Y'all don't get birth certificates, Arkansas babies!

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Arkansas judge blocks state from issuing birth certificates is the headline the AP is running about this.

[quote]

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox on Friday set aside his orders requiring the state and three same-sex couples go into mediation on how to fix the state law to comply with the U.S. high court’s order. Attorney General Leslie Rutledge earlier this week asked the state Supreme Court to stay or lift Fox’s mediation order.

“This case has been pending for over two years and it has been more than six months since the United States Supreme Court ruled the Arkansas statutory scheme unconstitutional,” Fox wrote in his order. “There are citizens and residents of the state of Arkansas whose constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis.”

What’s the problem, those of us outside of Arkansas may be asking:

The U.S. Supreme Court in June sided with Fox’s 2015 ruling striking down part of a law defining parents by gender. That overturned a decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court ordered Fox in October to come up with a way for the state to comply with the U.S. court’s decision.

The practice had been that the law generally required the name of the husband to appear on the birth certificate when a married woman gave birth in Arkansas, regardless of whether he was the biological father. But married lesbian couples had to get a court order to have both spouses listed. The three couples who had sued the state were allowed to amend their children’s birth certificates in 2015 under a ruling issued by Fox.

And apparently the state legislature is dragging their heels (and prolly kicking AND screaming too) on getting this done.

Fox last month had threatened to halt the issuance of birth certificates if both sides couldn’t find language by Jan. 5 to be stricken from the law. Rutledge told the court this week that both sides had agreed on an order on how to comply with the high court ruling, but Fox rejected it. A spokeswoman for Rutledge said the AG’s office was reviewing Fox’s order and did not have an immediate comment.

In his order, Fox said he was hopeful Gov. Asa Hutchinson would have the authority to fix the birth certificate law through executive action. If the state is unable to fix the law, Fox said, the injunction would be in effect until lawmakers could address the issue. Lawmakers are not scheduled to convene again until February for a session focused on the budget. Hutchinson could call a special session.

The state Department of Health said it would stop issuing and amending birth certificates, but would take information from parents who request one for when the state can resume. Health Department Spokeswoman Meg Mirivel said the state issues roughly 400 to 500 new, amended or replacement birth certificates a day.

That’s gonna be in the tens of thousands pretty quickly, eh.

[Tom_Tildrum]

An earlier thread on the topic.

[kayaker]

One day these babies will be old enough to run for president.

[Pleonast]

How long before these undocumented babies are deported?

[carnivorousplant]

The Arkansas Gazette just posted by email “Gov. Asa Hutchinson has issued a directive ordering the Arkansas Department of Health to resume issuing birth certificates and to “allow female spouses of women who give birth to be listed” on them.”

[septimus]

Now, let’s be fair. Many of us agree that the heinous offspring of a lesbian witches’ coven, impregnated with semen from a Devil’s spell-cast Gila monster, should NOT be allowed a passport, or to serve as President. Of course, you’re entitled to your own opinion on this, however wrong.

But Dixie boys are not universally intolerant. If an Arkansan good 'ol boy were able to fornicate with his AR-15 and succeed at procreation, I’m sure there’d be no problem granting the half-man half-gun mutant a birth certificate. Even the 35 year minimum to run for President should then be waived, I think.

[carnivorousplant]

Me, I always thought people from the Land of Smiles were goofy, but to each his own.

I thought birth certificates were to indicate the biological parents of a baby, but from the Democrat story, it appears they indicate who the mother is married to, so I see no reason why same sex parents can’t be listed as well.

[alphaboi867]

No, birth certificates have always been about legal parenthood, not biology. Hence why it’s still the default to list whoever the mother is married to when she gave birth as the “father” regardless of who really impregnated her.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Senegoid]

Does this mean that all married pregnant females, due to deliver in the next two months, will have to hold off until at least February?

[Ludovic]

@carnivorousplant

from the Democrat story

Is this from some outlet that calls itself “Democrat” such as the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, or is this an ungrammatical reference to the Democratic Party?

[carnivorousplant]

The Democrat-Gazette is the major newspaper in Arkansas and conservative. It was named “The Arkansas Democrat” until the company bought out the liberal newspaper, “The Arkansas Gazette” in 1991.

[Northern_Piper]

@alphaboi867

No, birth certificates have always been about legal parenthood, not biology. Hence why it’s still the default to list whoever the mother is married to when she gave birth as the “father” regardless of who really impregnated her.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

And when a child gets adopted, the adoptive parents can be substituted on the birth certificate.

[LSLGuy]

I have a friend who paid child support to the baby his legally-separated wife had by some unknown hookup. Why? Because he was the legal husband of the woman on the date of birth and therefore the legal father of anything that issued forth from that woman.

Not in Arkansas, but a state not too different on the :smack: scale.

[puzzlegal]

@alphaboi867

No, birth certificates have always been about legal parenthood, not biology. Hence why it’s still the default to list whoever the mother is married to when she gave birth as the “father” regardless of who really impregnated her.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

@LSLGuy

I have a friend who paid child support to the baby his legally-separated wife had by some unknown hookup. Why? Because he was the legal husband of the woman on the date of birth and therefore the legal father of anything that issued forth from that woman.

Not in Arkansas, but a state not too different on the :smack: scale.

I’m pretty sure these laws vary by state. But yeah, a birth certificate is a legal document, not a medical/scientific one.

[carnivorousplant]

Whose name goes on the certificate if the mother is unmarried?

[carnivorousplant]

@LSLGuy

I have a friend who paid child support to the baby his legally-separated wife had by some unknown hookup. Why? Because he was the legal husband of the woman on the date of birth and therefore the legal father of anything that issued forth from that woman.

Not in Arkansas, but a state not too different on the :smack: scale.

No blood test to disprove his parenthood?

[puzzlegal]

@carnivorousplant

No blood test to disprove his parenthood?

@LSLGuy

…he was the legal husband of the woman on the date of birth and therefore the legal father of anything that issued forth from that woman…

I think a lot of states have that law.

This is kind of a mess, but it does give a sense of how different the laws are by state.

http://family.findlaw.com/paternity/legal-definition-of-father-by-state.html

For example. in Texas:

An “adjudicated father” is a man who has been adjudicated by a court to be the father of a child. A “presumed father” is a man who, by operation of law under Sec. 160.204, is recognized as the father of a child until that status is rebutted or confirmed in a judicial proceeding. A man is presumed to be the father of a child in certain circumstances, including if:

He is married to the mother of the child, and the child is born during the marriage;
He was married to the child’s mother, and the child is born before the 301st day after the date the marriage is terminated;
During the first 2 years of the child’s life, he continuously resided in the household in which the child resided, and he represented to others that the child was his own.

That sounds like the mother’s husband is the legal father, regardless of the biological parentage.

[carnivorousplant]

There is the sentence, “until that status is rebutted or confirmed in a judicial proceeding.”

[LSLGuy]

@carnivorousplant

No blood test to disprove his parenthood?

No blood test necessary. This child was an obviously different ethnicity than he.

Didn’t matter. In that state at that time (early 1990s) the child is his legal responsibility because he is the legal husband of the woman at the date of birth. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, else is legally relevant.

If some man (not necessarily the bio-dad, any male will do) had chosen to adopt the kid that’d have been the only way to get my friend off the hook. Well, that or infanticide.

[carnivorousplant]

Damn.