pantryslut

(hey, didja know that one of the purposes of marriage is to 'legitimize' children, that is, give them a legal father regardless of genetic parentage?)

Yup; there's going to be a chapter of my dissertation about how courts and legislatures decided that, in cases of donor insemination (by a heterosexual, married couple-- this was the 1950s and 1960s), the legal father on the birth certificate should be the mother's husband, not the genetic father. Before that, there was considerable legal limbo— including at least one mother's kids who were declared illegitimate for a while because their genetic father wasn't their mother's spouse.

From:

I knew that Steven would be considered the legal father in most matters, but for some reason I didn't anticipate that this meant his name would have to be on the birth certificate, no ifs, ands, or buts.

There was a whole demographic segment to the birth certificate paperwork that is now just irrevocably fucked as a result, too.

From:

The legal principle here is "presumption of legitimacy"--- unless the genetic father specifically, through a legal proceeding, steps up and asserts his paternity and willingness to be legally responsible for support, the two legally-married people are the parents of the child. That's English common law, with us since the 17th century. The early 20th century brought us a lot of innovations, like the idea that an unmarried woman can't just assert her babydaddy's identity on the birth certificate without his consent. (But birth certificates themselves weren't all that common in the US before about 1900.)

Another legal principle in the US is that birth certificates are prima facie evidence: rebuttable in court, but by default they're presumed to be truthful. New York State even has something to this effect on their birth certificates, at least the ones from the 1970s I've seen: "We're only documenting that this is what the mother/parents said at the birth. We're not saying it's true..."

The tear-off section for "sensitive" statistical data that shouldn't be tracked back to the person happened sometime in the 1930s, I think, and IIRC it was about tracking whether the mother had syphilis. The huge array of questions they ask now about prenatal care, drug use, etc, was an encrustation of the 1960s, mostly--- and California asks many more of those questions than the US Standard Certificate of Birth asks. And yes, you're right about the demographic section being irrevocably fucked now, since there's no good way to answer the demographics bits accurately without having a system that normalizes "genetic father" as separate from "legal father."

I've been trying to figure out how to describe this in my project, since the 2 basic purposes of birth certificates are 1) biostatistics and 2) identity regulation (at both the individual level and the constitutive level--- who your parents are, and how many parents you can have.) And it turns out that, particularly in matters of parental identity, goal #1 and goal #2 usually are diametrically opposed when kids aren't born into heteronormative nuclear families.

One of these days, I'm going to find someone who can explain for me how the government corrects its numbers to allow for the possibility that people are lying (strategically) about their baby-daddy on the confidential section. The statistical uses of birth data only work when the system can collect data that's correct enough to make up for falsification factors.

From:

adrian-turtle.livejournal.com

My understanding is that a birth certificate is a legal document, not a medical document. So the mother's husband, the man who has legal responsibility for the child, is supposed to be named as the father. The customary way to transfer that responsibility is adoption, and there are plenty of precedents where biological fathers adopted children who had other legal fathers presumed at the time of their birth.

From:

there are plenty of precedents where biological fathers adopted children who had other legal fathers presumed at the time of their birth.

Yes. But according to a couple lawyers we've talked to, they know of no case where the mother remained still legally married (and not separated) to her husband, but the kids were successfully adopted by the nonmarried biological father.

Doesn't mean such cases don't exist, but.

For now, we're holding off on any more legal action than what we've already done (we have a parenting agreement on file) and see what the future brings.

From:

sfgabe.livejournal.com

Are you allowed in CA to leave "father" blank?

I have a blank "father" line on my bc, but that was ok in NYC in the 70s, no idea if that's changed.

They also would not let my mother give me my own last name. She was in the process of changing her last name back to her maiden name when I was born so she wanted me to have that one (Scelta). Instead they made her give me her married name (Willis - also not related to me in any biological way). Then, whew, lo to the courts that will not grant an angry, 70s, post-pardon, giant-afroed, second wave, single-by-choice mom what she wants. It got changed with a lot of time in court but it took almost a year.

So yes, the whole system is worthy of some groundbreaking test cases.

From:

I didn't ask if I was allowed to leave 'father' blank. Maybe I should've.

From:

See above. Even if you'd left it blank, the presumption of legitimacy would apply in any court that had to decide the issue, unless it was a case specifically about Steven disclaiming paternity and G. admitting paternity. US family law doesn't allow for the possibility of split paternity in any case that I'm aware of.

I seem to recall, though, that some Scandinavian systems have allowed (at least historically?) an unmarried woman to recover child support from all the men who could have been her babydaddy. Which isn't precisely split paternity, but it works really well as a way of privatizing the financial responsibility for out-of-wedlock children...

From:

thette.livejournal.com

That doesn't sound like any Scandinavian system I'm familiar with. (I'm Swedish.)

Our legal system isn't based on common law. It's a mish-mash of clan thinking with a frosting of Code Napoleon. (Which is why you can't disinherit your children, you can only will away a quarter to a half of your possessions and wills have only been around for little more than a century. Possessions, land in particular, belonged to the clan and not to the person.) Child support is a relatively recent thing, but bastards became legitimate children when the mother married the father.

From:

Blank "father" lines were generally required by the 1970s for unmarried women's children in most states, because states would use birth certificate paternal data to chase down unmarried fathers for child support. As a result, an unmarried father now has to give in-person consent for his name to be listed on the birth certificate; in some states, this requires a court proceeding, not just signing the birth certificate when the baby arrives.

There's a whole story worth writing about how American laws changed in the 1970s and early 1980s to allow for alternative child-naming practices. Most states used to require that an unmarried woman's child bear her last name and that a married woman's child bear the father's last name. I've got a case in my files from Georgia in the 1970s where a married couple had to sue the state registrar of vital statistics for the right to give their child a hyphenated (mother-father) last name. (They won.)

From:

doppmonster.livejournal.com

Yay! Congratulations! I'm so happy for all of you!!

Bringing you dinner next week. Will poke you to coordinate.

xo

From:

debbieann.livejournal.com

so how did the hospital go about telling you that - they didn't just give you a form and say fill this out?

my twin question is - can you tell anything about their personalities? do they sound different? cry a lot?

From:

The insurance is in Steven's name, so they knew I was married to him. All my business with the birth certificate office was done on the phone; Steven talked to them in person, too, so he might know more. All I know is, I got a call asking for information, and when I tried to put G. as the father's name, they said they couldn't do that unless I was legally separated.

As for their personalities -- yes, they're definitely different, although it's almost impossible for me to describe how. April likes to have an arm free from her swaddling, for example, so she can eat her fingers if necessary. She won't take my nipple if she's too hungry. She seems to have a shorter fuse, too.

Simone has a very musical cry, but they sound very similar otherwise. They don't actually cry a lot; they're both relatively serene babies.

From:

abostick59.livejournal.com

Do either or both of them have a preferred breast? Which one?

From:

Ha! Funny you should ask. My left breast is more productive; therefore they both prefer it. (The milk is also a different color left to right! Right is bluish, left is yellowish.)

From:

nitouche.livejournal.com

Hind milk vs fore milk, with different fat contents.

From:

I know about foremilk and hindmilk, but it's...odd to see one kind pumped from each breast simultaneously, you know?

From:

slfisher.livejournal.com

ha! I was going to ask about nursing logistics too!

From:

Nursing logistics can be a challenge :) I prefer to nurse them one at a time (when they cooperate schedule-wise), but sometimes I can manage to nurse both at once. I use pillows and "the football hold" (a very American term :); I forget what the British nursing guides call it) and, usually, an assistant to hand me the babies and take them away again later. It's awkward but manageable.

Otherwise, I can also prop one up on my thigh and bottle-feed while the other one nurses.

From:

odelenu.livejournal.com

First of all congratulations to all of you!

Secondly, my partner is the godmother to twins in the uk and the same mum's are about to have another baby. We were looking at baby clothes and I saw some cute ass stuff and I thought of you. Is there anything else you might need or just want? Let me know and if I see anything I can send it down. I also have so much tea right now it is ridiculous, I can send you some of that too.

From:

What would you like April and Simone's official paternity to be?

For us genealogists who like birth certificates, I'd love if there were a "notes" field, where the family could explain the details.

From:

I would like G. to be acknowledged as the father in some official way.

From:

Hmm. Let me ask my dad -- he did some weird lawyer tricks for a client who was adopting a child. Maybe there are some for your household, too.

Who's health insurance are the babies on? If they are on

imnotandrei's insurance, would changing their birth certificate to

black_pearl_10 take their insurance away, or would they go on his? Of course, if they are on your policy, that wouldn't make a difference.

From:

At the moment, they are on

imnotandrei's insurance, which is one reason we're not moving very fast at the moment on legal status changes...

(G. is currently unemployed, and my health insurance is via

imnotandrei at the moment too.)

From:

Yeah, keep 'em on the health insurance. That's important.

From:

Ah, I did have a chance to talk to my dad. He said that in some states that the legal father of a married woman's baby is always her husband and you can't change it. In other states, you can change this, but you'd have to go to court. He didn't know what kind of state California is.

My personal opinion is to let it be, for the sake of health insurance. You might feel out lawyer friends in California who work with family law in the LGBTQ community to think about legal paternity options for the future.

Wouldn't it be great to have both men be legal daddies?

From:

slfisher.livejournal.com

Like Facebook's relationship field: "It's complicated."

From: