Single Women Should Not Get Birth Certificates for Their Babies
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
You support this bill?
Why should the state take any steps to "identify" the biological parents? Is it because they are on state services? Do you believe that there isn't an agency specifically tasked with doing exactly what you are asking?
There's a space on the birth certificate for the names of the parents. How can the state issue an incomplete birth certificate?
I'm glad so many on here are ignorant of child support recovery because it means you haven't/aren't going through that ordeal, but here is a link that can give some basic information:
https://secureapp.dhs.state.ia.us/CustomerWeb/FAQ/GeneralFAQ.aspx
For example: "What is the Child Support Recovery Unit and why are they involved in my case?
The Child Support Recovery Unit is involved in your case because you or the other parent requested services or someone in the family is receiving (or has received) public assistance. The Unit is authorized to establish and enforce child support and medical support orders for families who request services or who receive public assistance now or in the past."
https://secureapp.dhs.state.ia.us/CustomerWeb/FAQ/GeneralFAQ.aspx
For example: "What is the Child Support Recovery Unit and why are they involved in my case?
The Child Support Recovery Unit is involved in your case because you or the other parent requested services or someone in the family is receiving (or has received) public assistance. The Unit is authorized to establish and enforce child support and medical support orders for families who request services or who receive public assistance now or in the past."
This is silly, you know that right? There are laws specifically regarding this that are longstanding, but you want to change because of entirely separate and non-related reasons?
Iowa's, last updated in 1999:
144.13 BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
1. Certificates of births shall be filed as follows:
a. A certificate of birth for each live birth which occurs in
this state shall be filed as directed by the state registrar within
seven days after the birth and shall be registered by the county
registrar if it has been completed and filed in accordance with this
chapter.
b. When a birth occurs in an institution or en route to an
institution, the person in charge of the institution or the person's
designated representative, shall obtain the personal data, prepare
the certificate, and file the certificate as directed by the state
registrar. The physician in attendance or the person in charge of
the institution or the person's designee shall certify to the facts
of birth either by signature or as otherwise authorized by rule and
provide the medical information required by the certificate within
seven days after the birth.
c. When a birth occurs outside an institution and not en
route to an institution, the certificate shall be prepared and filed
by one of the following in the indicated order of priority:
(1) The physician in attendance at or immediately after the
birth.
(2) Any other person in attendance at or immediately after the
birth.
(3) The father or the mother.
(4) The person in charge of the premises where the birth
occurred. The state registrar shall establish by rule the evidence
required to establish the facts of birth.
d. The state registrar may share information from birth
certificates for the sole purpose of identifying those children in
need of immunizations.
e. If an affidavit of paternity is obtained directly from the
county registrar and is filed pursuant to section 252A.3A the county
registrar shall forward the original affidavit to the state
registrar.
2. If the mother was married at the time of conception, birth, or
at any time during the period between conception and birth, the name
of the husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of
the child unless paternity has been determined otherwise by a court
of competent jurisdiction, in which case the name of the father as
determined by the court shall be entered by the department.
3. If the mother was not married at the time of conception,
birth, and at any time during the period between conception and
birth, the name of the father shall not be entered on the certificate
of birth, unless a determination of paternity has been made pursuant
to section 252A.3, in which case the name of the father as
established shall be entered by the department. If the father is not
named on the certificate of birth, no other information about the
father shall be entered on the certificate.
4. The division shall make all of the following available to the
child support recovery unit, upon request:
a. A copy of a child's birth certificate.
b. The social security numbers of the mother and the father.
c. A copy of the affidavit of paternity if filed pursuant to
section 252A.3A and any subsequent recision form which rescinds the
affidavit.
d. Information, other than information for medical and health
use only, identified on a child's birth certificate or on an
affidavit of paternity filed pursuant to section 252A.3A. The
information may be provided as mutually agreed upon by the division
and the child support recovery unit, including by automated exchange.
