Jill, Derick and Israel- Part 16

[patsymae]

"and that pisses me off. All my children's birth certificates say that they were born and that Mr. Four and I are their parents. Both statements are true.

I am certain that the "certificate of live birth" filed the day each was born , naming the birth parents, is what's sealed in their adoption records, but I can assure you that their parental rights were either surrendered or terminated, and we were named legal parents by the state. 

No Fakery. No trickery. No LIE."

 

So disingenuous. Parental right were surrendered or terminated, and you were named legal parents by the state. Which makes you as adoptive parents the legal parents. But a certificate of birth that claims that you gave birth to the children is Fakery. Trickery. And LIE. 

[Ungodly Grandma]

2 hours ago, patsymae said:

"and that pisses me off. All my children's birth certificates say that they were born and that Mr. Four and I are their parents. Both statements are true.

I am certain that the "certificate of live birth" filed the day each was born , naming the birth parents, is what's sealed in their adoption records, but I can assure you that their parental rights were either surrendered or terminated, and we were named legal parents by the state. 

No Fakery. No trickery. No LIE."

 

So disingenuous. Parental right were surrendered or terminated, and you were named legal parents by the state. Which makes you as adoptive parents the legal parents. But a certificate of birth that claims that you gave birth to the children is Fakery. Trickery. And LIE. 

I really had little interest in this, but your insistence on pushing this, while clearly upsetting other posters, made me curious. I pulled out our birth certificates. They state a person was born, where and when, and who their parents are. It doesn't say who gave birth, it just lists the legal parents. Not a lie, not a fake, not a trickery. I'm sorry you are upset about this, did you give a child up or something? But give it a rest, please.  

[nausicaa]

50 minutes ago, Ungodly Grandma said:

I really had little interest in this, but your insistence on pushing this, while clearly upsetting other posters, made me curious. I pulled out our birth certificates. They state a person was born, where and when, and who their parents are. It doesn't say who gave birth, it just lists the legal parents. Not a lie, not a fake, not a trickery. I'm sorry you are upset about this, did you give a child up or something? But give it a rest, please.  

Seriously. I haven't said anything yet because it seems you @patsymae have some personal experience with this topic that is making you lash out. But take a deep breath and take it down a notch. 

Oh, and learn how to fucking quote people. It's not that difficult.

[anotherone]

1 hour ago, Ungodly Grandma said:

I pulled out our birth certificates. They state a person was born, where and when, and who their parents are. It doesn't say who gave birth, it just lists the legal parents. 

Plus, years ago if the woman was married then the husband was listed, no matter if he was the genetic father or not.  If she wasnt married, no one was listed or it was a guess.   Before genetic testing, you really have no idea if the man listed as father is correct or not. It was a bit of a shot in the dark.

Its just a bit simplistic to think "before" there was this complete accuracy with birth certificates, and "now" its all lies and deception.

[Wenny]

In Tx it is still true. If a couple is married the husband is always assumed to be the father even if the couple is separated. You also can't get divorced if your pregnant in tx. 

Sadly I know more then 1 couple where pregnancy was use as a means of entrapment. Rapist (and their family) can also get visitation rights in Tx too. 

5 hours ago, patsymae said:

"and that pisses me off. All my children's birth certificates say that they were born and that Mr. Four and I are their parents. Both statements are true.

I am certain that the "certificate of live birth" filed the day each was born , naming the birth parents, is what's sealed in their adoption records, but I can assure you that their parental rights were either surrendered or terminated, and we were named legal parents by the state. 

No Fakery. No trickery. No LIE."

 

So disingenuous. Parental right were surrendered or terminated, and you were named legal parents by the state. Which makes you as adoptive parents the legal parents. But a certificate of birth that claims that you gave birth to the children is Fakery. Trickery. And LIE. 

WTF. What about the the fundies that adopt embryos?? Should we list "Genetic Parents" and "Legal Parents"  on birth certificates? 

 

[PennySycamore]

@defraudedbychipendales, I've not only heard about Ten Thousand Villages, but have a purse from there made by women in Ghana or maybe Nigeria and have a mala made by the Tibetan Nun's Project. I love their things!  I need to go back to our local store.

