• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I thought birth certificates ALWAYS had only biological parents because it’s a medical document and has nothing to do with custody and guardianship?

    • SLaSZT@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s not the case in many places. Lots of children are born whose fathers are unknown or whose mothers are married to someone who isn’t the father - that information is often used instead. In some jurisdictions, the spouse of the mother is automatically considered the father by law.

      In the US, specifically, there are many cases of men being falsely named as fathers on a birth certificate so that a mother can collect child support from a more preferable person (for example, they have a better-paying job, so the calculated payment will be higher) than the actual father.

    • Fuck Yankies@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s correct most places that understand judicial presedence, just not in countries run by idiots.

    • sibloure@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not during adoptions either. The birth certificate has no mention of biological parents at least in the U.S. It’s more of a legal document than medical document.

      • Skelectus@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That logic would at least be pretty straightforward; mark the unknown parent as unknown.