Lesbian Couple Removes Donor From Birth Certificate

Just read the linked story over on BioNews about an Australian court case where a lesbian couple after petitioning the court was able to remove the name of their [known] donor's name from the birth certificate of their child. I am not sure how I feel about this.

Here in NYS as I have stated numerous times I am recognized on the birth certs of my children as their natural parent. I can empathize with this couple wanting their names on the certificate but somethig here just bothers me as the child has an ongoing relationship with the donor.

Read the article and then come back here and let me know what you think.

Could My Children Erase Me Legally ?

I read today in the NY Times of an interesting case before the NYS Courts where a woman, Nina Viola Montepagani, is looking to remove the name of her father, Giuseppe Viola, from her birth certificate or at least the name of the man who was married to her mother when she was born (and therefore legally considered her natural father). Sound like a possible donor insemination case? You might think so but it’s not. But could it have implication for families and individuals conceived via donor insemination?

The case in question in summary involves a woman’s desire to amend her birth certificate to name a man, a Dr. Sebastiano Reali, whom in all likelihood is her biological father and whom left a fortune to an Italian university as he had no existing descendants. This is not to say there is not “evidence” to support her claim or to say the woman is pursuing this goal to only gain access to possibly inheriting the aforementioned fortune. It appears she loved dearly the man that raised her as his own and he loved her. But she wants to correct a fact that she always felt was wrong.

The Court if I am reading the decision correctly said there was not enough evidence to support her claim to move her position forward thus denying her request to remove her father’s name. The implications of the case are interesting. It would seem if there would be enough evidence perhaps a “child” could in the future petition the Courts to remove the name of the man listed as their father on their birth certificates. Thus erasing the legal link to their DI Dad. I am sure there is more to the decision that that but in summary at a high level that is the question.

- - -

Matter of Montepagani v New York City Dept. of Health Div. of Vital Records 2011 NY Slip Op 50002(U) [30 Misc 3d 1206(A)] Decided on January 3, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Stallman, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Irish Case of Sperm Donor vs Lesbian Couple

no. 408

First off let's state a few facts as I gleaned them from the various articles about this case. In short this is not a simple case involving an anonymous sperm donor or even a ID-release donor. This is case stemming from a known donor who was involved from the beginning.

The sperm donor was known to the couple and there was a contract between the parties laying out the expectations of the parties even going so far as stating that if the bio mom were to die the sperm donor would have some parental rights as to how the child would be raised. The contract even specified visitation rights. The lawsuits appear to have began after the women began to cut down or stop allowing the sperm donor the right to see the child and after the lesbian couple announced plans for protracted travel out of Ireland with the possibiilty of emigration to Australia.

The court made references to the best interests of the child and that the first years are critical to the development of a bond between "father and son". In this case from what I see this donor was acknlowledged as both father and dad as to both his existence and to his ability to interact with the child. This is not a case where the donor anonymously gave up his sperm to a clinic only to recant his decision and want interaction. This man had that interaction and was the father (beyond the obvious biological connection). Yes he rarely saw the child based on the visitation rights agreed to but all parties acknowledge his connection and right to it in some form.

In my mind this case while involving the use of donor insemination to create this child is nothing more than a custody case between parents. It should only be precedential to similiar fact patterns. I respectfuly disagree with any parties that argue that this case is a precedent that sperm donors are something more than a father biologicaly, defined in its narrowest sense, where these facts don't exist.

Irish Independent Journal, UTV Ireland, UK TimesOnline, USA Today, UK Daily Mail, UK Scotsman

Canada Supreme Court: Live In Husband = Dad

no. 406

Supreme Court won't hear 'single mother by choice' case

Common-law wife sought sole legal responsibility for child from sperm donor

Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, July 13, 2007

© The Vancouver Sun 2007

Excerpts:

“OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada declined Thursday to consider the case of an Alberta mother seeking to absolve her common-law husband of legal parenting responsibilities of a child she conceived through an anonymous sperm donor because her partner didn't want a baby.”

A three-judge panel, by convention, did not give reasons for refusing to grant leave to appeal in the closely watched case of Jane Doe, which has raised questions about parental freedoms when stacked against the rights of the child.

Jane Doe, described in court documents as a Calgary professional with more than 10 years experience, wanted to have a child with her common-law husband John Doe, but he did not. So she sought a sperm donor and the child was born in August 2005.

The couple agreed to write a contract clearing John Doe of any legal responsibility but, before signing the deal, they decided to go to court to see if it was legally sound under Alberta law.”

….

“The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to reject the case effectively upholds a ruling last winter in the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The Alberta court focused on the rights of the child by concluding that John Doe, by choosing to remain in a live-in relationship with the child's mother, could not dodge parental responsibilities toward a child living under the same roof.”

….

“The Doe case has spawned numerous opinion articles in newspapers, some of which condemned the Alberta court for failing to side with single mothers in their quest to be free of state interference in deciding whether to parent on their own.

Andrea Mrozek, a spokeswoman for the Ottawa-based Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said Thursday she rejects the premise that the case is about the right of couples to make parenting decisions. "I see it as not actually being about single moms as it being about the rights of the child," she said.”

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Comments: My first reaction is what kind of marriage is this and how could this man expect to not be looked up to as a father figure to any resulting child especially if living as husband and wife, even if not under the law.

A Donor Egg Story - When No Woman is Mother

no. 405

The Nation's Pulse

The American Spectator

Motherless in Maryland -- Roberto de.B's Twins

By James M. Thunder

Published 7/11/2007 12:07:52 AM

I came upon the American Spectator op-ed column yesterday listed above and linked to HERE that examined the Maryland court case In re Roberto d.B. I don't usually read what I refer to as political magazines but when I saw this column, via Google, I was intrigued as I had read about the case earlier this year and posted a link to a news story, see here for that post, but I had not seen much in the way of op-ed pieces about it.

In short the case involves a man who made arrangements for an egg donor to donate to him eggs for the obvious purpose of inseminating them and having a surrogate carry the embryos to term. After the delivery of the resulting twin girls the hospital and state listed the surrogate as the mother. The man, who is listed as the father petitioned the courts to have the surrogate's name removed from the birth certificates and won.

The article made me wonder about situations when gay men arrange for donor egg and surrogates to carry the resulting embryos. How are those birth certificates filed? Who is generally listed as the mother? The egg donor or the surrogate?

Again I am unsure if I agree with all of the writers views but it was an interesting article to read and struck a chord in me regarding the rights of the children born and I wondered how they will react as they grow up with no mother at all listed on their birth certificates.