It seems to me that a basic right of a child should be protected by the state he or she is born in. The right to have the true names of its parents on his/her birth certificate/record. Why is there no law that requires this? Anyone know?
When a child is born, it would seem to me that a state should require the mother of that child to disclose the name of the father if said father is not immediately present or has not voluntarily submitted their name to the state as the biological father of the child. Before the birth certificate is issued, the parents then can be absolutely confirmed using a DNA tests. Why can this not be done?
I am friends with a man who just discovered after 12 years that his daughter is not really his daughter. His wife had an affair, but did not know herself that her daughter was not her husband’s biological child.
Because DNA testing labs are already so overloaded that we’re literally years behind catching murderers and rapists? Seriously, how many “non-dads” a year would this catch? I’d be stunned if the actual rate were higher than the false-negative rate. (DNA testing ranges from almost infallible to almost worthless depending on how much of the genome they test for, and in any case the lab error rate remains at about 1-2% regardless of the accuracy of the underlying tests.) Plus it’s intrusive – there’s nothing preventing the parents from getting a DNA test now; why make people who don’t want one get it? Speaking just for myself, if I’ve been “dad” to someone for twelve years; I’m their father whether they’ve got my DNA or not.
There must be some biological parents who would prefer to sever any contact or possibility of contact with the child. If they can do so through an adoption with no access to their names for the child, that can safely be done. If the only way to do so is to leave the baby in a basket on the church steps, a few such babies will probably freeze to death out there.
DNA testing takes several months even for high priority things. It’s also pretty expensive.
Secondly, the law does not care who is the actual biological parent of a child. Signing the birth certificate makes you the legal parent of that child. The reasoning is that the person who signs the certificate (or a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity) has made a decision to be the parent. There is a great value to certainty – if there is a divorce later, we don’t want dad saying “Not my kid, I don’t pay child support”, or in the case of medical issues, insurance, etc. etc. If someone says they are the parent, they are the parent. Done.
There are some cases where it can be overturned later, usually fraud (which doesn’t include just not knowing). But most of the time it’s settled when you sign.
There’s not really any right to know your biological parents anyway. That’s probably something better left to great debates.
Is this a question of the rights of the child, or the father?
One of my teachers has been searching for his biological parents for his whole life. I do think that adopted children have the right to know who their mom is, at least. That much is easy- they popped out of her, after all.
Putting the name of the dad on every birth certificate is another issue. You wouldn’t be able to know for sure unless you did a paternity test, and those cost $200 each. Who’s going to pay for that? The state?
Even if we could and we wanted to, it would never happen. It would ruin the lives of people we have no business ruining. And don’t say “they had it coming” or “ignorance isn’t bliss”, because we don’t have a right to decide that for other people.
The child ran away after she found out and the parents are now getting a divorce. Her mother cannot remember the name or who her father is. Child wants to know and and believes she has a right to know who her father is. I agree with her.
I think there should be a law that makes that certain.
AFAICT, in the US the “long form” or original birth record of a child does include the parents’ names.
However, there is no legal provision for investigating the identity of the parents beyond the information that the parents themselves provide. That’s because, as other posters have noted, it would be expensive, time-consuming, and in most cases unnecessary.
What law are you envisioning that would avoid situations like this? According to you, in this case both parents (that is, the mother and her husband) at the time of the child’s birth stated in good faith what they believed to be the correct facts about the child’s parentage. It just so happened that they were both wrong about who the actual biological father was. Well, everybody makes mistakes.
The only way you could avoid occasionally having something like that happen would be to legally require paternity testing for every live birth, whether or not anybody actually thinks the child’s paternity is in doubt. Such a requirement would doubtless be perceived as very invasive, and would be a royal nuisance to implement.
Why? What difference does it make who the child’s biological parents are? The only compelling reason I can think of is family medical history and even that isn’t absolutely necessary.
I can understand children wanting to know who their parents are, but I don’t think it is a right (if the parent in question doesn’t want them to know) and I don’t think it makes any difference in a practical sense. Legal parentage makes a difference, but biology…I just don’t think it matters so much.
The people who have a right to know are the parents themselves, so the fathers should certainly know that they are- and women shouldn’t deceive other men into believing they are the father when they are not, and women shouldn’t withhold fathers’ names in an effort to keep the fathers from knowing the children exist, but those are fathers’ rights issues and not the rights of the child.
In this case where child was raised by father who isn’t and now wants to find her biological father…why? What good would come of it? It is merely a stranger who happens to have contributed DNA, that’s it. Obviously he didn’t want to be a father or was unaware of her existence, what makes her think he’d want to be a father now to a mostly grown child? What will happen if/when he (again?) rejects her? I see only bad things happening for her if she carries on. If her parents had had an actual relationship then her Mom would remember his name. If he wanted the child he would have seen to it that he was not pushed out of the picture and that another man was not named on the birth records. It just seems like she is setting herself up to be hurt further, and I don’t think anyone should have that right.
Could there not be a medical reason for a child to know who her biological parents are? If the state requires that a father and mother’s name appear on the birth record, should not those names be the true names of the biological parents?
In essence, a mother can name anyone as father on a birth record?
Typically yes. But if the mother is not married to the putative father in most states he must sign the birth certificate as well (or an acknowledgment of paternity). If the mother is married, in most states her husband will be listed as the father, and then any changes to that must be made later by the courts (usually).
An unmarried woman usually cannot just name any random male as the father without his consent (and signature) and if the putative father is not available or refuses to sign the acknowledgment the name of father is usually left blank.
All of these policies/laws vary by state so this may not be exactly the case in all states, but it is in the states of which I am familiar.
I much rather see a child raised in a loving two parent home. Start DNA testing every newborn and you’ll get situations where the guy moves out because he’s upset the baby isn’t his.
I’m not endorsing fraud. There are cases where unmarried women may date several guys before getting in a serious relationship. Months later, she honestly believes the baby bump belongs to the guy she’s in love with. Why destroy any chance of a happy home just to satisfy scientific curiosity? Guys have known for thousands of years that the kid they are raising might not be theirs. It doesn’t matter.
I’ve heard that Jerry Springer (television show from awhile back) has touched on the subject a time or two… And yes, a mother can name any ol’ sucker as the father if said sucker is ignorant of it. Or agrees to it, of course. I have known a few mothers that lied about the father and/or had no idea - usually saying it would ‘protect’ the kid in the future. I did not agree with their actions, but it was their kid, not mine (honestly!)
But, seriously, I can see how this could be an issue, especially once DNA tests are cheaper and faster (ie ‘routine’). Inherited-disease screening is likely to become popular (if not mandatory??) at some point in future, and I can imagine how requiring accurate heredity could be of utmost importance at times.
There certainly can be any number of valid reasons for a child to know who her biological parents are, but the state generally trusts the parents to provide the child with that information.
As far as birth records go, the state generally is more concerned with identifying the legal father of the child—i.e., the man who is officially accepting paternal responsibility for the child—than with identifying the biological father. This is why anonymous sperm donors don’t get listed on birth certificates as the child’s father.
No. AFAIK, a hospital will generally not list the name of anyone but the mother’s husband as father on the birth certificate unless that man acknowledges paternity. If the mother is unmarried and names a boyfriend or other man as the child’s father, or if she is married but requests that the birth record list the name of a man other than her husband as father, the record will not reflect that information unless the man in question voluntarily acknowledges paternity.
So, for example, I can’t go off and get pregnant as an unmarried woman and then name, say, Bill Gates as father on the baby’s birth certificate and then demand that Bill Gates pay me billions in child support on the strength of that. However, if I were married to Bill Gates, he’d be presumed to be the father of any child I bore, and by default he would be listed as father on the birth certificate. If either of us had any reason to suspect that that presumption was inaccurate, it would be up to us to get the necessary data to challenge it (i.e., a paternity test).
That’s not at all true. Children just don’t have this particular right that you think they should. Not having the rights to one thing does not negate any (or all) other rights.
That’s not true. Children have a whole bunch of recognized rights in our society, including the right to receive care and support from the individuals listed as their LEGAL parents.
However, you’re correct in saying that at present, children in the US (and pretty much everywhere else, AFAIK) do not have a recognized right to a legal birth record that infallibly identifies who their biological father is.
Discussion of whether this is fair or right probably belongs in a different forum.
OK, how about this scenario? College girl goes to a party at a fraternity house, gets drunk, and doesn’t remember what happened. A month later, she notices she’s missed her period and tests positive on a pregnancy test. Eight months after that, she gives birth. Who’s the father? She honestly has no idea. Is she supposed to run a paternity test against every member of the fraternity? What if one of them refuses to provide a tissue sample to test against, since he knows he didn’t have sex with her (or at least, so he insists)? What about the guys who weren’t even members of the fraternity, but who came to the party anyway? There probably wasn’t a guest register that everyone signed; how are you going to even track those guys down? Yes, the mother acted irresponsibly here, but did she act irresponsibly enough that she deserves to get ten thousand dollars worth of lab testing and private detective costs?
Good example, Chronos. The only means of reliably identifying biological paternity in a situation like that (or worse, in the case of stranger rape where the rapist was never caught or identified) would be to have a universal DNA database that could hypothetically match a DNA sample from any individuals with the DNA of the individual’s parents.
Even if this were feasible in practical terms, I think it would be seen as far more damaging to individual rights than the current situation is.
That’s a terrible idea. Consider the case of a couple with infertility problems, who have a baby because with the help of an egg or sperm donor. Does it make any sense to list the egg donor on the birth certificate as the baby’s mother, when that women most likely will play no role in the baby’s life?
