But I'm the REAL Mom! Important Lessons from the Most Recent News-Worthy Custody Battle

It puts it in perspective when you consider that the "rope" being "tugged" in these types of
"wars" is a child's truth and identity.

The recent birth certificate battle between two former partners has once again brought some birth certificate issues into light.   One mother is the biological mother; she donated the egg that was fertilized and carried by her partner.  The other mother was the child's initial nurturer; she experienced pregnancy, childbirth, and the initial closeness with the child.  Both raised the child for an equal amount of time.  Of course, it's not about a child's right to have accurate information describing a historical event in their life, it's about who gets to be awarded as the "real mom" by being named as "mother" on the birth certificate.  Here is another instance where the best people to ask about how a birth certificate should be recorded and if it should or should not be changed are people who have had their birth certificates changed, namely, adult adoptees.  A few things about this case strike me as interesting.



There are no hard and fast rules as to who is "mother," not any more.

This case is so similar yet so dissimilar to the arguments over "real mom" in adoption.  In adoption, the concept of mother is usually shared between two mothers: the natural and initial nurturing mother, and the nurturing and legal mother.   Because of our Western, paternalistic ideals of family, adoption discussion has become preoccupied a great deal over whois really the only "real mom" and consensus usually says that it is the adoptive mother because she has spent the most time with the child  and done the child rearing.

Yet because in this case both mothers did equal amounts of child rearing, the argument over who is the "real mom" is not split between nature and nurture as in adoption, it is split between two concepts of "mother" that, in adoption, are embodied in one mother (the "birth" mother) instead of two, but that these two mothers share between them: biology and pregnancy/childbirth.  One mother claims she is more "mom," not because of nurture, but because of biology.  Another mother claims she is more "mom," not because of nurture, but because of pregnancy and childbirth.

In adoption, neither biology or pregnancy would make either one of these mothers the "real mom."  Again in adoption, you're only the "real mom" if you've done all of the child rearing.  In the case of surrogacy, being pregnant does not make someone a "real mom."  In the case of a typical parenting situation where a mother gives birth to a baby she is biologically related to and intends to parent, she is legally, socially, and in our culture a "real mom."  She typifies "real mom" and encompasses all four mentioned concepts of "mother" in just one person.  Pregnancy was certainly an arduous and intensive nurturing experience (the fact pregnancy takes so much out of you is one reason why this adoptee shall be birthing no more children!).  But in terms of nurturing making a "real mom," a new mother in a hospital has not yet done years of nurturing.  Yet she is considered the "real mom" who has every legal right to take to take her baby home to raise because the baby is biologically related to her and she gave birth to him or her.  See the double (triple...quadruple?) standards here and how the definitions of "mother" culturally, socially, and legally change in people's opinions  depending on what circumstance (in other words, stereotypes and prejudices) is involved.

Who are these peoples' "real parents?"

As an adult adoptee, I have been told who my "real mom" (and "real parents") are by many people.  There was a family member who reminded me my adoptive parents are my "real parents" because of the law: they wanted kids, they couldn't have any, they legally adopted me, I am their heir, and I am obligated to fulfill that purpose.  Then there are people who call my original parents my "real parents" because their concept of family, what they value, is within biological family lineage and genetics.  Then there are people who say "biology doesn't matter" and "anyone can be pregnant and squeeze out a baby" and tell me that my "real parents" are my adoptive parents because they "paid a lot of money to get you" and "wiped all the tears and tied all the shoe laces."  Please notice one important thing: none of these people are me, live my life, walk in my shoes, or maintain my relationships for me on my behalf.

Take a look at these scenarios with any one of the definition of "real parent" someone might have (legal, pregnancy/birth, biology, or child rearing) and see if they all, or even just one, fits in every situation.

Two adoptees were conceived from rape.  One adoptee will not call the man who fathered her "father" because to her, the title of "father" is too prestigious, too endearing, to be awarded to such a horrible person.    The other adoptee values biological family ties.  She calls the man who fathered her "father" because she doesn't see it as honoring him in any way, just simply stating his place in her genealogical family line.  Which adoptee is right?  (You know I say both are).  And if you don't walk in their shoes, how comfortable are you defining "real parent" for them?

Three adoptees have loving and accepting adoptive parents and original parents who may have accepted or rejected them at reunion.  One considers herself to have four real parents because she values what nature, nurture, pregnancy/birth, and the law have contributed to her life and who she is.  The other adoptee considers her adoptive parents her "real parents."  They're all she has ever known and she has trouble with the concept of integrating her original and adoptive parents together in the concept of "parents."  The third adoptee views his biological parents as "real parents," not to be hurtful to his adoptive parents, he loves them, but he defines parentage as being biologically related.  Which adoptee is right?  (You know I say all are).  And if you don't walk in their shoes, how comfortable are you defining "real parent" for them?

Two adoptees were raised by abusive adoptive parents.  One adoptee refuses to call her adoptive parents her "real parents" even though they are legally her parents because they did not fulfill the nurturing task.  She views her biological parents as "real parents," even if she did not spend a great deal of time with them, because they have a biological connection.  The other adoptee who was abused thinks of her adoptive parents as "real parents" because the law says they are and because, even though they were abusive, they are all she has ever known.  Again, Which adoptee is right?  (You know I say both are).  And if you don't walk in their shoes, how comfortable are you defining "real parent" for them?

People have said cases where gay and lesbian parents fight to be on their child's
birth certificate will "bring laws up to date."  But is this always the case?  The practice of
altering a birth certificate (e.g. amending and sealing) is very old.  Expanding its
practice and enforcing the "real parent" ideal instead of preserving the accurate and historical
 truth for the individual sounds like a giant leap backwards to me.

Last one.

Two people were raised by abusive parents who are their "parents" in sense of nature, nurture, pregnancy/birth, and law.  They weren't surrendered to adoption or adopted by anyone nor raised by anyone but these abusive and neglectful parents.  Are these parents "real parents" and if not, who is?  If nurture and child rearing is one's only definition of "real parent" and these parents did not do substantial or beneficial nurturing, would we then dare say that this person has no parents?  Who really wants to use their own rules to dictate what these two people should think about their own lives?

The differing scenarios could go on and on and on.  When you think of all of the various scenarios out there, there is actually one hard fast rule: "real parent" should be defined by the person who was parented.  I don't walk in any of the aforementioned, fictitious peoples' shoes, though my circumstances may be similar to a few of them, I can't make their decisions for them.

Let me also be clear that each parent in these situations, in every situation, also has the right to self-identify their own label for themselves.  One identifying ones self or another person's place in ones life does not automatically mean all involved must agree in their own definitions.  Self-identification.  Self-determination.  Two things I value very, very much.


As someone with an altered birth certificate, what do I think?

I do think there are hard and fast rules as to who should be on a birth certificate.  Birth certificates are intended to imply biology and birth, not legal, nurturing, social, cultural, sentimental (whichever) parentage.  They are documents that record a historical event and provide an individual state with health related information--which is why a mother may end up disclosing to the state everything from her weight to her smoking habits when filling out a birth certificate form (I wanted to write a big "dear government, mind your own freaking business" across my sons' birth certificate forms by the time I was done filling them out).  The state happens to make an abridged version of these documents available for the people whose births they record for identification purposes.

Despite these simple facts, people claim "birth certificates are not intended to portray biology because no one DNA tests the fathers before they go on the certificate."  It's true, they are not tested but not because birth documents aren't intended to imply biology; it's about good old paternalism and legitimacy.  Old legitimacy laws say that a child is only "illegitimate" if the mother is unmarried not if the husband is not the biological father.  Even if there is a pregnancy from a previous relationship or extra-marital affair, the laws said the child was "legitimate" if the mother is married.  In an aversion to ruffling some social feathers, the man on the birth certificate is to be assumed to be the biological father: because women bearing children outside of legal subordination to her husband [marriage] has long since been unacceptable in our history.

Cases like these are prime opportunities to not only draw attention to the basic human rights of an individual whose birth a birth certificate is describing, but to acknowledge different family forms and their needs (and acknowledging their needs the right way).  There are too many scenarios out there to keep trying to shove everyone into the Western, paternalistic family form where only one man and one woman can be called "real parents" and therefore, get to alter a historical document that someone else receives as though an event in history is able to be changed or that it did not happen.  Altering/amending/sealing birth certificates has lead to people defenselessly being lied to and being denied their roots, among other rights.  Birth certificates are not about and should not be made to be about validating one adult over another.  And this is really what this case (and many other birth certificate/custody cases) is about: adults trying to be validated above another.  If this case really was about wanting biology on the birth certificate instead of birth out of sole benefit to the child and not validation to the adults arguing over it, the one mother should be advocating for the anonymous sperm donor to be named the "real father" and placed on the birth certificate as well, along with her name.  But she isn't.  She is not fighting for all biology to appear on the certificate, just her own name.  These cases end up being about who is the "real parent" and the birth certificate rendered into some type of ownership document.

What's the answer?

These issues both in adoption and this particular case could be solved by leaving a birth certificate accurate with biology and birth information (which means both of these women should be on the birth certificate, including the natural "anonymous" father because sperm donation should never be anonymous) and certificates of legal parentage for everyone, including those who would legally be considered a parent but are not included on the birth certificate.  This really should apply to everyone.  When someone is born, record the related information and leave it alone!  The child has a right to have it.  If the legal parents change down the road, issue parenting certificates (and stop requiring birth certificates for so many ID purposes--it's ridiculous).  If it benefits the child to have more than one or hey, even more than two or three recognized legal parents, then make it happen.  No amending, no sealing, no lies, no secrecy, no "anonymous" parents, no omissions, and no shame.

We should know better by now than to assume that every family can be legally or practically shoved into the "female mom" and "male dad" role.  Some people have gay, lesbian, and transgendered parents that don't consider stereotypical gendered titles and roles to fit them (and being a queer parent does not automatically mean that adoption or donor conception were involved so there's even more diversity there).  Some people have divorced and remarried parents giving them two moms and two dads.  Some people were conceived from donors and have two biological parents and one nurturing parent.  Some people have any combination of such whether in adoption or other family situation--these issues need to be focused on benefiting the child, not validating adults or outdated concepts of "family" that are not practical or inclusive.  Both of these moms embody birth and biology and therefore both should be on the birth certificate.  Both should be granted legal parenting rights if that is what is best for the child.  As for who is the child's "real mother?"  Is it the biological mother?  Is it the mother who gave birth to the child?  Is it both?

Why don't we let her tell us when she's all grown up?




Photo #1 credit: meepoohfoto
Photo #2 credit: stockphoto