>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/7/04 8:16 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c02vh9$124jnq$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>
It's very clear that certain things that are said around here, if said by someone else, would be totally acceptable. MarleyNah, if you were to say that my aparents weren't my parents I wouldn't findthat acceptable just because *you* said it and not Di.Kathy 1

Ditto.



-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040207103033.13587.00000983@mb-m24.aol.com...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/7/04 8:16 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c02vh9$124jnq$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>It's very clear that certain things that are said around here, if said by someone else, would be totally acceptable. MarleyNah, if you were to say that my aparents weren't my parents I wouldn't
findthat acceptable just because *you* said it and not Di.Kathy 1 Ditto.


I think that there's been a misunderstanding here. I don't believe any
person can tell you who your family is. My original point was that, in the
last half century or so, adoption has been based on the "as if" myth. Why
else would we have shiny new birth certificates listing folks who had
nothing to do with our actual conception or birth as parents? It seems to
me that we would have instead, adoption certificates. How adoptees choose
to define their a/pars or b/pars is a personal issue.



Jack

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Du9Vb.19448$o86.146@newssvr16.news.prodigy.co m... "LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message news:20040207103033.13587.00000983@mb-m24.aol.com...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/7/04 8:16 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c02vh9$124jnq$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>It's very clear that certain things that are said around here, if> said by someone else, would be totally acceptable.>> MarleyNah, if you were to say that my aparents weren't my parents I wouldn't findthat acceptable just because *you* said it and not Di.Kathy 1 Ditto. I think that there's been a misunderstanding here. I don't believe any person can tell you who your family is. My original point was that, in
the last half century or so, adoption has been based on the "as if" myth. Why else would we have shiny new birth certificates listing folks who had nothing to do with our actual conception or birth as parents? It seems to me that we would have instead, adoption certificates. How adoptees choose to define their a/pars or b/pars is a personal issue. Jack

It's clearly a matter of self definition. I've been known to say that my
"real" famliy is Soier, Pasha, and a couple others back in St. Petersburg.
They are in a sense, but certainly not biologically. The whole thing comes
down to "what is family" and the state defines that for us all--as as usual
is decades behind the times.

Marley

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote My original point was that, in the last half century or so, adoption has been based on the "as if" myth. Why else would we have shiny new birth certificates listing folks who had nothing to do with our actual conception or birth as parents? It seems to me that we would have instead, adoption certificates. How adoptees choose to define their a/pars or b/pars is a personal issue.


I rather think the "as-if" thing is short-hand. Instead of listing all
the legal obligations and privileges of the adopters to the adoptee,
and vice versa, an "as-if" definition uses a relationship that already
exists as a model. Of course it makes particular sense when the
adoption is of a minor; but since the US allows adult adoption, the
intent seems to go beyond merely providing for a child who would
otherwise be homeless.

The birth-certs are a different story. India doesn't do that -- they
use a birth-affidavit as proof of age, and an adoption decree as proof
of parentage.

I think it goes back to the function of a birth certificate. Its most
common use, I would imagine, is as proof of age. The next most common
is to prove a relationship with a child -- for instance, I can use my
kid's birth cert to indicate that I have a right to speak for the kid
while it's a minor.

I imagine an original birth-cert and an adoption certificate could
serve the same purpose.

Rupa

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0402071505.64036f07@posting.google.c om... "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote My original point was that, in the last half century or so, adoption has been based on the "as if" myth.
Why else would we have shiny new birth certificates listing folks who had nothing to do with our actual conception or birth as parents? It seems
to me that we would have instead, adoption certificates. How adoptees
choose to define their a/pars or b/pars is a personal issue. I rather think the "as-if" thing is short-hand. Instead of listing all the legal obligations and privileges of the adopters to the adoptee, and vice versa, an "as-if" definition uses a relationship that already exists as a model. Of course it makes particular sense when the adoption is of a minor; but since the US allows adult adoption, the intent seems to go beyond merely providing for a child who would otherwise be homeless. The birth-certs are a different story. India doesn't do that -- they use a birth-affidavit as proof of age, and an adoption decree as proof of parentage. I think it goes back to the function of a birth certificate. Its most common use, I would imagine, is as proof of age. The next most common is to prove a relationship with a child -- for instance, I can use my kid's birth cert to indicate that I have a right to speak for the kid while it's a minor. I imagine an original birth-cert and an adoption certificate could serve the same purpose.

As I have said before, our long-form cert states that the information is
taken from the register of adopted children. It certainly doesn't attempt to
claim that the adoptive parents are the natural parents, although in some
circumstances that is the case!

Helen
Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402071505.64036f07@posting.google.com>... "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote My original point was that, in the last half century or so, adoption has been based on the "as if" myth. Why else would we have shiny new birth certificates listing folks who had nothing to do with our actual conception or birth as parents? It seems to me that we would have instead, adoption certificates. How adoptees choose to define their a/pars or b/pars is a personal issue. I rather think the "as-if" thing is short-hand. Instead of listing all the legal obligations and privileges of the adopters to the adoptee, and vice versa, an "as-if" definition uses a relationship that already exists as a model. Of course it makes particular sense when the adoption is of a minor; but since the US allows adult adoption, the intent seems to go beyond merely providing for a child who would otherwise be homeless. The birth-certs are a different story. India doesn't do that -- they use a birth-affidavit as proof of age, and an adoption decree as proof of parentage. I think it goes back to the function of a birth certificate. Its most common use, I would imagine, is as proof of age. The next most common is to prove a relationship with a child -- for instance, I can use my kid's birth cert to indicate that I have a right to speak for the kid while it's a minor. I imagine an original birth-cert and an adoption certificate could serve the same purpose. Rupa

A Birth Certificate is a record of birth designed to show proof that a
child was born (naming its parents) and therefore exists.

Which is why it's called a birth certificate and not an adoption
order.

An "as if" ABC is a blatant a lie.

An adoption order is what proves the adopted child's actual
relationship with his adopters. The ABC lies about that relationship.

Di

Rupa Bose wrote:
"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote My original point was that, in the last half century or so, adoption has been based on the "as if" myth. Why else would we have shiny new birth certificates listing folks who had nothing to do with our actual conception or birth as parents? It seems to me that we would have instead, adoption certificates. How adoptees choose to define their a/pars or b/pars is a personal issue. I rather think the "as-if" thing is short-hand. Instead of listing all the legal obligations and privileges of the adopters to the adoptee, and vice versa, an "as-if" definition uses a relationship that already exists as a model. Of course it makes particular sense when the adoption is of a minor; but since the US allows adult adoption, the intent seems to go beyond merely providing for a child who would otherwise be homeless. The birth-certs are a different story. India doesn't do that -- they use a birth-affidavit as proof of age, and an adoption decree as proof of parentage.

