Judge: Adoptive dads belong on birth certificate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28400169/

A same-sex couple in California has won a federal court ruling that their adopted son's Louisiana birth certificate must bear the names of both adoptive fathers.

The facts are so clear that no trial is needed, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey wrote.

Louisiana's Office of Vital Records must give full faith and credit to the New York State court in which Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith of San Diego adopted the boy, he ruled Monday. The office had refused to issue a birth certificate listing both as the boy's legal parents. The state could appeal the decision.

Adar and Smith say they have practical and emotional reasons for wanting both of their names on the birth certificate of the boy, identified only as "J.C. A.-S."

This is actually really important, and a Good Thing.

Hekate

It's time.

but I was VERY upset, and still am many years later, when I found that my adopted mother, having married Dad after death of my birth mother, was on my NYS birth certificate. Still really bothers me. (Different subject entirely, really, but thought some might be interested.)

Which was a problem when he wanted to find his birth mother, the state wouldn't let him access the actual records (they would have if he were five days younger, that was when the law changed.) That's bad enough, but in a situation like yours where you did have a relationship with your birth mother prior to her death, that seems really disrespectful.

Interesting that my 'husband,' like your kids Dad, was adopted as were all of his 4 siblings; he doesn't WANT to know his birth parents and doesn't. Same as yours, his Mother told him he could learn them up to a certain date.

MY and his kids would find medical info useful, of course, in addition to plain old family 'history.' VERY difficult, and I do understand States have reasons for their decisions one way or another.

.

i'm thinking not...

He grew up there, it turned out his biomom was in the next town over.

.

the adoptee has two birth certificates, original and amended. when the adoption is finalized, the adoptive mother's name replaces the birth mother's name on the amended one, and the original bc is sealed. what you can do is petition to have your original birth certificate unsealed in superior court, and then you can have one with your birth mother's name on it. that is...if the judge agrees. at least that's how it works here in cali, and i work in the adoption field.

i've heard that ny is a very difficult state to obtain any kind of adoption information, as is utah, idaho, and a couple of others...

.

Thanks for sharing.

.

There are good reasons to have the birth parents on the certificate, or listed somewhere accessible. First of all later generations may want to do genealogical research...

Most important however, certain diseases have genetic components or are hereditary. A family medical history in these cases can often be crucial...

Not proposing a solution really, but that information should be accessible somewhere.

It shouldn't be too difficult to create a form for adoption situations that lists both the adoptive and birth parents names. That way the child has documentation of their own history as well.

Genetic Depositor I :
Genetic Depositor II:
Parent I :
Parent II:

we might need (rather the child might need) genetic history to be preserved...

sP

on her birth certificate as well as our names. But she was abandoned at the age of less than one day on a doorstep in Hubei Province, China. I'm glad for this court decision however.

Otherwise, a birth certificate is meaningless, imo. We no longer live in a time where folks try to hide the adoption of their child through fake, but legal, birth certificates. And if the bio father or mother are unknown, "unknown" should be put on the birth certificate. Children are not possessions and have a right to know who their biological parents are, imo. Then there should be another legally binding document stating who the legal parents are - whether it's a man and woman, two women, two men, one woman, or one man.

And I say this as a mother of bio and adopted children.

why would they? :shrug:

they aren't the ones who actually gave birth to the child, and it's a record of the live birth, not the adoption.

birth mother (and/or her family) was ASHAMED about the event.

some even to the point of giving a fake name if they were well connected. and good luck in finding birth fathers on the bc. i think they have to provide one now, but very often in the "olden days" a name just wasn't even on the bc.

the adoptive parents become the defacto birth parents, and the new bc reflects that. as i mentioned earlier, there's still the original bc, it's just sealed by the court.

they certainly aren't there to protect the child- and/or the adult they grow into.

seems like it was set up to protect the moneyed elites.

MOST pregnant young women, olden days or not, were NOT from 'moneyed' families. The culture of the day judged them to be 'bad' and society in general wanted to ignore them or toss them aside. These ARE old rules, and each state has to grapple with the consequences now. I'm sure they don't want to, as its an unpleasant can of worms under any circumstances.

like most of the laws surrounding marriage & birth issues- they were originally created to protect the wealth/reputations of those with power. the "elites" if you will.

Please explain.

I was adopted when I was six years old, after spending the first six years of my life protecting my little sister (11 months younger than me) from the alcohol- and drug-induced rages of our biological mother and whatever man she happened to have in her life at the moment. I realize she was suffering from a disease, but the remaining 39 years of my life have been shared with adoptive parents who loved, nurtured and sheltered me and my sister.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how having the names of my real parents -- the ones who've been by my side without fail for 39 years --protects "the wealth/reputations of those with power. the 'elites' if you will."

If you ask me, it provides a basic protection and element of privacy to both me and the woman who gave birth to me. :shrug:

:eyes:

the subject is about the reasons that the laws were written in the FIRST PLACE.

and if you want to know how in your type of situation they would protect "the wealth/reputations of those with power. the 'elites' if you will." would be in those cases where the birth parents in your type of scenario WERE the ones with wealth and power- THEY are the ones the laws were made to protect. yes, the laws do occasionally work to the benefit of the lower classes as well- but they aren't the ones that the laws were written FOR.

You know _nothing_ about my parents beyond what I've posted here; for you to assume they had "wealth and power" doesn't help your case. It's just another baseless assertion.

try reading my post again- i made NO claim about YOUR parents...

sheesh...:eyes:

comprehension. get some.

None of the adults in my situation have or had "wealth and power," however.

but the laws were written by/for the ones who did have wealth and/or power.
that doesn't mean that they're always the only ones that benefit.

have wealth and power, it would follow that most laws are written and passed by those same people. I've not a single complaint about adoption law except that it probably needs to be updated to keep pace with the reality of adoption situations today.

they were written to protect the ones that should have been responsible for them.
not knowing the identity of their biological parents does nothing to protect a child, and in some cases could even endanger them.

I'm also okay with the added benefit of my own privacy and that of my adoptive parents being protected.

Do you think adoption law (a broad topic, since it varies from state to state) should be changed? If so, how should it be changed?

if the information is knowable.
and that people who give birth have no right to hide that fact from those they gave birth to.

And as for the child's father- they take the mother's word if he is not in the picture.

if only they had the same capabilities back in biblical times, maybe they could have nipped that "son of god" talk in the bud, and saved the entire planet A LOT of grief.

...once parental rights are terminated, bio parents have -0- legal relationship to the child. The adoptive parents are the legal guardians and have full rights as to any decision making in regard to the child.

But, I totally agree that the info on any and all bio parents should be available due to medical reasons.

JMHO

a certificate of live birth should reflect those who were actually involved.

medical reasons is a big part of it- but i also think that it should be a basic human right to be able to know who gave birth to you.

As an adoptive mother and member of the adoption community, I'm well aware of the desire of many children to have a real "certificate of birth" compared to a fake one. Imo, it should be against the law to change the history of another person, and when you change something as fundamental as a birth certificate, you are rewriting the history of another person. Yes, that is what it is. Their history.

In my children's case, we have the original birth certificates as well as the new birth certificates, but only because that is what the law requires. I would just as well ALL kids have certificates of birth with their bio parents' names, and then another document stating who the legal parents are.

It should be exactly the same for this kid.

I wonder how he's ever gonna get a passport, since the passport form for US citizens requires a mother's maiden name and father's full name. That ought to be changed, in my opinion.