[Four is Enough]

9 hours ago, patsymae said:

"those of us who work with them every day appreciate amended ones because they make our life easier"

Perhaps it should not be about making your lives easier;

This is another inflammatory response from you.. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Your rights end where mine begin?" The birth parents in some instances made a choice to have the birth records sealed. Until the child is 21, that is that. In any event, all parties knew that the records would be sealed. If you think this is a bad law, take it to the Supreme Court and get it changed.

 

Quote

So disingenuous. Parental right were surrendered or terminated, and you were named legal parents by the state. Which makes you as adoptive parents the legal parents. But a certificate of birth that claims that you gave birth to the children is Fakery. Trickery. And LIE. 

Perhaps you should look at your own birth certificate. It says the following:

Name

Date, Place, Time of Birth

Father's Name

Mother's Maiden Name.

 

 

 I'd have to say that nowhere does it say that the mother gave birth to that child. It simply says the child was born, when, where, and who the parents are. Someone is assuming that the woman named as mother gave birth to the child.

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

This debate is very interesting. The strangest part for me as a foreigner is how important your birth certificate is in the USA.

When my daughter was born the midwife gave me a certificate where she attested that she witnessed my daughter's birth and that I was her mother. With that certificate I and Mr laPG (we both had to go because we aren't married) went to our local council's office where we declared that miss laPG is our daughter. They kept the midwife's certificate and inscribed her into the list of the citizens residents and as a member of our family. They gave me a certificate of birth to give to my employer for the maternity leave and tax deductions. I don't need to have a birth certificate of her. After a couple of weeks the Ministry of Internal Affairs sent us her NHS card with he "codice fiscale" (your social security number) and if I need a passport for her the only thing I have to do is to go to the offices that release it with my ID and a certificate from my local council that lists my family members.  When she will be 16 she will be able to request her ID from our local council with no need to produce and show them any paperwork. 

Until a few years ago a woman giving birth could refuse to put her name on the certificate with which the midwife declared she witnessed the birth. But the new EU laws to protect the right of an individual to his/her roots must have changed that. I think that now on the birth certificate preserved in the archives there's the birth mother name that can be disclosed to the offspring when of age,  but I am not sure, I should verify. But I am certain that the child is listed by the local council as son of the adoptive couple, since all the documents originate from there those are the data that matter.

It's interesting to see how different systems work. 

[Four is Enough]

PapessaGiovanna:

I believe birth certificates came to be so "standardized" and "regulated" in the US in response to people claiming to be things they were not: certain age to be able to join the armed forces during times of war comes to mind. People were also commonly raised as "someone's brother" when they were indeed "someone's " actual child, but "someone's" parents took on the charge of raising the "brother" so as not to bring shame upon "someone".  People applying for Social Security...

I know my grandmother (born in 1903, or was it 1906) didn't have a birth certificate. Story goes that the county seat where her birth was registered burned down when she was a child. There was no family bible with her birth entered into it, no baptismal certificate. When time came in the late 1960s for her to attempt to get Social Security, it was a heckuva mess because there was no record of her birth.

 

[Buzzard]

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

PapessaGiovanna:

I believe birth certificates came to be so "standardized" and "regulated" in the US in response to people claiming to be things they were not: certain age to be able to join the armed forces during times of war comes to mind. People were also commonly raised as "someone's brother" when they were indeed "someone's " actual child, but "someone's" parents took on the charge of raising the "brother" so as not to bring shame upon "someone".  People applying for Social Security...

I know my grandmother (born in 1903, or was it 1906) didn't have a birth certificate. Story goes that the county seat where her birth was registered burned down when she was a child. There was no family bible with her birth entered into it, no baptismal certificate. When time came in the late 1960s for her to attempt to get Social Security, it was a heckuva mess because there was no record of her birth.

 

I remember about 10 years ago I encountered elderly siblings who had no idea how old they were.  They knew there were born "sometime" in the late 1910's or early 20's but could only narrow it down based on how old their youngest sibling was because she was the only one with a birth certificate.  

[PennySycamore]

I remember that my aunt Helen, my mom's oldest sibling didn't have a birth certificate.  Helen was born in 1910 or 11. 

[Wenny]

My great-great grandpa didn't have one but they copied his brothers and said they were twins. They would been born in 1902. 

[justoneoftwo]

Let's not pretend Jill is the only one who would do something like this because she is uneducated or young.  My husband's step mother found his birth family without his consent, and she is a full grown adult with grandchildren (he was not raised with her, she married his dad when he was in his 20s).

He has also had a very hard time getting his records.  They were sealed and the courts would not unseal them for him as an adult (he is 34). He actually had a hard time applying to the bar because he could not get correct records.  It can be a problem and he should have a right to those records.  His parents knew his birth family's names, but he has no records that include them.  He has a right to know, and a need to know this information.  Personally the biggest problem I have with it is that they did not unseal them for him as an adult. 

[cloudycat]

My mom was adopted, there were no records.  The church asked in the service if anyone could take the baby (mom) because the birth family could not afford another child.  This was in 1927.  When my mom applied for social security the only document she had concerning her birth was the baptismal certificate from the church that arranged the whole thing.  The adoption was never finalized by my grandparents, but my mom finalized it before she got married, so she could say Grandma and Grandpa were her parents, but the state (?) did not give her any documents. 

Occasionally she wonders about her birth family, but assumes by this time they would all be older than her or have passed.  I would look, but I don't want to give her bad news, maybe I'm wrong but that's how i feel about it.

[EmCatlyn]

56 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Let's not pretend Jill is the only one who would do something like this because she is uneducated or young.  My husband's step mother found his birth family without his consent, and she is a full grown adult with grandchildren (he was not raised with her, she married his dad when he was in his 20s).

He has also had a very hard time getting his records.  They were sealed and the courts would not unseal them for him as an adult (he is 34). He actually had a hard time applying to the bar because he could not get correct records.  It can be a problem and he should have a right to those records.  His parents knew his birth family's names, but he has no records that include them.  He has a right to know, and a need to know this information.  Personally the biggest problem I have with it is that they did not unseal them for him as an adult. 

Your husband's step-mother is clearly a busybody.  I wasn't suggesting that only the young and uneducated would do this sort of thing, only that it is the sort of thing that only extreme youth and ignorance might excuse.

Regarding access to records, I believe the original idea behind closed records was to protect the biological parents.  And there is an argument to be made that a birth mother who is "ashamed" of her "mistake" has the right to conceal it once she has provided for her child by giving it up for adoption. However,  such records should be opened to adult adoptees with the understanding that the information gives them no claim on the biological parent and that the adoptee does not have the right to publicize that information.  A person usually has the right to access any information/records about himself. 

I am curious why the fact that your husband did not have birth parent infomation should have been a problem with the bar.  Did the birth certificate indicate it had been "ammended" and was it concern about false identity that caused the problem?

[Four is Enough]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

YI am curious why the fact that your husband did not have birth parent infomation should have been a problem with the bar.  Did the birth certificate indicate it had been "ammended" and was it concern about false identity that caused the problem?

I'm interestedin this as well.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

5 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

PapessaGiovanna:

I believe birth certificates came to be so "standardized" and "regulated" in the US in response to people claiming to be things they were not: certain age to be able to join the armed forces during times of war comes to mind. People were also commonly raised as "someone's brother" when they were indeed "someone's " actual child, but "someone's" parents took on the charge of raising the "brother" so as not to bring shame upon "someone".  People applying for Social Security...

I know my grandmother (born in 1903, or was it 1906) didn't have a birth certificate. Story goes that the county seat where her birth was registered burned down when she was a child. There was no family bible with her birth entered into it, no baptismal certificate. When time came in the late 1960s for her to attempt to get Social Security, it was a heckuva mess because there was no record of her birth.

 

Thank you for your explanation. It makes sense that in such a situation birth certificates became more important. 

 

 

Here too it was common for elderly people to have the wrong date of birth recorded on official papers, but it usually was a difference of a few days or at most weeks. It happened because it was compulsory to denounce a birth before 8 (iirc) days were passed, but in winter for people who lived in rural or montainous areas there was often too much snow on the streets to go to the offices on time and also during harvesting season none had the time to go. So they stated a fake date to avoid having problems for the delayed denounce.

[OrchidBlossom]

Some people would do well to stop making assertions about things they don't understand. There is no "lie" in amending a document through legal means in order to reflect the accurate state of affairs as it relates to who is parenting a child. Legally sanctioned amendments to identification documents happen literally all the time. I'm sorry to all the adopted parents in this thread who have become the target of this misplaced vitriol.

 

[scribble]

On 6/5/2016 at 7:05 PM, RoseWilder said:

Also, contact with the birth mother is not a legally enforceable thing. So, even if the birth mother and the adoptive family agree on an open adoption, the adoptive family can change that at any time and there is no legal way to enforce the open adoption agreement. 

Generally, yes, but it depends on the state. In my state -- and a couple of others, I understand-- open adoption agreements are legally enforceable contracts. If I, as an adoptive parent, do not fulfill what is outlined in the contract, my kids' parents can take me to court to enforce it. (And to be clear, that would never happen, as we go above and beyond what is outlined in the contract.)

[Shadoewolf]

My son has an amended birth certificate. My ex and I were still married (but long since seperated on amicable terms) when my son was born. He was automatically placed on the birth certificate and required to support my son for the 2 years it took us to get divorced, per state law and military regulations. It took a paternity test and statements from me, the ex and my current husband to get my son's birth certificate changed. There was no deception there, we just had to wade through all the bullshit to get it corrected.

[Fundie Bunny]

My father's official birthdate was 5 days later than his real one because my grandfather forgot to go register his birth. I guess it could happen to anyone if it was you 5th kid and you had an 18 month old, your oldest was barely 8, and a barely helpful grandma living at home

[JillyO]

19 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

PapessaGiovanna:

I believe birth certificates came to be so "standardized" and "regulated" in the US in response to people claiming to be things they were not: certain age to be able to join the armed forces during times of war comes to mind. People were also commonly raised as "someone's brother" when they were indeed "someone's " actual child, but "someone's" parents took on the charge of raising the "brother" so as not to bring shame upon "someone".  People applying for Social Security...

I know my grandmother (born in 1903, or was it 1906) didn't have a birth certificate. Story goes that the county seat where her birth was registered burned down when she was a child. There was no family bible with her birth entered into it, no baptismal certificate. When time came in the late 1960s for her to attempt to get Social Security, it was a heckuva mess because there was no record of her birth.

 

It's also because the United States - unlike many (most?) other developed countries - does not have compulsory resident registration. Here in Germany, and in most other European countries, you have to register with the authorities of your place of residence. For example, when you move from Berlin to Munich, you have to go to the resident registration office and let them know where you live now. For this reason, whenever you need a service from your local authorities, they already have a file on you, and you don't need to bring in your birth certificate to prove who you are, when and where you were born, etc. It's also compulsory to register a birth with your registration office within a very short time frame.

Because no such registration office exists in the United States, the birth certificate is so much more important.

[2manyKidzzz]

1 hour ago, JillyO said:

It's also because the United States - unlike many (most?) other developed countries - does not have compulsory resident registration. Here in Germany, and in most other European countries, you have to register with the authorities of your place of residence. For example, when you move from Berlin to Munich, you have to go to the resident registration office and let them know where you live now. For this reason, whenever you need a service from your local authorities, they already have a file on you, and you don't need to bring in your birth certificate to prove who you are, when and where you were born, etc. It's also compulsory to register a birth with your registration office within a very short time frame.

Because no such registration office exists in the United States, the birth certificate is so much more important.

Of course, I never thought of that. Every country does things differently, which keeps us all on our toes. Or something. Ultimately, when you move here if you drive you have to get a license from your new state of residence so that is something. Not adopted and didn't adopt children so have never thought about all of this. I don't think my grandmother, born in Ireland knew exactly how old she was, or maybe it just didn't matter to her that much. She was lovely as lovely could be. My mother, not so much lovely though, too bad. 

[ljohnson2006]

Jill wants a  plotline for season 2 of Boring Us, er I mean Counting On... And pregnancy isn't happening. This is the best she could do. She doesn't care about Cathy's feelings. F-U Jill!

[Fundie Bunny]

2 hours ago, JillyO said:

It's also because the United States - unlike many (most?) other developed countries - does not have compulsory resident registration. Here in Germany, and in most other European countries, you have to register with the authorities of your place of residence. For example, when you move from Berlin to Munich, you have to go to the resident registration office and let them know where you live now. For this reason, whenever you need a service from your local authorities, they already have a file on you, and you don't need to bring in your birth certificate to prove who you are, when and where you were born, etc. It's also compulsory to register a birth with your registration office within a very short time frame.

Because no such registration office exists in the United States, the birth certificate is so much more important.

Here we have identification cards. It has your picture, your social security number, official sex... Now they are working on a new model in which the chip will identificate your driving license