ABC's came about in the US as a result of Edna Gladney's campaign to removing
the stigma of adoption from public view; birth certificates which were public
records would thereafter show no sign that a child was a bastard, that they
were adopted, or that an adoptive father or mother was infertile. This did go
hand in glove with a movement to treat adoption "as-if" a child was born to the
family, at a time when the dominant social attitude was still that other
people's children carried the taint of their parents, and if a child was born
to a woman who immorally conceived out of wedlock, the chances were good that
the child was corrupted at its core. The Gladney model was that children were
blank slates, to be written on by the moral code of the adopting family. This
is all seems rather quaint nowadays, and IMO it's a rare and neurotic parent
that insists they gave birth to a child they didn't.

What's interesting to me is the general anxiety concerning parenting in general
that has been a hallmark in American culture. Biological parents take parenting
classes, read endless books on the subject, go into individual and family
therapies, and are in general fascinated by books, movies, and TV that mirror
and project their anxieties. Why should adoptive parents be any different?

I have three biological kids, that I know of at least, and I had no idea when
my first was born how to be a parent over the course of their lives. Simple
biological kinship didn't count for much, there is a lifelong existential
commitment and followthrough necessary to parenting. This is what Di seems to
ignore, she seems to think that biology is paramount, and ultimately defining
as parenthood. I've seen plenty of adoptive families during my life, and seen
the parents in these families parent, there is no existential fakery going on
there, they aren't pretending to be present emotionally and physically,
providing the care and nurturance their kids need. They aren't pretending,
there is no mask. Some of them were good parents, some were bad, but that's a
breakdown in bio families as well.
I think it goes back to the function of a birth certificate. Its most common use, I would imagine, is as proof of age. The next most common is to prove a relationship with a child -- for instance, I can use my kid's birth cert to indicate that I have a right to speak for the kid while it's a minor. I imagine an original birth-cert and an adoption certificate could serve the same purpose.

I'd love to see the practice of amending birth certificates go the way of the
buggy whip. A birth certificate should record the historical event of a birth,
and if the child is adopted then the decree is the legal document recording
that event. If the kid's name is changed as a result of the adoption, an
amendment can be stapled to the original. That's what happened when we had to
amend our first born's BC because it erroneously stated she was a male.

ABC are vestigial of an earlier social construction, now that bastardy is no
longer a stigma, and being adopted is no longer a stigma, and folks go on
national TV day in and day out to blab about their constricted urethras and
dessicated ovaries, the ABC has outlived its usefullnes.

Ron


Rupa

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote A Birth Certificate is a record of birth designed to show proof that a child was born (naming its parents) and therefore exists.

I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...);
they do that by standing in front of you.

Who their parents are is usually a matter of interest to anyone else
only in the matter of who has a legal right to make decisions for them
(when they're minors), and possibly who they have a right to make
decisions for (as the parents become senile...)

The main use I've seen for birth certs is to prove date of birth. In
India, school certificates are used for the same purpose; they do not
mention the parents' names at all.

The birth certificate is a relatively modern thing, I think, and even
a 100 years ago, I doubt that everyone even in the US had one. In
India, they still don't. (But we manage to prove we exist, all 1
billion of us, neverthless...)

Rupa

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:45:07 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"
<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:
I think that there's been a misunderstanding here. I don't believe anyperson can tell you who your family is. My original point was that, in thelast half century or so, adoption has been based on the "as if" myth. Whyelse would we have shiny new birth certificates listing folks who hadnothing to do with our actual conception or birth as parents? It seems tome that we would have instead, adoption certificates. How adoptees chooseto define their a/pars or b/pars is a personal issue.


Glad you are here Jack..

Well said.


Jackie

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402080322.73c0926d@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote A Birth Certificate is a record of birth designed to show proof that a child was born (naming its parents) and therefore exists. I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); they do that by standing in front of you.

Yes they do. If proof of existance wasn't required people could get
away with murder, or claim your home and there would be nothing you
could fo about it because you could never prove you are who you claim
to be and therefore have no proof that your property actually belongs
to you. Who their parents are is usually a matter of interest to anyone else only in the matter of who has a legal right to make decisions for them (when they're minors), and possibly who they have a right to make decisions for (as the parents become senile...)
It's not about proving their parents identity. It's their own that's
at issue.
Adopted children already exist before the adoption order is made you
know. Their existance doesn't begin at point of adoption. That is only
when their true identity gets altered.
The main use I've seen for birth certs is to prove date of birth. In India, school certificates are used for the same purpose; they do not mention the parents' names at all.

A BC is required for much more than proving age. Amongst a gazillion
of uses
for it, it's required as proof that you're not marrying a biological
relative.
How does an altered name on a BC guarantee that protection?

The birth certificate is a relatively modern thing, I think, and even a 100 years ago, I doubt that everyone even in the US had one.

Oh right. That's late. Ours began in 1788. The records were kept by
local churches before the Government introduced a state-wide system of
civil registration in 1856.

In India, they still don't. (But we manage to prove we exist, all 1 billion of us, neverthless...) Rupa

How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered by
their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented
proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed?

Rupa Bose wrote:
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote A Birth Certificate is a record of birth designed to show proof that a child was born (naming its parents) and therefore exists. I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); they do that by standing in front of you.

That may prove that they exist, but it gives no information at all as to
who they are; their identity. BC's are as close as the US gets to an
identity card.
Who their parents are is usually a matter of interest to anyone else only in the matter of who has a legal right to make decisions for them (when they're minors), and possibly who they have a right to make decisions for (as the parents become senile...)

Interestingly enough, for the purposes of proving identity, ABC's are
sometimes a marker for investigation, through passport applications or
secuity clearance investigations. Adoptees get turned down because of the
discrepancies that turn up, the Feds think there is something fishy going
on.


The main use I've seen for birth certs is to prove date of birth. In India, school certificates are used for the same purpose; they do not mention the parents' names at all. The birth certificate is a relatively modern thing, I think, and even a 100 years ago, I doubt that everyone even in the US had one. In India, they still don't. (But we manage to prove we exist, all 1 billion of us, neverthless...)

The recording of births by the state goes back a ways, Mary and Joseph had
to hie back to Bethlehem to reregister because the Romans wanted an
accurate count for their tax levies. In the greater scheme of things, a BC
is a pretty small thing, and amending it to falsely state adoptive parents
gave birth to the adopted child is of importance only to the adopted person
to whom the ABC pertains.

Ron
Rupa

in article 9a095db9.0402080843.17250fe@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 8/2/04 4:43 pm:
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402080322.73c0926d@posting.google.com>...

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote
A Birth Certificate is a record of birth designed to show proof that a child was born (naming its parents) and therefore exists.
I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); they do that by standing in front of you.

Yes they do. If proof of existance wasn't required people could get away with murder, or claim your home and there would be nothing you could fo about it because you could never prove you are who you claim to be and therefore have no proof that your property actually belongs to you.


Who their parents are is usually a matter of interest to anyone else only in the matter of who has a legal right to make decisions for them (when they're minors), and possibly who they have a right to make decisions for (as the parents become senile...)

It's not about proving their parents identity. It's their own that's at issue. Adopted children already exist before the adoption order is made you know. Their existance doesn't begin at point of adoption. That is only when their true identity gets altered.


The main use I've seen for birth certs is to prove date of birth. In India, school certificates are used for the same purpose; they do not mention the parents' names at all.

A BC is required for much more than proving age. Amongst a gazillion of uses for it, it's required as proof that you're not marrying a biological relative. How does an altered name on a BC guarantee that protection?

So, why does it say on all recently issued OBCs and Adopted person's birth
certificates in England, "THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY
OF THE PERSON PRESENTING IT". On the other hand a copy of my electricity
bill or local authority tax demand is much more acceptable, if I need to
prove identity for a credit agreement. I'm here I don't need to prove the
fact that I was born, I need to prove that I am who I say I am, anyone can
buy a copy of my OBC or my APBC but they don't send my utility bills to
anyone else but me.

There is nothing on either my OBC or my APBC that would on its own prove
whether or not I was intending to marry a person within the prohibited
degree of consanguinity.

Far too much fuss is made about certificates in my opinion, it's the
information and unencumbered access to it that is important not some piece
of paper.

The birth certificate is a relatively modern thing, I think, and even a 100 years ago, I doubt that everyone even in the US had one.

Oh right. That's late. Ours began in 1788. The records were kept by local churches before the Government introduced a state-wide system of civil registration in 1856.

In India, they still don't. (But we manage to prove we exist, all 1 billion of us, neverthless...) Rupa

How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered by their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed?

How do we know that anyway? There is nothing to stop a mother from having a
secret pregnancy, giving birth in secrecy then killing and disposing of the
child wherever in the world she is. Just because there is law saying a birth
must be registered it doesn't mean to say that all live births are
registered. There are about five prosecutions a year here for failure to
register the birth of a child, how can we possibly know how many go
undetected?


Robin

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Du9Vb.19448$o86.146@newssvr16.news.prodigy.co m... "LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message news:20040207103033.13587.00000983@mb-m24.aol.com...Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/7/04 8:16 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c02vh9$124jnq$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>It's very clear that certain things that are said around here, if> said by someone else, would be totally acceptable.>> MarleyNah, if you were to say that my aparents weren't my parents I wouldn't findthat acceptable just because *you* said it and not Di.Kathy 1 Ditto. I think that there's been a misunderstanding here. I don't believe any person can tell you who your family is.

Di was attempting to and that was what we were responding to.

>"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message > > >> No more wrong than being raised by strangers and made to believe
their >> your mother and father.
>No pretending about it. Guess it's only some bmothers who view it as >pretend - perhaps because they have lots of experience pretending? > > >Kathy 1 Well adoption is a pretend situation.. It's a situation. The various players in it may or may not pretend
based on any number of things.


My original point was that, in the last half century or so, adoption has been based on the "as if" myth. Why else would we have shiny new birth certificates listing folks who had nothing to do with our actual conception or birth as parents? It seems to me that we would have instead, adoption certificates.


True enough but I doubt she was referring to the state when she said "made
to believe".



How adoptees choose to define their a/pars or b/pars is a personal issue.

Given her posting the link to the bmother who insisted she was the only
true mother it would appear that she believes the bmother defines it for all
involved.


Kathy 1

Ron Morgan <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<4026B01C.BC9C13E7@earthlink.net>... Rupa Bose wrote: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote A Birth Certificate is a record of birth designed to show proof that a child was born (naming its parents) and therefore exists. I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); they do that by standing in front of you. That may prove that they exist, but it gives no information at all as to who they are; their identity. BC's are as close as the US gets to an identity card.

This is true. Though I think the driving license is what really gets
used as proof of identity. After all, a birth cert doesn't have photos
(though I don't know if US bc's have footprints?).

If I took your birth cert and claimed I was Ron Morgan, who would know
the difference (except for minor issues like gender, of course).
Who their parents are is usually a matter of interest to anyone else only in the matter of who has a legal right to make decisions for them (when they're minors), and possibly who they have a right to make decisions for (as the parents become senile...) Interestingly enough, for the purposes of proving identity, ABC's are sometimes a marker for investigation, through passport applications or secuity clearance investigations. Adoptees get turned down because of the discrepancies that turn up, the Feds think there is something fishy going on.
Ah. Now in India, you don't need to submit a birth certificate to get
a passport, because many people don't have one. The recording of births by the state goes back a ways, Mary and Joseph had to hie back to Bethlehem to reregister because the Romans wanted an accurate count for their tax levies.

In some states, I guess. India never had a poll tax, so it never had
reason to count heads. In Japan, I understand every birth is recorded
in a family register, and has been for hundreds of years.

In the greater scheme of things, a BC is a pretty small thing, and amending it to falsely state adoptive parents gave birth to the adopted child is of importance only to the adopted person to whom the ABC pertains.

Quite so.

Rupa

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); they do that by standing in front of you. Yes they do. If proof of existance wasn't required people could get away with murder, or claim your home and there would be nothing you could fo about it because you could never prove you are who you claim to be and therefore have no proof that your property actually belongs to you.

That's proof of identity. There's usually something other than a birth
cert for that, since it's usually proof of adult identity that's
needed. In the US, it's a driving license or social security card. In
India, a ration card. (Now that rationing is being done away with, I
wonder what happens. Must ask friends living there.)

