When Sara (names in this story are changed to protect the sources’ identities) takes her daughter April out anywhere in Taiwan, she’s frequently asked the same question: “Is your husband Taiwanese?”
Sara is white, and April has unmistakably Asian features.
“My wife is Taiwanese,” she replies.
Photo: Tien Yu-hua, Taipei Times
If asked, she may then clarify that April is her biological child, Taiwanese by blood, and has two moms.
This often creates more confusion, but it is a difficult reality for Sara, her wife Dana and April. While Dana has adopted April, the child does not have Taiwanese (Republic of China) nationality despite both of her parents’ desire that April grow up Taiwanese.
It is also the issue behind a lawsuit they filed against the Ministry of the Interior (MOI), with the help of the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (TAPCPR). The government has repeatedly refused to recognize April’s right to citizenship, which her parents feel she has had since birth.
Photo courtesy of TAPCPR
The obstacle set by the MOI isn’t that Sara is an American citizen, nor is it that April is not Dana’s biological child. The only issue is that they are a same-sex couple.
If a heterosexual married couple has a child, and one parent has Taiwanese nationality, the government considers that child to be a citizen as well. In other words, if Sara were married to a Taiwanese man at the time of April’s birth, but April was not that man’s biological daughter, the MOI would still consider him the father, and April Taiwanese from birth. It wouldn’t even be a question.
In fact, Sara and Dana feel that adoption shouldn’t have been necessary, per se.
“Heterosexual couples who use donors to conceive don’t have to go through the adoption process,” Sara said. “I’ve always wanted to have a baby, and Dana wanted to [as well] … but I feel they don’t see Dana as a legitimate parent.”
CONTRADICTING RESPONSES
When Sara and Dana set out to conceive, they inquired initially about whether their child would be able to claim Taiwanese citizenship. They met with a lawyer and even asked the MOI, and were led to believe that Sara carrying the child, with Dana as an adoptive parent, would be possible.
“We talked through everything to make sure we had all our ducks in a row,” Sara said. “We knew it was going to be a thing.”
As IVF remains illegal for same-sex couples in Taiwan, many go abroad to access such treatments. Sara and Dana chose an at-home option with a private donor, a Taiwanese man in their social circle whom they trusted and who was willing to help.
Once April was born, the family was given very different answers. According to the MOI, Sara being American on a spousal visa and Dana being an adoptive parent rendered April as an American, not Taiwanese.
This is the answer they received at every turn. First, Dana got a call from the government informing Dana that her baby had not yet been registered as a foreigner. Dana informed them that April was not a foreigner; once she was adopted she’d be Taiwanese.
“They were like, no, she won’t,” Sara explained. “They said she’s American [and] under Taiwanese law, if you qualify for a nationality then you are that nationality. April qualifies for US nationality, so in Taiwan’s eyes she’s American.”
The adoption was approved soon after, which required classes and court appearances for Dana, a home visit and criminal and financial checks. First, they applied to the Taipei City Government for the childbirth subsidy new parents receive, but were rejected as April and Sara are listed as a foreign spouse and child on Dana’s household registration.
The official rejection came in May, and their lawyer drafted a letter to the MOI in June.
“[Our lawyer] argued that under Taiwan’s current law, April is Taiwanese. Taiwan’s current law says if at the time of birth you have a Taiwanese parent, you are Taiwanese. And arguably, you could and should say that at the time of birth, April had a Taiwanese parent, because Dana has been her parent. Before she was conceived, Dana was her parent.”
The next rejection was almost immediate: the MOI replied that as they consider April a foreigner, the parentage issue is not within their area of purview. This is when Sara and Dana began their lawsuit, claiming essentially that as April has the right to Taiwanese nationality from birth, it is under the MOI’s purview to consider the impact of same-sex marriage inequality on her access to that right.
NATIONALITY MATTERS
Sara and Dana aren’t the only family in Taiwan facing the same predicament.
“We became friends with [another couple],” Sara said, “and that was the situation with their son. It sucks to know someone else is in the same boat, but it’s also comforting. Someone understands.”
