Adoptions and the right to an original birth cert

Well that's up to you. If I adopted a kid, I'd treat that kid as my own and I wouldn't allow any differentiation between that kid and a biological kid. I'd expect that kid to understand that I was their parent - not just a randomer who was taking care of them. And I'd want them to consider me to be their parent rather than some anonymous person or people who put them up for adoption.

Who is the natural mother of a baby born to a surrogate?

Mary wants a baby. She has medical issues but gets an egg donated by her sister Ann. Mary's husband Jack is infertile so they use a donor from a sperm bank. They travel abroad and find Svetlana who will carry the baby for 9 months.

Under Irish law, Svetlana will be the child's mother (and guardian etc.). Neither Mary nor Jack have any rights to the child under Irish law unless and until the child is adopted. At which stage they become the adoptive parents. I would call them the parents at that point. If you would call them something else, that is your choice.

You can answer the simple question I asked earlier - "do you think the supplier of genetic material should have automatic rights pertaining to the child"? It is a basic but fundamental question.

And yes, @One eyed Jack - someone who'd deliberately inflict that on another human despite knowing the trauma they'd be causing? Psycho. Hoping a psycho never has kids - rational.

Well someone’s failing to connect the dots!

One of the most common reasons why children are removed from their parents is because their parents are regarded as being unfit to take care of their own children. Your sincerely hoping that a person never becomes a parent based upon your disagreeing with their opinions, is exactly the same way in which people who removed children from their parents justified their behaviour. Of course to them, their behaviour and their attitudes towards other people, was entirely rational too!

Well it appears you understand the use of the phrase describing someone as a provider of genetic material as being more general that, and not exactly congruent to, the person who gives birth to a child.

Other posters have appeared to get their knickers into a twist over that issue.

If the genetic link between people is sufficient to establish a right between them, then you are going to open up a huge can of worms for some people.

And when you can express your question without using deliberately provocative language, I'll maybe answer. But maybe you should just go and open a thread on surrogacy/IVF.

In the meantime, you can keep guessing what I'd call anyone, or you can read my posts, where it's fairly clear. I've already said I think twice now that the people who raise a child are their parents.

It should always be talked about. My eldest brother is adopted. My parents were trying for years, adopted him and then had 4 more in 6 years 😜. I always knew he was adopted and what that meant and it was fine. He’s still my brother the same way the other one is. I don’t look at him any differently to my other siblings. Incidentally he met both his birth parents and it went well. Best possible outcome for him, he struggled a lot in his teens, pushed back against the parents a good bit but meeting his birth parents seems to have settled his mind.

If the genetic link between people is sufficient to establish a right between them, then you are going to open up a huge can of worms for some people.

That can of worms has been open a long time Donald -

The issue of the “de facto family” previously arose in relation to a lesbian couple who had a baby with the sperm of a male friend. He later sought access to the child, and the couple opposed it, asserting their rights as a “de facto” family. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in December 2009, which ruled that such did not exist in Irish law, and that the child had the right to know his biological father.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ruling-stresses-no-such-thing-as-de-facto-family-in-law-1.658471

Closed somewhat, by the commencement of parts 2 and 3 of the Children and Family Relationships Act -

Frameworks which clarify the legal parentage of donor conceived children under the Children and Family Relationships Act comes into law tomorrow.

Minister for Health Simon Harris TD has confirmed Part 2 and 3 of the related regulations in the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 will commence tomorrow.

These provisions will, for the first time, provide a legal framework for registering the births of children who are born as a result of assisted human reproduction involving donated eggs or sperm or embryos.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/new-co-parenting-legal-recognition-for-lesbian-couples-not-enough-says-campaigners-39179179.html

I am familiar with the case you quoted. It is McD v. L and it is a famous case. I can't see your link as it is behind a paywall for me. The 2015 Act did not solve the issues from that case for the "father". Although it clarified the situation around DAHR somewhat. If I remember correctly, it explicitly set out that the donor would have no rights (even though they supply the genetic material)

In McD v L, in the High Court, the judge (I think it was Henchy) erred in referring to the "de-facto family". That was clarified in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court actually said he erred if I remember correctly.

