It is changed to conform to whatever the judge so orders. The power to do this is entirely in the hands of the Judge, and the norm is to do whatever is seen as in the best interests of the child.
I think Barack Obama had an original Hawaiian birth certificate create in 1961. I think he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro around 1965, and his original record was then sealed. I think his grandparents obtained some sort of guardianship or adoption of him in 1971, but did not receive a replacement birth certificate at that time. They probably received something similar to the "short form" which we saw back in 2008.
I think Barack's lawyers went to court, argued some special circumstances, and got a judge to issue a new document that comports with what people want to believe about him now.
I think his original 1961 birth certificate is based on the residency of his mother, and not an actual birth in Hawaii. (as Hawaiian law permits.)
I think there is a very good chance that he was born in Canada, but the evidence is only indicative, not conclusive.
“I think his original 1961 birth certificate is based on the residency of his mother, and not an actual birth in Hawaii. (as Hawaiian law permits.)”
On an adoption birth certificate is the signature of the doctor a wet signature or a typed name? How about the birth mother’s signature?
The date of the doctor signature (typed or wet) on an adoption birth certificate is that the actual date the doctor signed it or some date after the adoption takes place?
In your opinion is this an adoption birth certificate? (No wet signatures by doctor or mother)