It's not about proving their parents identity. It's their own that's at issue. Adopted children already exist before the adoption order is made you know. Their existance doesn't begin at point of adoption. That is only when their true identity gets altered.

Does the date get altered also? The main use I've seen for birth certs is to prove date of birth. In India, school certificates are used for the same purpose; they do not mention the parents' names at all. A BC is required for much more than proving age. Amongst a gazillion of uses for it, it's required as proof that you're not marrying a biological relative. How does an altered name on a BC guarantee that protection?

It doesn't. Does Australia require people to submit BCs at marriage? How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered by their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed?

I'm sure many do, and no one knows how many.

Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and neighbors. Few
people in India live such isolated lives that no one would know if a
woman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to be
murdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it does
happen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this, though.

Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402090813.6be05968@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); they do that by standing in front of you. Yes they do. If proof of existance wasn't required people could get away with murder, or claim your home and there would be nothing you could fo about it because you could never prove you are who you claim to be and therefore have no proof that your property actually belongs to you. That's proof of identity. There's usually something other than a birth cert for that, since it's usually proof of adult identity that's needed. In the US, it's a driving license or social security card. In India, a ration card. (Now that rationing is being done away with, I wonder what happens. Must ask friends living there.)
I don't know how it works where you live but here we had to show proof
of identity and age via our BC before our first driving licence is
issued. After that the driving licence is just updated as its expiry
date runs out.
It's not about proving their parents identity. It's their own that's at issue. Adopted children already exist before the adoption order is made you know. Their existance doesn't begin at point of adoption. That is only when their true identity gets altered. Does the date get altered also?
No, although I understand some US states even allow the child's DOB to
be altered.

The main use I've seen for birth certs is to prove date of birth. In India, school certificates are used for the same purpose; they do not mention the parents' names at all. A BC is required for much more than proving age. Amongst a gazillion of uses for it, it's required as proof that you're not marrying a biological relative. How does an altered name on a BC guarantee that protection? It doesn't. Does Australia require people to submit BCs at marriage?

Yes they do. Well NSW does. I imagine that would be the case elsewhere
too.
How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered by their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed? I'm sure many do, and no one knows how many.
Hmmm....
Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and neighbors. Few people in India live such isolated lives that no one would know if a woman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to be murdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it does happen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this, though.
They won't prevent at birth murders. But there will be a lot of
'spainin' to do once the child existance is recorded in the form of a
BC if that child goes missing presumed dead.

Di
Rupa

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0402091833.43c5cd8d@posting.google.c om... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0402090813.6be05968@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote > > I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on
Internet...); > they do that by standing in front of you. Yes they do. If proof of existance wasn't required people could get away with murder, or claim your home and there would be nothing you could fo about it because you could never prove you are who you claim to be and therefore have no proof that your property actually belongs to you. That's proof of identity. There's usually something other than a birth cert for that, since it's usually proof of adult identity that's needed. In the US, it's a driving license or social security card. In India, a ration card. (Now that rationing is being done away with, I wonder what happens. Must ask friends living there.) I don't know how it works where you live but here we had to show proof of identity and age via our BC before our first driving licence is issued. After that the driving licence is just updated as its expiry date runs out.

Same here. The bc is the bottom line. Driver licences, passports, SS card. It's not about proving their parents identity. It's their own that's at issue. Adopted children already exist before the adoption order is made you know. Their existance doesn't begin at point of adoption. That is only when their true identity gets altered. Does the date get altered also? No, although I understand some US states even allow the child's DOB to be altered.

Correct. I'm not sure how many states still allow this. And not only DOB
but place of birth may also be altered. Yes they do. Well NSW does. I imagine that would be the case elsewhere too. How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered by their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed? I'm sure many do, and no one knows how many. Hmmm.... Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and neighbors. Few people in India live such isolated lives that no one would know if a woman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to be murdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it does happen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this, though. They won't prevent at birth murders. But there will be a lot of 'spainin' to do once the child existance is recorded in the form of a BC if that child goes missing presumed dead. Di

But that happens extremely seldom. Known babies end up dead because parents
kill them. It is extremely rare, however, for a newborn abandoned baby to
have been born in a hospital where births are recorded. and bc's filed out.

Marley Rupa

In article <e5619372.0402090813.6be05968@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); they do that by standing in front of you. Yes they do. If proof of existance wasn't required people could get away with murder, or claim your home and there would be nothing you could fo about it because you could never prove you are who you claim to be and therefore have no proof that your property actually belongs to you.That's proof of identity. There's usually something other than a birthcert for that, since it's usually proof of adult identity that'sneeded. In the US, it's a driving license or social security card. InIndia, a ration card. (Now that rationing is being done away with, Iwonder what happens. Must ask friends living there.) It's not about proving their parents identity. It's their own that's at issue. Adopted children already exist before the adoption order is made you know. Their existance doesn't begin at point of adoption. That is only when their true identity gets altered.Does the date get altered also? The main use I've seen for birth certs is to prove date of birth. In India, school certificates are used for the same purpose; they do not mention the parents' names at all. A BC is required for much more than proving age. Amongst a gazillion of uses for it, it's required as proof that you're not marrying a biological relative. How does an altered name on a BC guarantee that protection?It doesn't. Does Australia require people to submit BCs at marriage? How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered by their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed?I'm sure many do, and no one knows how many.Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and neighbors. Fewpeople in India live such isolated lives that no one would know if awoman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to bemurdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it doeshappen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this, though.Rupa

My parents are friends with a priest from Boston, and he was visiting us last
week. He told of how when he was first a priest and in charge of a parish how
he learned a hard lesson. One of his congregants wanted their baptismal
certificate due to their getting married. He went ahead and got the copy and
gave it to her. That was the moment she learned the man who had raised her was
not her father. He learned to mail the baptismal certificates to the parish
where the marriage is to take place.

I know there have been times where I needed to present a birth certificate, but
could use a baptismal certificate in place of it.

KL

On 9 Feb 2004 08:04:04 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:

Ah. Now in India, you don't need to submit a birth certificate to geta passport, because many people don't have one.

My four Indian kids got passports without having birth certificates
(they do not have an original birth certificate) and without having
surnames. I wondered whether they would have our surname, but then
realised that wouldn't happen because they were travelling on Indian
passports as Indian citizens and we only had a guardianship order, not
an adoption order. Their existence was sufficient to get them a
passport without them having any documentation of parentage.

Plane tickets were far harder to get, because their names on the
passports must match the names on the ticket - but tickets couldn't be
issued in one name only. In the end this was resolved by issuing the
ticket in the child's name as both their first name and surname. The
tickets looked silly but at least the computers didn't have a hissy
fit about it.

Julia
The recording of births by the state goes back a ways, Mary and Joseph had to hie back to Bethlehem to reregister because the Romans wanted an accurate count for their tax levies.In some states, I guess. India never had a poll tax, so it never hadreason to count heads. In Japan, I understand every birth is recordedin a family register, and has been for hundreds of years.In the greater scheme of things, a BC is a pretty small thing, and amending it to falsely state adoptive parents gave birth to the adopted child is of importance only to the adopted person to whom the ABC pertains.Quite so.Rupa

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote > Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and neighbors. Few people in India live such isolated lives that no one would know if a woman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to be murdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it does happen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this, though. They won't prevent at birth murders. But there will be a lot of 'spainin' to do once the child existance is recorded in the form of a BC if that child goes missing presumed dead.

If the child's existence is recorded, then it would have lived long
enough for other people -- relatives, neighbors -- to have seen it,
too. If the child lives for a while, and then is murdered, the parents
will say, yes, we had a daughter but she died. Whether there was a
birth cert or not doesn't make any difference that I can see.

Rupa

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote I don't know how it works where you live but here we had to show proof of identity and age via our BC before our first driving licence is issued. After that the driving licence is just updated as its expiry date runs out.

How does the birth cert prove identity, though?
Suppose you have two Jane Smiths, with different parents and of
different ages. What stops Jane Smith the younger from borrowing the
birth cert of Jane Smith the elder, and getting a driving license
before she's old enough to drive?
A BC is required for much more than proving age. Amongst a gazillion of uses for it, it's required as proof that you're not marrying a biological relative. How does an altered name on a BC guarantee that protection? It doesn't. Does Australia require people to submit BCs at marriage? Yes they do. Well NSW does. I imagine that would be the case elsewhere too.

In India, social pressure is meant to protect against such things,
rather than the law. Though there are prohibited degrees of
consanguinity. I think it would only come up if the issue was raised
by someone -- say a second wife claiming her husband's first marriage
wasn't legal, for instance. Then she would have to prove
consanguinity; the presumption would be otherwise.

Rupa

Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote Plane tickets were far harder to get, because their names on the passports must match the names on the ticket - but tickets couldn't be issued in one name only. In the end this was resolved by issuing the ticket in the child's name as both their first name and surname. The tickets looked silly but at least the computers didn't have a hissy fit about it. Julia

That's strange. Lots of people in India go by only one name; the
surname is a British thing and didn't extend very deep into society.

The default "surname" is Kumar for a boy and Kumari for a girl. It's
more or less equivalent to "Mr." and "Miss", but Kumar is now also
used as a surname in the western sense of the word. Another such is
"Devi" (which, unlike Kumari can be used for a married woman).

Your solution was a lot less complicated!

Rupa

Rupa asks:
How does the birth cert prove identity, though?Suppose you have two Jane Smiths, with different parents and ofdifferent ages. What stops Jane Smith the younger from borrowing thebirth cert of Jane Smith the elder, and getting a driving licensebefore she's old enough to drive?>>

If, by a big stretch of the imagination, a teen managed to find a person with
the exact same name who would also loan his/her birth certificate so that the
teen could get an illegal driver's license, I suppose there would be few
safeguards to prevent this. However, in adult matters, where the birth
certificate is required as a form of ID, it is used in conjunction with other
ID's. For example, to correctly completely an I-9 form (right to work
authorization) the applicant must show two forms of ID and *one* can be a birth
certificate complete with state seal. To get my sons in school or organized
sports, I have to show their birth certificates with state seals along with my
ID. To get a marriage license one has to show an official birth certificate
along with another form of picture ID. Same with voter's registration,
IIRC.Same to get a passport. Same before being allowed to adopt. The birth
certificate is used a lot in the US.


P2P

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0402100845.50f084c1@posting.google.c om... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote I don't know how it works where you live but here we had to show proof of identity and age via our BC before our first driving licence is issued. After that the driving licence is just updated as its expiry date runs out. How does the birth cert prove identity, though? Suppose you have two Jane Smiths, with different parents and of different ages. What stops Jane Smith the younger from borrowing the birth cert of Jane Smith the elder, and getting a driving license before she's old enough to drive?

Under the Metzenbaum rule you have to bring 2 IDs. There's a whole list of
what to choose from, but you can't get away with just one. Back when I got
a licence I'm not even sure if you had to show ID. I know that after WW2
Ohio soldiers were given a licence without question, and even my mother
didn't have to take a test to get one.

Marley > > A BC is required for much more than proving age. Amongst a gazillion > of uses > for it, it's required as proof that you're not marrying a biological > relative. > How does an altered name on a BC guarantee that protection? It doesn't. Does Australia require people to submit BCs at marriage? Yes they do. Well NSW does. I imagine that would be the case elsewhere too. In India, social pressure is meant to protect against such things, rather than the law. Though there are prohibited degrees of consanguinity. I think it would only come up if the issue was raised by someone -- say a second wife claiming her husband's first marriage wasn't legal, for instance. Then she would have to prove consanguinity; the presumption would be otherwise. Rupa

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<OAXVb.7444$fV5.226811@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402091833.43c5cd8d@posting.google.c om... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402090813.6be05968@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote > rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote > > > > I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); > > they do that by standing in front of you. > > Yes they do. If proof of existance wasn't required people could get > away with murder, or claim your home and there would be nothing you > could fo about it because you could never prove you are who you claim > to be and therefore have no proof that your property actually belongs > to you. That's proof of identity. There's usually something other than a birth cert for that, since it's usually proof of adult identity that's needed. In the US, it's a driving license or social security card. In India, a ration card. (Now that rationing is being done away with, I wonder what happens. Must ask friends living there.) I don't know how it works where you live but here we had to show proof of identity and age via our BC before our first driving licence is issued. After that the driving licence is just updated as its expiry date runs out. Same here. The bc is the bottom line. Driver licences, passports, SS card.

I thought so. I don't see how it could have been otherwise.


> It's not about proving their parents identity. It's their own that's > at issue. > Adopted children already exist before the adoption order is made you > know. Their existance doesn't begin at point of adoption. That is only > when their true identity gets altered. Does the date get altered also? > No, although I understand some US states even allow the child's DOB to be altered. Correct. I'm not sure how many states still allow this. And not only DOB but place of birth may also be altered.

It amazes me frankly that it would be permitted as it makes a total
mockery of both a BC's worth and geaneological records. Since our open
records here in NSW if there is found to be an 'error' on the OBC we
can have the error rectified and a new BC issued. Any obvious fraud is
a punishable offence.
Yes they do. Well NSW does. I imagine that would be the case elsewhere too. > How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered by > their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented > proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed? I'm sure many do, and no one knows how many. Hmmm.... Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and neighbors. Few people in India live such isolated lives that no one would know if a woman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to be murdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it does happen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this, though. They won't prevent at birth murders. But there will be a lot of 'spainin' to do once the child existance is recorded in the form of a BC if that child goes missing presumed dead. Di But that happens extremely seldom. Known babies end up dead because parents kill them. It is extremely rare, however, for a newborn abandoned baby to have been born in a hospital where births are recorded. and bc's filed out.
I was referring more to at home births which have made a comeback in
more recent years. I think we have 60 days to pick a name and register
the birth.

Di


Marley Rupa

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0402101728.404a73af@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<OAXVb.7444$fV5.226811@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402091833.43c5cd8d@posting.google.c om... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402090813.6be05968@posting.google.com>... > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote > > rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote > > > > > > I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); > > > How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered
by > > their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of
documented > > proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed? > > I'm sure many do, and no one knows how many. > Hmmm.... > Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and neighbors.
Few > people in India live such isolated lives that no one would know if a > woman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to be > murdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it does > happen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this,
though. > They won't prevent at birth murders. But there will be a lot of 'spainin' to do once the child existance is recorded in the form of a BC if that child goes missing presumed dead. Di But that happens extremely seldom. Known babies end up dead because
parents kill them. It is extremely rare, however, for a newborn abandoned baby
to have been born in a hospital where births are recorded. and bc's filed
out. I was referring more to at home births which have made a comeback in more recent years. I think we have 60 days to pick a name and register the birth. Di

I don't know a lot about home births--obviously. Most here are done with
midwives who are bound by law to register births. Ohio Vital Stats is
holding a training workshop on it in fact. However the whole midwife thing
is controversial. I'm not in the medical profession so I can't really
discuss the intricacies of it. There are licenced nurse-midwives who work
in hospitals or birthing centers or at someone's home--and there are
unlicensed midwives who aen't working in a professional setting, but can be
quite professional and competent.. There is a big fuss about licensing and
what it really means. There is another birthing concept where women simply
do it at home with the help of somebody, but I don't know how popular this
is (well not real popular, for sure!). Of course, there's the secret
pregnancy and brith group, but we're not talking about them.

Marley

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:21:36 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in messagenews:e5619372.0402100845.50f084c1@posting.g oogle.com... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote > I don't know how it works where you live but here we had to show proof of identity and age via our BC before our first driving licence is issued. After that the driving licence is just updated as its expiry date runs out. How does the birth cert prove identity, though? Suppose you have two Jane Smiths, with different parents and of different ages. What stops Jane Smith the younger from borrowing the birth cert of Jane Smith the elder, and getting a driving license before she's old enough to drive?Under the Metzenbaum rule you have to bring 2 IDs. There's a whole list ofwhat to choose from, but you can't get away with just one. Back when I gota licence I'm not even sure if you had to show ID. I know that after WW2Ohio soldiers were given a licence without question, and even my motherdidn't have to take a test to get one.Marley

These days in Oz we need to produce an array of identifying paperwork,
and you can't get away with just one either. Opening a bank account,
getting a license, even getting our status as a police-approved
"Safety House" updated requires us to produce a variety of paperwork
that adds up to a 100 point minimum. A birth certificate plus a
current passport will suffice, as would a drivers license and a govt
workers ID card and a current listing in the public telephone
directory. Our Safety House update requires this not only of us
parents but of each of our children aged 16 or older.

Julia
> > A BC is required for much more than proving age. Amongst a gazillion > > of uses > > for it, it's required as proof that you're not marrying a biological > > relative. > > How does an altered name on a BC guarantee that protection? > > It doesn't. Does Australia require people to submit BCs at marriage? Yes they do. Well NSW does. I imagine that would be the case elsewhere too. In India, social pressure is meant to protect against such things, rather than the law. Though there are prohibited degrees of consanguinity. I think it would only come up if the issue was raised by someone -- say a second wife claiming her husband's first marriage wasn't legal, for instance. Then she would have to prove consanguinity; the presumption would be otherwise. Rupa

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040210174233.11601.00001456@mb-m12.aol.com>... Rupa asks:How does the birth cert prove identity, though?Suppose you have two Jane Smiths, with different parents and ofdifferent ages. What stops Jane Smith the younger from borrowing thebirth cert of Jane Smith the elder, and getting a driving licensebefore she's old enough to drive?>> If, by a big stretch of the imagination, a teen managed to find a person with the exact same name who would also loan his/her birth certificate so that the teen could get an illegal driver's license, I suppose there would be few safeguards to prevent this. However, in adult matters, where the birth certificate is required as a form of ID, it is used in conjunction with other ID's. For example, to correctly completely an I-9 form (right to work authorization) the applicant must show two forms of ID and *one* can be a birth certificate complete with state seal. To get my sons in school or organized sports, I have to show their birth certificates with state seals along with my ID. To get a marriage license one has to show an official birth certificate along with another form of picture ID. Same with voter's registration, IIRC.Same to get a passport. Same before being allowed to adopt. The birth certificate is used a lot in the US. P2P

I guess. I think for my kids, their passports served the purpose.

Rupa

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<fggWb.4601$hR.136351@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402101728.404a73af@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<OAXVb.7444$fV5.226811@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402091833.43c5cd8d@posting.google.c om... > rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402090813.6be05968@posting.google.com>... > > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote > > > rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote > > > > > > > > I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...); > > > > How do you know how many babies and young children get murdered by > > > their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented > > > proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever existed? > > > > I'm sure many do, and no one knows how many. > > > Hmmm.... > > > Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and neighbors. Few > > people in India live such isolated lives that no one would know if a > > woman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to be > > murdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it does > > happen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this, though. > > > They won't prevent at birth murders. But there will be a lot of > 'spainin' to do once the child existance is recorded in the form of a > BC if that child goes missing presumed dead. > > Di But that happens extremely seldom. Known babies end up dead because parents kill them. It is extremely rare, however, for a newborn abandoned baby to have been born in a hospital where births are recorded. and bc's filed out. I was referring more to at home births which have made a comeback in more recent years. I think we have 60 days to pick a name and register the birth. Di I don't know a lot about home births--obviously. Most here are done with midwives who are bound by law to register births.

By that do you mean with the Dept of BD&M or with a hospital registry?
If the latter applies, I believe that's the way it's done here, but
the parent register the birth wiht the Dept of BD&M within 60 days.

Ohio Vital Stats is holding a training workshop on it in fact. However the whole midwife thing is controversial.

I wonder why?

I'm not in the medical profession so I can't really discuss the intricacies of it. There are licenced nurse-midwives who work in hospitals or birthing centers or at someone's home--and there are unlicensed midwives who aen't working in a professional setting, but can be quite professional and competent.

Same here.

There is a big fuss about licensing and what it really means. There is another birthing concept where women simply do it at home with the help of somebody, but I don't know how popular this is (well not real popular, for sure!).

It's quite popular to have your baby delivered at home
here...especially in the bathtub al la LeBoyer method. Certain
hospitals (with birthing centres) offer that service too.

All in all though, most people would comply with those registration
laws. I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't want to.

Di


Of course, there's the secret pregnancy and brith group, but we're not talking about them. Marley

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote But that happens extremely seldom. Known babies end up dead because parents kill them. It is extremely rare, however, for a newborn abandoned baby to have been born in a hospital where births are recorded. and bc's filed out.

Most babies in India aren't born in hospitals. Even now, forget 30 or
40 or 50 years ago.

Rupa

Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote These days in Oz we need to produce an array of identifying paperwork, and you can't get away with just one either. Opening a bank account, getting a license, even getting our status as a police-approved "Safety House" updated requires us to produce a variety of paperwork that adds up to a 100 point minimum. A birth certificate plus a current passport will suffice, as would a drivers license and a govt workers ID card and a current listing in the public telephone directory. Our Safety House update requires this not only of us parents but of each of our children aged 16 or older. Julia

What's a Safety House?

India -- as I'm sure you know! -- has amazingly large amounts of
paperwork, but it also has to work with a situation where most kids
are still born at home and never registered, most marriages aren't
registered, deaths may not be registered, and half the population is
illiterate.

All the paperwork doesn't add up to a coherent system.

I guess this is one reason why I don't take paper-work too seriously.
I do it, of course, but with considerable irritation (or resignation,
depending on my mood). And I figure that identifying papers should be
such as to cause the holder of them the fewest possible problems.

Rupa

>e is used a lot in the US. P2PI guess. I think for my kids, their passports served the purpose.Rupa

A small of percentage of Americans have passports. We stay put and let the
world come to us.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/11/2004 2:57 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040211145709.11514.00001844@mb-m12.aol.com>e is used a lot in the US. P2PI guess. I think for my kids, their passports served the purpose.RupaA small of percentage of Americans have passports. We stay put and let theworld come to us.


Give me your tired, your poor, your pregnant huddled lasses yearning to be
child free, the wretched fruit of your teeming crotches. Send these, the
homeless, the orphans, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden
door. Cha ching.

Or something like that.

Dad

On 11 Feb 2004 11:00:43 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote These days in Oz we need to produce an array of identifying paperwork, and you can't get away with just one either. Opening a bank account, getting a license, even getting our status as a police-approved "Safety House" updated requires us to produce a variety of paperwork that adds up to a 100 point minimum. A birth certificate plus a current passport will suffice, as would a drivers license and a govt workers ID card and a current listing in the public telephone directory. Our Safety House update requires this not only of us parents but of each of our children aged 16 or older. JuliaWhat's a Safety House?

Safety House is a scheme that is controlled by the police. Houses
(and some workplaces, shops, schools...) can be approved as Safety
Houses and are marked by a bright yellow sign displayed at the front
of the building. Our sign is at the front of our home where it can be
easily seen from the street. Police run background checks on the
adults there (in our home it is on myself, hubby and all kids aged 16
or older) to see that nobody has any convictions or issues of concern.
The idea is that your house is seen as a safe place by any distressed
child, and they know they can run to your door if they are being
bullied, hurt, worried by some person following them, etc. They are
also safe havens for adults if needed, so a woman escaping domestic
violence could run to a Safety House to call police...
http://www.policensw.com/info/gen/n16.html

Julia
India -- as I'm sure you know! -- has amazingly large amounts ofpaperwork, but it also has to work with a situation where most kidsare still born at home and never registered, most marriages aren'tregistered, deaths may not be registered, and half the population isilliterate.All the paperwork doesn't add up to a coherent system.I guess this is one reason why I don't take paper-work too seriously.I do it, of course, but with considerable irritation (or resignation,depending on my mood). And I figure that identifying papers should besuch as to cause the holder of them the fewest possible problems.Rupa

> Give me your tired, your poor, your pregnant huddled lasses yearning to bechild free, the wretched fruit of your teeming crotches. Send these, thehomeless, the orphans, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the goldendoor. Cha ching.>>

Yeah. Something like that, Dad.

LOL!


P2P

AdoptaDad wrote:
Subject: Re: Agonising decision over 'lost' childrenFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 2/11/2004 2:57 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040211145709.11514.00001844@mb-m12.aol.com>e is used a lot in the US.>>P2PI guess. I think for my kids, their passports served the purpose.RupaA small of percentage of Americans have passports. We stay put and let theworld come to us. Give me your tired, your poor, your pregnant huddled lasses yearning to be child free, the wretched fruit of your teeming crotches. Send these, the homeless, the orphans, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door. Cha ching. Or something like that. Dad

Oh, good heavens! Now we're gonna hafta nominate you for some damned
award! ;-)

pb...

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message
A small of percentage of Americans have passports. We stay put and let the world come to us. P2P

Oh well, the way the dollar is going, that's a plan!

Rupa

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message
A small of percentage of Americans have passports. We stay put and let the world come to us. P2P

Oh well, the way the dollar is going, that's a plan!

