Child born of surrogate - father is USC but child denied citizenship

[JFH 12,190]

Thought this was interesting...

 

Two men in a same-sex marriage - 1 USC by birth, 1 by naturalization (still also has British citizenship), live in the US and had a child through a British surrogate mother. Child was born in the UK. Bio father of the child is the naturalized USC, not the USC by birth. Because the child was born of a surrogate, the child is viewed by USCIS as being 'born out of wedlock' and the naturalized USC is listed as the father and cannot pass on citizenship (although I don't know why not, maybe he wasn't a USC at the time of the birth?). CRBA has been denied.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/gay-couple-children-citizenship.html

 

I don't know if they have started the I-130 yet to get the baby an immigrant visa but they certainly should and the sooner they do, the sooner it will be completed.

 

Interesting that babies born this way are seen as 'out of wedlock'. Obviously the two men can't both be biological parents but they are the legal parents as they are married. To me that's no different from a married woman having an affair and giving birth as a result of that affair and passing the child off as her husband's. The husband will be the legal father because they are married. Even if he is not the bio father. But a married woman giving birth would never be questioned as to who is the biological father of her child, nor would it even matter. Should this case be any different?

[Dashinka 24,487]

I guess this is expected coming from the NYTimes.

 

Though the policy predates the Trump administration, the president’s opponents have seized upon it. On Friday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader of the House, called it “an unconscionable attack on American families.”

The State Department, which has emphasized that the policy applies to opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike, declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

 

Now I have another question, if couples in this situation get divorced, how is custody determined?

[fip & jim 452]

It's a typical example of an organisation being reactive vs proactive, i.e. Reactive: Reacting to the past rather than anticipating the future. Proactive: Acting before a situation becomes a source of confrontation or crisis. It's hardly surprising but still discrimination. The state is saying this child is born "out of wedlock" due to her biological parentage when in fact her legal parents are married. 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,487]

40 minutes ago, JFH said:

Thought this was interesting...

 

Two men in a same-sex marriage - 1 USC by birth, 1 by naturalization (still also has British citizenship), live in the US and had a child through a British surrogate mother. Child was born in the UK. Bio father of the child is the naturalized USC, not the USC by birth. Because the child was born of a surrogate, the child is viewed by USCIS as being 'born out of wedlock' and the naturalized USC is listed as the father and cannot pass on citizenship (although I don't know why not, maybe he wasn't a USC at the time of the birth?). CRBA has been denied.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/gay-couple-children-citizenship.html

 

I don't know if they have started the I-130 yet to get the baby an immigrant visa but they certainly should and the sooner they do, the sooner it will be completed.

 

Interesting that babies born this way are seen as 'out of wedlock'. Obviously the two men can't both be biological parents but they are the legal parents as they are married. To me that's no different from a married woman having an affair and giving birth as a result of that affair and passing the child off as her husband's. The husband will be the legal father because they are married. Even if he is not the bio father. But a married woman giving birth would never be questioned as to who is the biological father of her child, nor would it even matter. Should this case be any different?

Question, the premise is that the State Department is discriminating, but reading much further into the article is that it appears the rejection was somewhat different.

 

Mr. Gregg, who had lived in Britain for most of his life before moving to the United States to be with Mr. Mize, did not have enough years in America, according to a letter from the United States embassy in London.

[fip & jim 452]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Now I have another question, if couples in this situation get divorced, how is custody determined?

The way child custody is determined for all children - acting in the best interests of the child through due legal process.

[Dashinka 24,487]

5 minutes ago, fip & jim said:

The way child custody is determined for all children - acting in the best interests of the child through due legal process.

Are you sure that is the case in similar circumstances?  I am not a lawyer, so I am in no way in the know, but if a married couple gets divorced and one parent is a biological parent and the other is a step-parent, would a court award custody to the step-parent?

[fip & jim 452]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Are you sure that is the case in similar circumstances?  I am not a lawyer, so I am in no way in the know, but if a married couple gets divorced and one parent is a biological parent and the other is a step-parent, would a court award custody to the step-parent?

This child is not a step-child, both parents are her legal parents. Regardless, the court acts in the best of the child. That's beside the point, this child is being denied citizenship because of some archaic law that was made before the possibility of assisted reproductive technology. She was not born "out of wedlock", her legal parents are married. 

 

[MjC772 94]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

I guess this is expected coming from the NYTimes.

 

Though the policy predates the Trump administration, the president’s opponents have seized upon it.

 

 

I'm pretty surprised NYT even mentioned that point. 

57 minutes ago, JFH said:

But a married woman giving birth would never be questioned as to who is the biological father of her child, nor would it even matter. Should this case be any different?

Anyway, having a child abroad (opposite sex couple), I can tell you in my experience, birth to a potential USC as a derivative is questioned..a lot....I had to provide a file full of papers proving my citizenship showing that I met the requirements ...history of my presence in the United States and proof thereof, travel history; my wife, child and I had to have an "interview" at the embassy. My point is that just because a couple are the biological parents and opposite-sex, does by no means indicate that they proceed without question.  

[Dashinka 24,487]

3 minutes ago, fip & jim said:

This child is not a step-child, both parents are her legal parents. Regardless, the court acts in the best of the child. That's beside the point, this child is being denied citizenship because of some archaic law that was made before the possibility of assisted reproductive technology. She was not born "out of wedlock", her legal parents are married. 

 

For the record, I agree that the laws applied here are archaic, but it is what it is.  The parents can petition the congress to change the law which is their right, but beyond that it appears they are looking for some sort of dictatorship action.

[fip & jim 452]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The parents can petition the congress to change the law which is their right, but beyond that it appears they are looking for some sort of dictatorship action.

Could you explain that, please?

[Dashinka 24,487]

2 minutes ago, fip & jim said:

Could you explain that, please?

The law referenced was a law duly passed by Congress and signed by President Truman back in 1952.  The way it works is that congress passes laws and the president enforces them, it is not an item that the president or the executive branch can change by themselves, Congress has to act.  Beyond that, they can wait until the biological father obtains five years in the US.

[milimelo 4,477]

^^ what he said. INA is what DOS follows and until that’s changed to include different reproductive ways they’ll have to deny. 

[MjC772 94]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The way it works is that congress passes laws 

Oh my! Do they still do that? I think someone needs to remind them 😆

[fip & jim 452]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The law referenced was a law duly passed by Congress and signed by President Truman back in 1952.  The way it works is that congress passes laws and the president enforces them, it is not an item that the president or the executive branch can change by themselves, Congress has to act.  Beyond that, they can wait until the biological father obtains five years in the US.

I understood that. My question was what you mean by dictatorship action and the evidence that this couple are looking for said dictatorship action.

[Dashinka 24,487]

1 minute ago, fip & jim said:

I understood that. My question was what you mean by dictatorship action and the evidence that this couple are looking for said dictatorship action.

Sorry for my choice of words, but it sounds like they simply want someone to bend the rules/laws.  I am not sure what you would call that.