Someone posting something that you don't like isn't trolling. I hope that you get to meet those people. But if they don't want to be contacted by you then they have rights too. Your rights have to be balanced with their rights.

If your right as a child supersedes all other rights, then the side effect of that is that any woman who has a child, but who elects not to disclose the identity of the father, would be infringing upon the child's superior right and could be prosecuted for that.

It would also extend to any donor (sperm or egg) who had donated anonymously who might at some stage find themselves being contacted by someone they do not want to be connected to, and which breaks the conditions under which they supplied that genetic material (or sperm/egg for those of you who, for some reason, take offence at "genetic material").

That’s my point though - you posted that if the genetic link between people is sufficient to establish a right between them, then a huge can of worms is opened up for some people.

The opening of a whole can of worms for some people is not sufficient justification to deprive children of the right to know their origins. This isn’t a right that’s currently recognised in Irish law, but it was part of the CAFR Act in section 35, yet to be enacted in legislation -

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/9/section/35/enacted/en/html#sec35

Have I a right to know who my biological parents are if I was born using assisted human reproduction?

Sometimes the people who are your parents and looking after you day-to-day are not the same people as your biological parents. This can be for a number of reasons including if you were born using sperm or egg from a donor.

Currently you have no right to know who your biological parents are in this situation. However, there are laws that are due to come into force that will allow you to know who your biological parents are after you turn 18 from a donor conceived register.

https://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/15159_ChildrensRightsAlliance_KnowYourRights_Chapter5_WEB.pdf

I don’t envy those parents who find themselves in a position they had never envisioned, but promises regarding the protection of their anonymity above children’s right to know their origins, or protecting their right to withhold information from their children, should never have been codified in Irish law in the first place, knowing that those children would one day become adults themselves who were denied their right to their identity. Omission of recognition of a right by the State is no different than being deprived of that right.

That being said, I do know people who didn’t find out until they were adults (often in cases upon their parents death), that they were adopted. It’s untrue to suggest that adults who find out in later life that they were adopted invariably experience trauma. I know parents who placed their children for adoption, children who were adopted within families, foster children who were later adopted by their foster parents, children who have been adopted by their own parents (due to a curious quirk in Irish Family Law), and it’s just too simplistic to claim any particular dominant narrative, especially when it’s only examining circumstances which supports that narrative.

Donald is telling us that he would not tell an adopted child of his that they are adopted. Donald is therefore telling us, with the knowledge that discovering you are adopted only in adulthood is traumatic, he would still keep that information from that child. Donald is also telling us that he would keep that information from a child who will grow to adulthood and be asked numerous times over the course of his/her life for family medical info - "any history of heart disease? cancer? diabetes?" - and he will let that person mislead their medical practitioners through no fault of their own.

Except Donald never said any of that. It’s entirely your own invention.

Anyway - they don't seem bothered by it, so maybe you shouldn't be, either?

I’m not bothered by anything Donald said. I’m bothered by what you said. In simple terms, what you said was just beneath contempt. No matter how much I disagree with anyone, I would never hope that they never become a parent. In the context of the subject of this thread in particular, it’s not just nasty, it’s exactly the same sort of attitude which perpetuated and justified the behaviour you’re now arguing against.

You're the one completely ignoring things, such as deliberately lying to your children causing trauma, or possibly medical misdiagnosis.

Again, this thread is about adoption, not surrogacy or donor IVF. No, I'm not fully au fait with legislation on those, and I've not claimed anything about the language that legislation pertaining to them uses. I do know that adopted people, adoptive parents, the Adoption Authority, natural parents, adoption agencies, Tusla, etc., all use the terms natural parents, birth parents, etc. Again - go start a thread on those topics if you want.