Definitely frustrating, and I don't want to minimize that whatsoever. I hope it's okay to point out the other perspective though:
Legally, Massachusetts' case law precedent requires a judge's consent for any non-biological parent to be declared the parent and it has to occur after the child's birth. The court just aims to determine what is in the child's best interests - and my guess is that Michelle was cheerful because the judge has no ground on which to deny Jen parentage since you are obviously starting a family and have a legal union. The system works this way for a lot of reasons, and it's not because you and Jen are both women - if Jen were a man and in the same position of non-biological parent, the procedure would be the same.
Not to say the system is perfect because I do believe it could use work - but it's just trying to protect the interests of parents (especially biological moms) and children whether in the context of adoption or surrogacy. The judge's pronouncement in the end will safeguard Jen's rights with respect to your little girl (because unless the judge says Jen is the second parent, to my knowledge it is not correct to say Jen will be legally responsible for your kid).
And while this is just a huge formality than can feel like a burden right now or an infringement based on gender, if the judge eats something bad for breakfast and does something scheisty, I can guarantee it will not be a struggle to get that overturned.
You just mirrored a lot of my thoughts. I suspected that things like sperm donors had forced the state to iron out most these legal issues already, and that the only real difference here is that the non-biological parent is female and not male.
I would suspect that a lot of parents who use sperm donors simply write in the Husband's information and leave it at that. It's not like the state is going to do DNA testing on every child born to make sure the parents match.
Hopefully, 30 Year from now, the kids being born in this legal morass will hear stories about how the legal idiocy their parents went through, and wonder how such an unenlightened America could have existed.
Well, in MA if a woman is married (to a man), her husband is the de facto father on the birth certificate, even if he isn't the father. If a woman wants to name another man who is not her husband as the father, she has to fill out a bunch of "documents of non-paternity" and stuff like that.
So if a straight married couple uses a sperm donor (and sperm donors from sperm banks have no legal rights), the husband WOULD be the father on the birth certificate. MA law is like that.
And here I was hoping the grief you're going through is just an artifact of legal issues around sperm Donors in general, instead of something that seems custom designed to harass same sex couples.
Well, yes and no. Massachusetts is pretty wonky in the birth certificate department. Like the whole problem with if a woman is married to a man but is pregnant with another man's baby... legally if the woman is married than the person who has to be on the birth certificate is her husband (even if he is not the father) UNLESS you file a bunch of other weird papers.
So since Jen and I are currently married, she SHOULD be the de facto parent, biological or otherwise. Because this kid is being born in the context of a legal marriage, which MA is usually pretty specific about.
I'm sure it's just a formality for the judge to approve whatever, but I'm also sure that having a birth certificate with words crossed out and re-written looks REALLY un-legal .
Legally, Massachusetts' case law precedent requires a judge's consent for any non-biological parent to be declared the parent and it has to occur after the child's birth. The court just aims to determine what is in the child's best interests - and my guess is that Michelle was cheerful because the judge has no ground on which to deny Jen parentage since you are obviously starting a family and have a legal union. The system works this way for a lot of reasons, and it's not because you and Jen are both women - if Jen were a man and in the same position of non-biological parent, the procedure would be the same.
Not to say the system is perfect because I do believe it could use work - but it's just trying to protect the interests of parents (especially biological moms) and children whether in the context of adoption or surrogacy. The judge's pronouncement in the end will safeguard Jen's rights with respect to your little girl (because unless the judge says Jen is the second parent, to my knowledge it is not correct to say Jen will be legally responsible for your kid).
And while this is just a huge formality than can feel like a burden right now or an infringement based on gender, if the judge eats something bad for breakfast and does something scheisty, I can guarantee it will not be a struggle to get that overturned.
Reply
I would suspect that a lot of parents who use sperm donors simply write in the Husband's information and leave it at that. It's not like the state is going to do DNA testing on every child born to make sure the parents match.
Hopefully, 30 Year from now, the kids being born in this legal morass will hear stories about how the legal idiocy their parents went through, and wonder how such an unenlightened America could have existed.
Reply
So if a straight married couple uses a sperm donor (and sperm donors from sperm banks have no legal rights), the husband WOULD be the father on the birth certificate. MA law is like that.
Reply
And here I was hoping the grief you're going through is just an artifact of legal issues around sperm Donors in general, instead of something that seems custom designed to harass same sex couples.
Reply
Reply
So since Jen and I are currently married, she SHOULD be the de facto parent, biological or otherwise. Because this kid is being born in the context of a legal marriage, which MA is usually pretty specific about.
I'm sure it's just a formality for the judge to approve whatever, but I'm also sure that having a birth certificate with words crossed out and re-written looks REALLY un-legal .
Reply
Leave a comment