Do AP's really want amended birth certificates for their kids?

""But I'd want the original one too, for her.""

So would I...as the natural mother of my child. I am not allowed by law to have my daughter's OBC, when at that time I was my daughter's one and only legal mother.

I think one of the most ludicrous things about an Amended Birth Certificate..is that the adoptive mother's name is inserted as the name of the woman who gave birth to this child. How on earth did law makers feel this was proper and even legal to do? Listing the name of a woman as giving birth, when in medical fact she did not! And if adoption is the best of all possible worlds...why would any adoptive mother/parent who willingly chose adoption, be ashamed of that verifable, legal fact and want to intentionally hide it?

I'm still mulling this one over. I haven't thought much about it before, to be honest. My first reaction, is No. Not when the adoptee is still a minor. The records belong to the adoptee, with access by the legal parents (which would be the adoptive parents). I don't think it's any different than any other kind of privacy. I don't think that the natural family should automatically have access to the minor adoptee's medical records, school records, etc. I do think the threat of identity theft is valid, but that's not the most compelling reason. When the adoptee becomes an adult, then he/she can allow whomever he/she wants to have access to those records. If there is a question of coersion, however, I think the natural parents should have a legal route available, in order to access the records. Such as, being able to file a petition in a court of law. ETA: Mamakate, read up on identity theft. You'd be surprised what someone can do with a birth certificate.

I did not expect or want an amended BC. As others have stated, I do not need it to feel "more like a mommy" and it is really silly. Everyone knows that I did not give birth, no matter what it says on the certificate.

What I *would* like, is proof of the child's identity/proof of my ability to make decisions on my child's behalf that is commonly acceptable. Right now, that appears to be a BC. (I've tried to use our adoption certificate to sign my son up for things and it is *not* accepted as proof of age even though his birthdate is on it. I have to show a BC anyway.) And, when I do show the adoption certificate, everyone gets in a flurry about how to handle it. It's just easier to show the BC and be done with it -- and my son prefers it too. (He doesn't want the extra attention. Our adoption is by no means a secret, but it doesn't necessarily need to be shared with the guy who's confirming eligibility for youth hockey either.)

Perhaps in this day and age -- with so many "non traditional" family types -- we need a new form, separate from the BC, which can serve as proof of name/age for children and proof of which adult(s) are legally able to make decisions on the child's behalf. Then everyone would have the same thing...regardless of their family situation.

We should make the BC *only* what it says it is -- documentation of the birth. Right now, at least in the USA, it's much more than that.

Name changes can be handled without amending a BC. The name of the parents is what is changed...after all in most cases a BC is the only document showing who is the legal parent of any child. You have to show it to enroll kids in school, sometimes in sports, to travel, and it is needed to get other forms of ID when one is older such a driver's license or passport. If they used their OBC, they would then have to show an adoption or guardianship cert to prove legal parent/guardianship.

I can understand that not everyone would want a different document than everyone else, detailing their adoptee status, when they are using it for these purposes (I mean why should the guy at the DMV need to you you were adopted? Would that open one up to awkward questions or conversations?)...but currently that is the document used.

I would much prefer ALL children/parents be issued a different document. Like a child's state issued ID showing the names of their legal parents/guardians (for school enrollment and travel purposes) and their birthdate to prove age. Those are the only purposes served.

BC's should be filed to record the birth only and not used as ID and never touched or needed again. Luckily DS's first mom did get a copy of his OBC sent to her, and is keeping it for him.

In short, no I didn't want an amended BC, but I also don't want my son to have to unwillingly reveal his adopted status to random strangers. I would prefer some other form of ID.

No, I have no desire for an amended birth certificate for my child as an adoptive parent. That whole concept seems really screwed up to me. I think that birth records should not be changed, and should reflect how things truly were at the time of birth, not custody changes that came later. A separate certificate of adoption would be sufficient to cover the legalities of proving custody-- there's no need to change or seal the birth records.

I think whether the child's surname is changed is an individual family decision (my preference would be to add the adoptive surname to the end of the existing name,) but there's no reason to change the record of the birth to accommodate a name change that came later, regardless.

Not really, but I need something that the government will recognize. Maybe a birth/adoption certificate, all inclusive. Some say that is "labelling" the children as adopted, but isn't being adopted part of an adoptive person's personality? Are people ashamed of being adopted, or are parents keeping it secret?

But no, we dont' "want" it, but until they develop somethign else, we need papers to take our kids over state lines and to prove their age to play baseball. Seriously, to play baseball that is why we need it so surely a different kind of paper verifying their age with their new surname would be an idea....

I wouldn't want an amended BC--I didn't birth the child so why should the BC have my name on it? I am somewhat baffled why the assumption is that AP's would want it that way. I, and most ap's I've talked to were startled to be told that we would receive a document saying that we did give birth. My belief is that it is something the legal system just finds more convenient--and the way a natural mothers identity is pulled from the records which in the past was considered the right thing to do from a majority of the industry.

Hmm, I don't know, but take this into consideration:

"The state attorney general of Louisiana is planning to appeal a federal court order to put the names of two adoptive fathers on their son's birth certificate. This comes from a suit brought by Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith, who adopted a Louisiana-born boy in New York State, where same-sex couples can be listed as parents. They now live in San Diego. The baby was born in one state, adopted in another, and goes to live in a third with a falsified birth certificate that obliterates the names of his real, biological parents. "

Two FATHERS and no mother? Interesting.....

I understand where everyone is coming from. I am the mother of 4 adopted children. And raised my husbands nephew for 5 years. I think the only reason for changing the parents name on the BC is for the simple fact of getting things done. Enrolling them in schools. Doctors appointments. sports etc....... When we were raising out nephew. we had to get the mother to sign and noterize something that said we were able to do these things. That still didnt work half the time.

i think some are finally coming around and seeing that an amended birth cert is not the best path to take. but there are plenty that feel more comfortable with an amended. i would guess this stems from the old thinking that adoption must be kept a secret.

as others have suggested, a certificate of adoption would serve the purpose of establishing cusdody, but preserve the obc.