Of course, all the MOI would need to do to consider April Taiwanese — thus making this issue very much their responsibility — is to treat same-sex couples equally to heterosexual couples. Since passing same-sex marriage legislation in 2019, Taiwan has inched closer to this ideal of equality, allowing most international same-sex couples to marry even if the foreign partner’s country doesn’t recognize same-sex unions, and allowing same-sex parents to both adopt a non-biological child.
In terms of access to fertility treatments and some cases of nationality, however, equality remains elusive.
The issue of April’s nationality creates consequences, both now and in the future. April was stateless for a period, as the US government requested a Taiwanese household registration she didn’t have in order to process her paperwork.
“It’s very important to us that April is Taiwanese,” Sara said. “We’re lifers here … [her] nationality will impact her schooling, career, vote, sense of belonging, ability to participate in politics and civil society ... It’s especially heartbreaking. How are we going to explain this to her?
“It impacts us financially [too],” she added, in reference to the childbirth subsidy they didn’t receive.
ONLY FEASIBLE OPTION
Sara noted that their situation can be difficult for others to understand. If Dana had chosen to carry April, there would be no question of her nationality, but Dana did not want to be pregnant, and their communication with the government led them to believe Sara giving birth wouldn’t be an issue. As their donor is Taiwanese, claiming him as the birth father would have also circumvented this issue. He could have then put April on his household registration before ‘disowning’ her, allowing Dana to adopt her. Although the law has since been changed, when they chose to conceive, they couldn’t both adopt a Taiwanese child.
“That’s a crazy option,” Sara emphasized. “Besides being difficult for everybody, that puts [the donor] in a bad position with his family, who is more traditional … his family may feel he betrayed his bloodline by giving someone else his sperm. We did call and ask, we were open to it … he was very sorry but said he had to stay anonymous. It’s important we respect [that].”
Despite their troubles, Sara and Dana don’t blame the government for the initial misunderstanding, and have strong faith in Taiwan and its ability to move closer to true equality for its LGBTQ+ citizens and residents.
“It’s one of those cases of bureaucracy where everyone has a different answer. Even [our lawyer] thought it would be OK. But when we actually went to do it, they decided, oh no. It wasn’t malicious,” Sara noted.
“As a queer family, we feel Taiwan is extremely friendly and safe,” Sara said. “I want people to know our story because I think public support matters in Taiwan. People are supportive of equality with same sex families but they don’t realize it’s not there.”
Feb. 17 to Feb. 23 “Japanese city is bombed,” screamed the banner in bold capital letters spanning the front page of the US daily New Castle News on Feb. 24, 1938. This was big news across the globe, as Japan had not been bombarded since Western forces attacked Shimonoseki in 1864. “Numerous Japanese citizens were killed and injured today when eight Chinese planes bombed Taihoku, capital of Formosa, and other nearby cities in the first Chinese air raid anywhere in the Japanese empire,” the subhead clarified. The target was the Matsuyama Airfield (today’s Songshan Airport in Taipei), which
On Jan. 17, Beijing announced that it would allow residents of Shanghai and Fujian Province to visit Taiwan. The two sides are still working out the details. President William Lai (賴清德) has been promoting cross-strait tourism, perhaps to soften the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) attitudes, perhaps as a sop to international and local opinion leaders. Likely the latter, since many observers understand that the twin drivers of cross-strait tourism — the belief that Chinese tourists will bring money into Taiwan, and the belief that tourism will create better relations — are both false. CHINESE TOURISM PIPE DREAM Back in July
Could Taiwan’s democracy be at risk? There is a lot of apocalyptic commentary right now suggesting that this is the case, but it is always a conspiracy by the other guys — our side is firmly on the side of protecting democracy and always has been, unlike them! The situation is nowhere near that bleak — yet. The concern is that the power struggle between the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and their now effectively pan-blue allies the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) intensifies to the point where democratic functions start to break down. Both
This was not supposed to be an election year. The local media is billing it as the “2025 great recall era” (2025大罷免時代) or the “2025 great recall wave” (2025大罷免潮), with many now just shortening it to “great recall.” As of this writing the number of campaigns that have submitted the requisite one percent of eligible voters signatures in legislative districts is 51 — 35 targeting Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus lawmakers and 16 targeting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers. The pan-green side has more as they started earlier. Many recall campaigns are billing themselves as “Winter Bluebirds” after the “Bluebird Action”
RSS