Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2012, 10:19 AM
 
203 posts, read 256,712 times
Reputation: 307

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Briolat21 View Post
I would say that actually, birth certificates are "certificates of live birth" (that's what many of them used to be called) and they are about recording the existance of a new citizen and the people who will be FINANCIALLY LIABLE FOR THEM.

Which is why there is pressure to put a father's name on the birth certificate, or in the case of married persons, it is assumed to be the married spouse.

They don't do parternity checks for birth certificates, which means that the state doesn't care if it is a biological relationship, or otherwise.

The state just cares that there are private individuals on-the-hook for a child's welfare (so that the state does not have to provide care unless there are no other options) -- and adoptive parents (custodial parents) fill that niche just as easily as biological ones.

The state does not care, nor have an interest in the genealogical records of its citizens being accurate.

The state does care that if a child is not being taken care of, they can go after parents (biological, custodial, guardianship, whatever..) for money to care for the child.

I understand the many reasons why adoptees here seem to be interested in OBC. I don't share them, but I understand them. But adoptees interests seem to be personal (genealogical, health, etc..). The state does not share those same interests.
This is an interesting theory. And hey, I'm all for accusing state governments of only being interested in the bottom line. But the reality does not match up with this theory. When a child is placed in foster care after the biological parents' rights have been terminated, the birth certificate is not altered to indicate that, for example, all California Tax Payers are now the parents who are financially responsible for the child. The birth certificate still lists the biological parents as the biological parents even after they are no longer considered financially or legally responsible for the child. Birth certificates are only altered upon finalization of an adoption. Only then do state governments deem it necessary to falsify the birth certificate to make it appear as though an adoption never happened and that the adoptive parents created and gave birth to a child they neither created nor gave birth to. It's really about a different bottom line--that of the adoption industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top