MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

The right of the child to know

Filed under: Child Support,Domestic Violence,Gender Politics,General,Law & Courts — Downunder @ 2:37 pm Wed 10th September 2014

Many men who have visited the MENZ site will be interested in this decision which relates to birth certificates.

STUFF NEWS artice: the truth will shock boy

The complete article is quoted below:

A south Auckland couple who falsely registered a newborn as their own have been convicted and sentenced to community work.

The pair appeared in the Manukau District Court this morning charged with falsifying birth records.

Both have name suppression.

The court heard that in 2004 the married couple were frustrated with being unable to have a baby.

The husband approached a female colleague for help and it was agreed that they would conceive the child together, but the husband’s wife would raise it as her own.

The natural mother, considered by the married couple to be a surrogate, received antenatal care under the name of the female defendant and was even admitted to the hospital to give birth under that name.

When the baby boy was born in 2005, the couple signed a birth certificate stating they were both the mother and father of the child, failing to mention their third-party arrangement.

The natural mother confessed what had happened to the Department of Internal Affairs in 2012, but the couple denied everything, alleging the other woman had been the instigator of the deception.

Judge Ida Malosi said in court today she considered their accusations “highly unlikely”.

She noted the pair had pleaded guilty only at the last minute.

They had taken no steps to correct the birth record until last year and Judge Malosi considered it unlikely they ever would have if they hadn’t been caught.

She rejected the defence’s application for a discharge without conviction, saying the gravity of the offending was moderate and that it was in the public interest a sentence be imposed for people to have faith in the integrity of the birth registration system.

“This offending was a serious lapse of judgment which has had and will continue to have serious consequences for the adults involved but more significantly for the child involved,” Judge Malosi said.

The boy had yet to be told who his real mother was and Judge Malosi said “the truth will come as a shock to him and will take some time to process”.

She ordered interim name suppression for the defendants to give them time to inform their son.

The pair were ordered to each serve 60 hours of community work.

The maximum penalty for the offence is five years’ imprisonment.

Department of Internal Affairs spokesman Jeff Montgomery said the department wouldn’t hesitate to prosecute people for making false statements on birth records.

“Accurate and timely birth registration is a right of every child born in New Zealand,” Montgomery said. “A child is entitled to know who his parents are.”


  1. I congratulate the couple in showing initiative in solving the problems of not having a child.
    It is the law that drove their behaviour in regard to breaking the law.

    I believe that in circumstances when two people on their own cannot have children, should be allowed to enter into partnerships so that there is no childless mother.

    Leaving a women in fear of being childless is or greatest failing and is inhumane.
    Men should not fear the same.

    Birth certificates should be contracts to raise the child.
    All parties should be named on it no mater who they are.
    What there relationship and responsibilities are should be described.
    It should be consensual.
    The minimum responsibility of a father or mother is to put food on the table.
    It should be absolutely the truth.
    The child has sovereignty over there own person.

    If we cannot give the child that. Can you have faith in your mother or father.

    Comment by The man in Absentia — Wed 10th September 2014 @ 5:31 pm

  2. Does this mean that when a paternity test shows that the mother has been a bit economical with the truth as to who is actually the father then we can expect the Dept of Internal Affairs to be prosecuting said mother for a false birth cert?

    I agree that it is a fundamental right for every child to know who its parents are, but this would seem at odds with the femily caught policy of not acknowledging paternity tests done without the mothers consent.

    Comment by Mits — Wed 10th September 2014 @ 7:15 pm

  3. I totally agree that a birth certificate should be a contract to raise the child, to love and support the child and to support the other parent’s ongoing contact, even if things are not perfect in the parents’ relationship, to consult and cooperate around guardianship issues…

    Comment by realkiwi — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 9:25 am

  4. I totally agree that a birth certificate should be a contract to raise the child

    Should anyone here present know of any reason that this birth certificate should not be signed, speak now or forever hold your peace?

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 10:02 am

  5. Seems quite simple really, they do a heal prick at birth (or they did when my babies were born) why do we have to rely on the mothers word only on who the father is.
    Paternity testing as the norm would remove all doubt. The only problem that the Dept of Internal Affairs seems to have here is we have the odd case where the mother section was filled in wrongly and thats got them in a tizz.
    It can happen to the named father at anytime and this doesnt seem to cause such a fuss.
    I don’t recall ever reading any headline where some guys been duped into believing he’s the dad when he isnt, and this leading to prosecutions.
    To quote Kanye West “18 years, 18 years and on the 18th birthday, he found out it wasnt his”
    If a birth cert is a birth cert then it should have the biological parents on it or left blank for extenuating circumstances (and this shouldn’t be at only the mums whim) if you can change either the dad or mum as in this case to suit your current set up then its a mockery and we should do away with the certs all together in my opinion

    Comment by Mits — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 6:13 pm

  6. This Heel Prick is already done on every child born in NZ. The drop of blood is stored on a Guthrie card and is used to identify metabolic disorders.
    The cards, blood and DNA information is then securely stored forever. It can be used for “research” purposes and for identification purposes in disaster situations BUT it cannot ever be used even by the child themselves as an adult for any determination of parentage.
    That seems odd (and wrong) to me.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 15th September 2014 @ 11:30 pm

  7. It should be compulsory at the hospital, at birth.
    The cost is minimal, compared to the other costs of birth.
    Are the doctors protecting the child from being used in a fraud.
    I cant think of another crime they commit against children.

    Unless you count there involvement in how teenage fathers are being treated. Bet these young men cant afford the test either.

    Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 14th October 2014 @ 5:40 pm

  8. I thought all mothers had to declare a child’s father in order to receive full DPB. Is this not the case.
    If declaring a child’s father, why is this not then updated onto a birth cert, if not already present?

    Comment by OMG You're )&*(()*&( — Tue 14th October 2014 @ 7:03 pm

  9. Dear Realkiwi,

    bit late to negotiate about care for child by the time it has been born? The cs manacles are well locked shut by then.

    Surely negotiations need to be satisfactorily completed, while both parties still have a realistic option to walk away. As far as I can see this freedom stops from conception!

    This suggests that the safest time to negotiate is before putting any body parts into the mangle, from which they might be hard to free? Certainly before leaving used condoms lying around…..

    Cheers, Murray.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 16th October 2014 @ 12:43 pm

  10. When we were young and were told vaginas has teeth, perhaps this is not something we were meant to take literally, but grow to understand?

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 16th October 2014 @ 2:11 pm

  11. As for birth certificates. The term who’s your daddy. Or its the milkman’s.
    The point is that the government provides a service that guaranties that the child knows who the mother is, but treats the relationship with the father with contempt. Of the law.

    Ask the judge if he can guarantee that his own birth certificate is correct. If his birth certificate is a falsified one then he used it in a legal process to get to the position the judge presently has. All judges know the who’s your daddy’s statement is true. Therefore it cannot be true that they did not know it was possible that they were using a falsified document to get to the position that they presently have. They took no steps to attempt to examine the documents correct status, and knowingly ignored that it could be false. They gain from the use of the document.

    Correct birth certificates is one way of measuring the advancement of a species, from just being slightly bright apes, or advanced apes.

    We are still behaving like chimps, on this issue.

    Comment by The man in Absentia — Thu 16th October 2014 @ 5:18 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar