Maternity's a matter of fact??

Not any more if this article's anything to go by:

It could throw the genealogy of future generations into chaos.

Doug Laidlaw...

That arrangement would be illegal in Victoria, Australia. The Family Court
of Australia now has exclusive power with respect to children, including
the wardship power, but can't make an adoption order - only prohibit one. I
suppose that it could override the State law against surrogacy, but I am
not sure. I don't see what the claiming mother had to do with the whole
procedure. She could adopt the baby, if the adoption laws permitted. Our
adoption laws used to insist that a married couple adopt, but no longer.
Alex may have had a husband, anyway. The article says that basically the
Court decided to ignore the legal situation - i.e. ignore the law. I doubt
that, somehow.

As a genealogist, i would treat it as an adoption, and quote the Court
Order.

I suppose that in a way, it is not essentially different from a case I had.
Foster-parents took the child away from his legal mother as soon as he was
born. Mother didn't bother to fill out the registration papers - who can
blame her? (Foster-father was "black" about this - he was a police officer
of rank, used to getting his own way, and grumbled that she hadn't "done
her duty." If it had been an adoption, he would have had to wait 5 days.+)

16 years later, the Registrar couldn't find the mother, and issued a Birth
Certificate showing the foster-parents as the natural parents so that the
boy could prove his age.

CWatters...

Perhaps, but the evidence is that most parents in this situation do tell
their children about their unique origin and don't try to keep it secret. I
believe I heard about a family tree program that's designed to cope with
such complexities.

The article says she was "legally recognised as the mother" but I believe
that this was actually an adoption hearing. The TV program said she had to
adopt the baby from her sister and I believe that this has been the position
in previous cases.