Baby Blessing

Use this forum to discuss issues that are not found in any of the other clerk and stake technology specialist forums.
Newt
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:39 am
Location: Springville, Utah, USA

Baby Blessing

Postby Newt » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:24 am

Here's my question, I have a unmarried mother in our ward. Her father wants to bless and name her baby. We don't have a problem with it because he is a worthy priesthood holder. What I don't know is, on the birth certificate they have listed the father of the baby as unknown. I know that they know who the father is, he is a non active member. She had the baby premature and have not told the father that the child was born. He wants nothing to do with the child or the mother. Being the record keeping people that we are, what should I do as to the baby's fathers name. Do I have the Bishop talk with the mother and press for the fathers name or just record with the father as unknown.

Sorry this is so long, I'm not sure how to handle this. Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Newt

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14691
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:19 am

Newt wrote:What I don't know is, on the birth certificate they have listed the father of the baby as unknown. I know that they know who the father is, he is a non active member.
...
Being the record keeping people that we are, what should I do as to the baby's fathers name. Do I have the Bishop talk with the mother and press for the fathers name or just record with the father as unknown.


Everything I have read about membership records deals with legal status. For example, we don't change the parents of a step-child unless the child is legally adopted; we don't change a full name unless the name is legally changed, etc. So applying that same principle to this case, I would say that if the birth certificate says that the father is unknown, then the membership records should say the same thing.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: USA, TX

Postby jdlessley » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:54 pm

I agree with Alan. We obey, honor, and sustain the laws of the land. The birth certificate is issued under the direction and laws of a government agency. The father gave up his parental rights as evidenced by the birth certificate. Until that is changed he has no legal parental involvement.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the LDS.org Help Center page or the LDSTech wiki?

Newt
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:39 am
Location: Springville, Utah, USA

Postby Newt » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:10 pm

That's the kicker, he hasn't given up his parental rights. He does not know the baby has been born. The mother and her parents have not told him the baby was born premature.
Never the less I still think the thing to do is to record as the birth certificate says.

Thanks for your input.

rpyne
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: Provo, Utah, USA

Postby rpyne » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:11 am

Someone needs to counsel with the new mother and her family. She is setting herself up for some possibly serious legal trouble by not informing the father. If he doesn't want parental rights, she needs to have him document that legally, and even then he may not be able to escape legal responsibility for the care of the child.

jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: USA, TX

Postby jdlessley » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:51 pm

This thread is quickly turning to a legal discussion. Let us stop here before we go any farther. The Code of Conduct does not permit legal discussions or debates for very good reasons.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the LDS.org Help Center page or the LDSTech wiki?

rpyne
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: Provo, Utah, USA

Postby rpyne » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:25 pm

See CHI 2006 pg 32 paragraph 2. Note the word "both".

waynecooke
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:05 am
Location: Kalama, Washington

Postby waynecooke » Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:31 pm

rpyne wrote:See CHI 2006 pg 32 paragraph 2. Note the word "both".


Now we just have to wait and see if instructions change as of Nov. 13. :confused:

nutterb
Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Shaker Heights, OH, USA

Postby nutterb » Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:02 am

No. If you're going to act prior to November 13, you should do what's written in the current handbook. If you delay action until after November 13, then you'll use the new one.


Return to “General Clerk Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest