You may be right but I don’t see Hawaii jumping up to claim ownership of this Frankenstein abstract. I suspect they haven’t because they know themselves that it isn’t “legal” and they’ve broken their own laws to produce it (if they are responsible - not someone outside the DOH).
If caught, I’m sure the “legal” forgery will be their play but that will only work if he was born in Kapolani Hospital in Hawaii.
For your document, the base of your original birth certificate is the same. All they changed was the parental information. The doctor’s signature, the registrar’s signature, the seals, the stamps, the time of birth, the weight, the location, etc. are still the same. Meaning it’s not a butchered certificate. Only the areas that you would expect to be changed for an adopted child are changed.
I don’t see how you get around the doctor and the registrar’s signatures. What if this specific doctor only delivered two babies in the state of Hawaii. If they can’t use his signature from the original (sealed) certificate can they take (copy) it from the other baby’s birth certificate?
Also, if no original was available, how would they know who the doctor or the registrar were? Can’t imagine a doctor would like his signature being used for babies he/she didn’t deliver.
That would seem to blow the "legal forgery" theory out of the water, at least so far as an "at home birth" affidavit angle applies to such.
I'm pretty sure that HDOH produced something. I just don't think that whatever they produced looks much like what was posted on WH servers for public consumption.
What *IS* Hawaii doing? They are doing NOTHING about it. What would they Do if the thing was forged by someone else and yet claimed to be produced by them? Are you familiar with Sherlock Holmes? This is "the curious incident of the dog in the night" all over again!
If caught, I’m sure the “legal” forgery will be their play but that will only work if he was born in Kapolani Hospital in Hawaii.
On what basis do you claim this? What makes you think that is a requirement? As near as I can tell, he only needed to be examined by a doctor working out of Kapiolani (up to a year later) to get that put on the document. I would also go so far as to say, if a Judge decided having a Hospital listed on the document was necessary to prevent the child from becoming aware that he was adopted, I think a Judge would order it be placed on the document even if it were not true. You must understand that the administration of most adoption law is geared to PREVENT the child from realizing he was adopted.
For your document, the base of your original birth certificate is the same. All they changed was the parental information. The doctor’s signature, the registrar’s signature, the seals, the stamps, the time of birth, the weight, the location, etc. are still the same. Meaning it’s not a butchered certificate. Only the areas that you would expect to be changed for an adopted child are changed.
My state does not have Hawaii's laws. I don't know of ANY other state that allows the creation of a birth certificate for someone born elsewhere, but Hawaii allows this. I would not be so certain about what can be placed on their documents.
I don’t see how you get around the doctor and the registrar’s signatures.
I have explained how they can get around the Doctor's signature.
From what I remember reading, a child which is born at home can be examined anytime for up to a year after birth, and the doctor which examines him is designated as the "birth doctor" and signs the birth certificate. As for the registrar, once a record is created (even by the grandmother) the registrar need only designate that it is in the system.
What if this specific doctor only delivered two babies in the state of Hawaii. If they can’t use his signature from the original (sealed) certificate can they take (copy) it from the other baby’s birth certificate?
I don't know how that works. My birth certificate contains the signature of the doctor who delivered me, but My current birth certificate was created 6 years after I was born. Whether they simply copied his name from the original, or hunted him down and had him sign the new papers, I don't know, but his signature is ON the new document.
Also, if no original was available, how would they know who the doctor or the registrar were? Can’t imagine a doctor would like his signature being used for babies he/she didn’t deliver.
As mentioned above, the "birth doctor" can be whomever examined the baby and certified it as healthy within a year after it was born. The registrar can be whomever signed the original birth "record" when it was first created. They did not need to see an actual baby to create the original record, and as long as they got the baby examined by a doctor within a year, (Stanley Ann attended Hawaii University in the Fall of 1962.) they could get a birth doctor's signature on the document.
Hawaii's laws are screwy. You keep getting off track with this because you, like most people, cannot believe that they are really this screwy.
Hawaiian birth certificate laws REALLY ARE THIS SCREWY.