Rupa

"Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a095db9.0402110034.19d676ec@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<fggWb.4601$hR.136351@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:9a095db9.0402101728.404a73af@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<OAXVb.7444$fV5.226811@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > "Dian" <patrice068@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:9a095db9.0402091833.43c5cd8d@posting.google.c om... > > rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0402090813.6be05968@posting.google.com>... > > > patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote > > > > rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote > > > > > > > > > > I wonder. No one needs proof that they exist (except on Internet...);> > > > > How do you know how many babies and young children get
murdered by > > > > their parents and their bodies hidden without some kind of documented > > > > proof of their prior existance? Who proves the child ever
existed? > > > > > > I'm sure many do, and no one knows how many. > > > > > Hmmm.... > > > > > Their existance is proved, if at all, by relatives and
neighbors. Few > > > people in India live such isolated lives that no one would know
if a > > > woman gave birth. OTOH, it is perfectly possible for a child to
be > > > murdered at or soon after birth and declared still-born. And it
does > > > happen. I don't see how birth certificates would prevent this, though. > > > > > They won't prevent at birth murders. But there will be a lot of > > 'spainin' to do once the child existance is recorded in the form
of a > > BC if that child goes missing presumed dead. > > > > Di > > But that happens extremely seldom. Known babies end up dead because parents > kill them. It is extremely rare, however, for a newborn abandoned
baby to > have been born in a hospital where births are recorded. and bc's
filed out. > I was referring more to at home births which have made a comeback in more recent years. I think we have 60 days to pick a name and register the birth. Di I don't know a lot about home births--obviously. Most here are done
with midwives who are bound by law to register births. By that do you mean with the Dept of BD&M or with a hospital registry? If the latter applies, I believe that's the way it's done here, but the parent register the birth wiht the Dept of BD&M within 60 days.

I don't know what the BD&M is. (Birth, Death, and Marriage?) As far as I
know, and I'm sure somebody will correct me, bcs are filled out by mothers
at the hospital or with midwives. There was a time when babies could not be
released until the bc form had been filled out and the baby named, and I've
not heard that thta has been changed. Most bc's are signed within a week of
birth. Births are registered in Ohio at both the county and state level.
The state is about 6 months behind in issuing certs due to economics,
attrition, and downright nasty work conditions at the State Dept. of Health,
Vital Stats. If I thought working at Ohio State University was demoralizing
and depressing, I should have taken a closer look at VS. I was at an office
yesterday where 10-12 people used to work, but due to budget cuts and
incompetence, there was 1 person! And he was a temp, I think. Ohio Vital Stats is holding a training workshop on it in fact. However the whole midwife
thing is controversial. I wonder why?

The medicalization of pregnancy and childbirth, professional threats and
money. Last year an Amish midwife was thrown in the slammer for contempt of
court refusing to reveal the source of an anticoagulant she used to stop
bleeding, A lot of English use Amish midwives in the area and hundreds of
people came out to support her. I can't imagine what the prosecutor was
thinking bringing these changes in the middle of Amish Country. Hopefully,
he won't be re-elected. I'm not in the medical profession so I can't really discuss the intricacies of it. There are licenced nurse-midwives who
work in hospitals or birthing centers or at someone's home--and there are unlicensed midwives who aen't working in a professional setting, but can
be quite professional and competent. Same here. There is a big fuss about licensing and what it really means. There is another birthing concept where women
simply do it at home with the help of somebody, but I don't know how popular
this is (well not real popular, for sure!). It's quite popular to have your baby delivered at home here...especially in the bathtub al la LeBoyer method. Certain hospitals (with birthing centres) offer that service too.

In these home births do they go it alone? All in all though, most people would comply with those registration laws. I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't want to.

There are "religious" and "political" reasons on the far right, but most
people do register. In some states it's a misdomeanor or a low class felony
not to repoert a birth.

Marley Di Of course, there's the secret pregnancy and brith group, but we're not talking about them. Marley

Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<gd3l20t4mdnj0bb016q1odnjrki76opegb@4ax.com>... On 11 Feb 2004 11:00:43 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote These days in Oz we need to produce an array of identifying paperwork, and you can't get away with just one either. Opening a bank account, getting a license, even getting our status as a police-approved "Safety House" updated requires us to produce a variety of paperwork that adds up to a 100 point minimum. A birth certificate plus a current passport will suffice, as would a drivers license and a govt workers ID card and a current listing in the public telephone directory. Our Safety House update requires this not only of us parents but of each of our children aged 16 or older. JuliaWhat's a Safety House? Safety House is a scheme that is controlled by the police. Houses (and some workplaces, shops, schools...) can be approved as Safety Houses and are marked by a bright yellow sign displayed at the front of the building. Our sign is at the front of our home where it can be easily seen from the street. Police run background checks on the adults there (in our home it is on myself, hubby and all kids aged 16 or older) to see that nobody has any convictions or issues of concern. The idea is that your house is seen as a safe place by any distressed child, and they know they can run to your door if they are being bullied, hurt, worried by some person following them, etc. They are also safe havens for adults if needed, so a woman escaping domestic violence could run to a Safety House to call police... http://www.policensw.com/info/gen/n16.html Julia

What a great idea! And generous of you to participate.

Rupa

In article <gd3l20t4mdnj0bb016q1odnjrki76opegb@4ax.com>, Julia
<jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
On 11 Feb 2004 11:00:43 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote These days in Oz we need to produce an array of identifying paperwork, and you can't get away with just one either. Opening a bank account, getting a license, even getting our status as a police-approved "Safety House" updated requires us to produce a variety of paperwork that adds up to a 100 point minimum. A birth certificate plus a current passport will suffice, as would a drivers license and a govt workers ID card and a current listing in the public telephone directory. Our Safety House update requires this not only of us parents but of each of our children aged 16 or older. JuliaWhat's a Safety House?Safety House is a scheme that is controlled by the police. Houses(and some workplaces, shops, schools...) can be approved as SafetyHouses and are marked by a bright yellow sign displayed at the frontof the building. Our sign is at the front of our home where it can beeasily seen from the street. Police run background checks on theadults there (in our home it is on myself, hubby and all kids aged 16or older) to see that nobody has any convictions or issues of concern.The idea is that your house is seen as a safe place by any distressedchild, and they know they can run to your door if they are beingbullied, hurt, worried by some person following them, etc. They arealso safe havens for adults if needed, so a woman escaping domesticviolence could run to a Safety House to call police...http://www.policensw.com/info/gen/n16.htmlJulia

I remember these same things when I was a child. Everyone knew that you could
go to the house with the yellow Block Parent sign if you had ANY problem. Got
lost, followed by a stranger, just plain scared.

KL