What is really silly about this is that birth certificates are under the vital statistics office/agency/whatever your state has. And there would most definitely be some sort of certificate showing that a baby was born and who that baby was born to, otherwise vital statistics would be simply ignored.
So they are pushing for stopping "Birth Certificates" while still clearly needing to have a certificate of a live birth ....
So they are pushing for stopping "Birth Certificates" while still clearly needing to have a certificate of a live birth ....
You are trying to pass legislation that requires an unmarried mother to pay $450 for a paternity test in order to receive a certificate that proves her child is, well, real.
And your response is "so what"? If you are anything like the Florida legislators and drug testing, let me guess, you co-own a paternity testing facility?
No, that's not what it says:
...provides that if the unmarried mother cannot or refuses to name the child’s father, either a father must be conclusively established by DNA evidence or, within 30 days after birth, another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, in court, on the birth certificate.’
‘Provides that absent DNA evidence or a family member’s name, a birth certificate will not be issued and the mother will be ineligible for financial aid from the State for support of the child.’
So, she can provide the name. If she can't identify the father because she slept with multiple partners, that's when the paternity test kicks in. If she won't name the father, she has to provide a family member willing to stand in loco parentis to the child in order to get the certificate and public assistance benefits.
This is really going to screw up the kid when she runs for President. Save the newspaper clippings.
I support the state being able to know who the parents of a child are. I don't think I would have signed on to this proposal as written though.
As far as whether there is an agency that is already charged with this responsibility...could be, but if there is, I know from experience that they are not 100% effective, and/or timely, in acquiring this information. Short, short version...I had an employee once that had at least two children, both of whom were on state assistance in the state where the kids lived and where they were born.
I only know that though because the mother was finally caused to name him as the father and when that happened, he got tracked to my company and I often received correspondence from the "home" state trying to verify what pay/benefits he had, or didn't have, etc. Again, in short, it came out that he had been deliberately trying to conceal his position as the father AND any corresponding financial responsibility for them. I pretty much blew his game up though when the state began contacting me as I did not misrepresent anything on his behalf, although he pleaded with me to do so.
The kids were around 8 and 10 years old when they caught up to him BTW. So the taxpayers of the home state were paying for various things, healthcare at a minimum, on behalf of these kids for many years while dad avoided doing so and somehow had enough money to pay for cars and vacations and so forth. And FWIW, I knew when I reported truth back to the state that it would likely lead to him not working for me any longer, which is what happened, and that had direct negative consequences on me.
Sooooo...to me it would have been far better for the state to have known from day 1 who the father was and not have to invest time(years) and resources to track him down...and then set off another wasteful and disruptive chain of events. This is not to mention that the taxpayers in the home state were covering his kids for several years while he maintained a pretty carefree lifestyle, etc.
You might not have a problem with that scenario, but I certainly do. BTW, he thought he was a great dad and that I was an asshole for "turning him in".
I disagree, but whatever. From what I can tell, someone is trying to make sure that mom and dad take responsibility for THEIR kids. It is quite disturbing to me that such a thing would even be necessary, let alone that it falls to the state to ferret it out.
I have no sense of how many cases like this there would be, but I know of one from first hand experience. And with some states having HUGE budget shortfalls, I can imagine where the motivation is coming from to "find dad" and have him pay for his own kid(s), not the state(taxpayers).
He shouldn't.
How can you disagree? The law should be supported on its merit, not on the merits of an alternate proposal.
If a jury finds a defendant not guilty, the prosecutor doesn't get to insist that they find the guilty party.
This is a bad proposal, transparently aimed at punishing women and illegitimate children.
...only 'dad' has no means to support the child anyway.
Texas is already finding out what happens when you 'defund' PP; you end up w/ a $250MM expense, some of which is in the form of unwanted pregnancies and additional welfare costs. As if Illinois doesn't have enough budget problems already...
If the mother is a virgin named 'Mary', you're good to go.
Otherwise, she's a worthless slut who deserves a life as a penniless pauper with an illegitimate child.
