Law should protect all families
After a very public battle, the District Court recently decided to remove the name of a sperm donor from a birth certificate and replace it with the name of a lesbian co-mother.
In this matter a lesbian couple conceived with the assistance of a sperm donor in 2001. When their daughter was born, only the birth mother, not the co-mother, was able to be listed on the birth certificate.
Non-biological lesbian mothers were not recognised as the co-parent of their children until 2008 when the NSW Status of Children Act was amended to allow a birth mother and her same-sex de facto partner who conceived a child through artificial reproductive technology, to be recognised as parents and be listed on their child’s birth certificate.
While the sperm donor’s name was later added to the birth certificate, being listed on a birth certificate did not make the sperm donor a legal parent. The sperm donor was never considered to be a legal parent of the child, as sperm donors have not been recognised as legal parents since 1984.
Nevertheless, the sperm donor was able to show he had a good relationship with the child and was able to obtain parenting orders from the Family Court, which, while not conferring parentage, allowed him to spend time and have an ongoing relationship with the child.
While there was a lot of mainstream media hype about the decision stripping away rights of fathers, the court’s decision simply gave effect to existing laws, which entitled co-mothers to be listed on their child’s birth certificate.
The problem is that only two people can be listed on a birth certificate, which meant that the sperm donor’s name had to be removed when the co-mother’s name was added.
We recognise that many families may want to list three or four names on their children’s birth certificates and we will continue to lobby the NSW Government on this issue.
The GLRL strongly encourages all parties to obtain legal advice prior to entering into a parenting arrangement, in order for them to understand their rights, entitlements and responsibilities under the law.
We recommend you take advantage of the free statewide LGBTI legal advice service provided by the Inner City Legal Centre on matters including same-sex parenting and surrogacy.
By KELLIE MCDONALD, NSW GLRL
INFO: Come along to our ‘Invite a Straight Mate’ event on August 30 at 7pm at the Bank Hotel, Newtown, and support the campaign that marriage equality is not a gay issue.
He is the FATHER, Emma, not the “biological donor”. Father trumps “Second Primary Carer” any day of the week. Father is a deeply emotional word. Daddy is a deeply emotional word. I know because I am one. Seems to me this guy truly loves his daughter; to be taken off the BIRTH certificate and relegated to the side line with a “consolation prize” title like Biological Donor would be deeply upsetting. For me that would be followed hot on the heals by anger. I am 51 and straight and I empathise with this man. I won’t comment on my feelings towards the mother.
ps Sasha- sorry (blonde moment) didnt take it that you are male.
No, you couldnt use a surrogate as you couldnt adopt as a single person as far as I know.
Yes, I have lots of involved donors and many who co-parent legally. Of course you can co-parent- you go ion the birth certificate and do NOT agree to be a sperm donor even before conception. You actually advertise as a co-parent with a single woman.
Email me privately and Ill do what I can to help you. Many single women want to co-parent- like an arranged marriage but for parenting. [email protected]
This man has been the father since birth- and has chosen not to see his child since April. He has chosen that- the name change didnt affect his contact etc with the child.
My concern is that lesbian couples may choose NOT to involved the donor in the life of the child because of cases like this. If you know my work you will know that I fight for a child to have the right to have a relationship with the donor / biological father regardless of who is actually raising the child. I facilitate those relationships- and have hundreds of gay men who are either involved or actually co-parenting. This cant happen with commercial arrangements as the donor and recipient dont meet.
If you are single, Sasha, you can never adopt in Australia.
I also facilitate private surrogacy arrangements in AU- helping people match with altruistic surrogates incase you are interested. Goollge Surrogacy Sisters. I work hard to help people have options.
I have about 10 times as many sperm donors registered to help women become pregnant – as long as they can be known to the child. AI only, for free. So if you google FSDW you willl see that there are options. There have been no legal issues with my members and donors and I hope it remains that way- because it is one of the only options for people to create an arrangement that enables the child to know ALL the parents. And that matters. We are a supportive community.
There is no injustice here with regards to the donor- if you find out the facts. What is wrong here- in my opinion- is a man who is refusing to see his daughter. He hasnt been stripped of anything other than the fact that his name isnt on her certificate- and if the laws would change that could happen. The judge recommended it. But in practice it makes no difference to his relationship with the child- HE is the one who hasnt seen her for 4 months.
Please, dont be blinded by the media.
I am one of the most vocal people there are- for speaking out for children and ALSO for men who want to donate but be known. I applaud all 3 for being involved – and hope that all can now start rebuilding a relationship for the child, as her parents. Not being on the certificate didnt make the social mother any less of a mother to the child and this wont make him any less important to her. It only had to happen as the social mother had no legal standing without it when they split up.
The Child Listener™- A Voice for Kids
Founder of the ‘Children Deserve to Know Where They Come From’ Campaign.
Activist for private sperm donation arrangements in which all parents are known (and ideally have a relationship with) the donor conceived child.
It is sad to see such insensitivity towards this man coming from NSW GLRL.
This case, along with articles such as this one, and comments from Emma Hartnell-Baker, have cemented in my mind that as a gay man who wants to have a biological child and be a father, it is impossible to do.
If I opt for commercial surrogacy (overseas) – I could be fined up to $250,000 and put in prison.
If I try altruistic surrogacy – I have no rights as a father, only as a sperm donor, and that is none.
If I try for co-parenting arrangement – I have no rights, only as a sperm donor, and that is none.
I have decided to foster a child and hopefully be able to adopt one day.
What saddens me in this situation is that this obvious injustice is being supported by women and lesbians, those groups who know a lot about injustice and oppression throughout history and even present time. I guess, it shows human nature, that once our needs are taken care of, we don’t really see things from other people’s perspective.
I have found it highly frustrating that the press have reported on this story in such a sensationalist- and often misleading way. One in the Herald Sun even stating ‘At A time when the problem of fatherless children has been rammed home by feral youth rioting in London, we saw last week an example of how one Australian state has actively sought to exclude fathers from their children’s lives.’
This was inaccurate and likey to insight anger and further promote a homophobic approach within Australia. Shame on you Miranda Divine.
It wasnt a case of them wanting his name off the birth certificate but, rather, that the name of the ex partner be added as without this she had no legal standing in the eyes of Australian law because of the way in which we use birth certificates. The fact that this man does not respect that- and thinks his name should trump that of the second primary carers makes me question his true motives. Coupled with the fact that he has chosen to speak so publically about this- and also make it clear that he will have nothing to do with the couple. A couple who had told him “I am not wishing for your relationship with (the child) to change in any way. You always will be her biological donor.” Instead of embracing this he chose to take offense at her wording. He has apparently refused to see the child since April. And yet we are encouraed to sympathise with him?
I applaud this couple who have actively sought to include the donor in the life of the child- something I myself work hard to achieve through FSDW as I do NOT support commercial sperm donation practices. The strip the child of any opportunity to have information or to develop a relationship with the biological father. Rather than attack them we should be supporting them. He chose to be a sperm donor and got so much more. However to be legally recognised as ‘trumping’ the social mother who had been raising the child together with the birth mother in the same household until they split up? I think not. He should be grateful to have the rights he has – he chose to be a sperm donor.
He needs to put his child first – rather than his ego- and rebuild a relationship with the couple and visit his daughter. He should not have been put on the certificate in the first place- until the laws allow for more than one parent to be recorded. And this case does highlight that we need to consider exactly what we want a birth certificate to be used for.
The Child Listener™- A Voice for Kids