financially or socially. The two women have split up since conception and birth of the child, and they would like to both be listed as parents to avoid social hassles.

IMO he is acted like a spoiled child. He responded to an advertisement for a donor, got nothing written down as far as what his role would be after the child was born and now expects to have full rights as her parent.

No mention was made of what his role would be after this change. Nor was their mention of any support by him in this child's life.

[Darkside2009]

LDD.


'my mind boogles at why people would deny a childs right to have their biological parent removed from a legal document.... and the impact its gonna have on that child later on in life, when they realise that their father was denied the chance to be recognized as that childs proud parent....'

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may be wrong, but I think you mean boggles, and the child's right to have their biological parent included on their birth certificate.

Interesting problem, I had always thought such donations were made anonymously. In this case that does not appear to be the situation. At least he will not get called upon for child-support with this decision.

The whole affair does not seem to have been thought through very well. No contract, regarding rights of access, child-support, rights of the child to know about the Father and have a relationship with him...

The sperm just seems to have been treated as a commodity to be brokered. Effectively he gave his seed as a hostage to fortune. In finding a good home, I think a puppy might have been treated with more forethought than has happened here.

I could never donate sperm myself, (no point in you girls asking, lol) I would be lying awake at nights wondering if my child was being mistreated or abused or if he/she was happy in their life.

Although there does not appear to be any contract between the parties, I don't see anything to prevent him offering money for the child's welfare, or the biological Mother in accepting such payments, despite any objections her ex might raise.

Similarly if the child was to see his Father in the company and supervision of his Mother I wouldn't see the courts objecting too much. It is not for the ex to decide what friends the Mother might keep as long as the child is not placed in any physical danger or immoral environment.

If the Father was a habitual drunkard or illegal drug user or unsuitable in some other way, then there might be a problem, but there doesn't appear to be any grounds for an exclusion or non-molestation order.

As the Mother and the Ex have been separated for some years, one can only make assumptions as to why the case was brought to court in the first place, they already share custody of the child.

Strange case, not one that reflects well on all concerned.

[darkeyes]

I have a great deal of sympathy for any father who is not on his child's birth certificate... a mother does not have to register the father on the certificate, but the vast majority of married women do, and in fact it is often the father who does the registering, although this is less common in unmarried mothers and fathers of children who are born of unmarried parents have no right too register the child.

In the case of a child who is in lesbian elationship, I actually do not believe that the child should be registered as the child of the non natural mother, but that the relationship is recognised upon the certificate that she is still the parent of that child if that is what is desired by the natural mother... my partner would like me added to her younger child's birth certificate, but while it does not bother me too much, and I was present at her birth, I am not her natural parent, and her father, to whom my partner was still married at the time, is registered as father and that in my view is right and proper and neither of us believe that he should ever be removed from it.

Regarding my partner's older child, who is my child legally by adoption, at the time of her birth, the natural father, with whom she did not live and has never lived with, is registered as father as is quite right and proper because that was what was desired by Kate, even although he has never played any part in our daughter's life... I have no wish to be party to a falsehood, and so I certainly do not wish any alteration to be made to our daughter's birth certificate to recognise my role in her life... I have an adoption certificate to do that and the love of a very beautiful young girl and her mum.

By depriving a child of her birthright, and also a father of his right to be recognised as natural parent to his child, we do a disservice to both. I understand the reasons why on occasion it may be necessary to exclude a father's name from a certificate, but I would argue that for the most part, the child should not be excluded from knowing her heritage... I can see why as a young child this is necessary, but at some stage in her life, records should exist which tell her the other part of who she is.

There is another thing which we should consider and that is medical. At some stage in a child's life she may rquire something only a natural parent can supply... by not having knowledge of the natural parents of a child we potentially endanger the life of that child... something may happen to the mother which makes it impossible for that information ever to be found. For that reason I always encourage mothers, whatever their marital status to include on a child's birth certificate, the name of both natural parents. Being registered as natural parent of a child does not of itself give rights to that child. Circumstances will exist often that means a parent loses those rights and indeed should never have any from the day a child is born.

Regarding sperm donation a record, has to be kept to enable a child should she wish to find out who she truly is and also, in the case of medical emergency which requires information or more a tangible conrticution such as transplant or even just bone marrow for the benefit of the child.

This naturally also brings us to case of heterosexual relationships where a man or woman for that matter very often, who is not the natural parent of a child born into that relationship... whats sauce for the goose as they say... no thought is given to such circumstances and it is about time that it was. It should not matter the gender or sexuality of a parent.. at the time of a child's birth some recognition should be given to the non natural parent in a relationship on the child's birth certificate... it is a bit of a minefield, but I am not sure that we, the law or anyone esle has given sufficient thought to this srea...and it is about time that we did.. there is a discrimination issue against heterosexuals which I feel we should address...

[MikeSoFla]

sounds a little fascist if you ask me. lesbians and gays and their special bloody pedastal......the natural father is the father and regardless of the situation, he deserves to be on the birth certificate. Lesbian man haters love to push the guy out, but what if that kid wants to meet his Dad one day? These two selfish chics have robbed him/her of that chance. selfish.

[Long Duck Dong]

thank you darkeyes, you are seeing what i saw

[darkeyes]

thank you darkeyes, you are seeing what i saw

Any time duckie me luffly... friend on mine's hubbie began legal proceedings 2 court 2 get his name taken off the birth certificates of his sons cos he is dark haired brown eyed, she is the same, and blonde hair didnt exist in either family.. both boys are very blonde with the palest eyes u ever did see. He was prepared to accept that one child might be so different but not the second... the marriage was already in trouble before the second child's birth but the birth and his colouring was the final straw..

So the sod wanted his name taken off the birth certificates, but when DNA testing on the boys came up with both being 99% something probability that he was their dad, he still didnt accept it... but was advised that he had as much chance of winning his case as he has of walking on the surface of the sun it has never gone any further. His case had hit a stone wall.. he remains bitter and convinced that he should be taken off his children's certificates... so it is not all one way... DNA testing can and does open up a whole new can of worms about fatherhood.