Or... Joseph stands in loco parentis and everything's good.
Last edited:
I was told by one of my many female (former students) that she was on her 4th baby cause the government was giving her good money to take care of them. I wonder how many more of the young ladies were living that way. she had several dads for her children.
a child isn't (or shouldn't be) a winning lottery ticket from the government. it is pretty damned easy to not get pregnant. it's not the state's responsibly to take care of a child that you knew you couldn't afford before squirting the bastard out.
I didn't even know there was a spelling issue, i just figured that was a language I knew.
It would be interesting to know how often new moms decline to name the father, and of that group, how many apply for government assistance.
I'm sure it happens simply to avoid having the father's income count against qualifying for assistance in the first place.
I'm sure it happens simply to avoid having the father's income count against qualifying for assistance in the first place.
You need a huge dose of what this GOP Sheriff is saying - but I doubt you'll get it.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/gop...-a-party-of-cult-leaders-and-idiots/comments/
You're making the ASSUMPTION that the state did not know who he was, or that the mother 'was finally caused' to name him (she probably already did); it sounds like you only found out the info when the state was trying to track him down. Deadbeat Dads will occur regardless of this poorly worded bill, and they will still try to 'hide' in other states, which sounds like what happened here.
Actually, you are making an assumption that I made an assumption...and you would be incorrect. The personnel from the state in question, Illinois, indicated to me that he was not identified as the father at birth and at some subsequent time the mother enrolled the kids in at least a state funded health insurance program and that then set off some sort of a process to identify and find the actual father. This played out over at least 1-1/2+ years, maybe longer, as I don't know when everything got started before I was brought into the loop. Once they did find him, he then misrepresented his employment status, his compensation, the benefits available to him, etc. And it was revealed that he had done the same at his previous employer, etc.
The mother was caused to reveal him though or face a denial/reduction/whatever it was in the benefits she was receiving on behalf of the children. It is true that I only found out once the state tracked him to his employer(me), in Iowa. The father was mad at the mother for revealing him, the state for obligating him and me for acknowledging that he worked here and had "X" amount of pay and "Y" amount of benefits available to him, etc.
Oh, something that I just remembered...once the dust settled and he was being garnished here, by my company...he approached me and wanted a raise to offset what he now was being garnished...TO PAY FOR HIS KIDS.
Like I said, he no longer works for me.He was the definition of a deadbeat dad...yet considered himself an excellent father and bragged as such. Shoot, I have even seen Facebook posts where others are complimenting him for being a great father. I assume that those people have no idea about the "behind the scenes" financial irresponsibility that was, maybe still is, present.
Again, I wrote only a fraction of what all went down with that scenario and my bottom line is that mothers AND fathers should be responsible for their children...not the state(read taxpayers). I support efforts to eliminate the ability of the fathers from shirking their responsibilities...as it is really not necessary to worry about how to identify the mothers.
Is the language in this proposal being discussed perfect? No, it doesn't look like it to me. But I do support the apparent intent behind it?...yes, very much and had this dude been identified as the father at birth...there would have been a FRACTION of the crap that went on. I am not sure what else I can say about this.
What a perfectly stereotypically conservative opinion. It isn't a societal issue to care for children but goddamnit don't you dare abort!
How do we stop people from committing welfare fraud by simply claiming to be a "single mom" to avoid reporting the father's income, or falsely claiming to not know who the father is? There must be some solution to this, and don't tell me no one would ever do such a thing.
In other words, no, you didn't have any of the core info, you heard it 2nd-hand or 3rd-hand. AND the State already has a process in place to identify the father.
I find it unlikely that they would violate HIPAA rules and provide you with any of the private info as to who was the 'father at birth', regardless. They MIGHT contact you to verify the person's information, but doubtful much of what you have written is fact vs. innuendo and assumption.
Alright, simple question:
How would withholding those children's birth certificates improved their lives or saved the state money?
I guess they could save money by refusing to educate a non-existent child?
