Lawmakers yesterday passed legislation intended to close a loophole allowing people to get Bermuda status by falsely claiming Bermudian children as their own.

The loophole had been opened by recent legislation which removed any legal distinction between children born in or out of wedlock.

Immigration Minister Terry Lister explained that last year's changes to the Children's Act had meant that children born out of wedlock to a Bermudian parent automatically had Bermudian status, and that a non Bermudian parent of such a child could then rightfully claim the right to reside in Bermuda with his or her child.

"It is important to make the point that, if the Children's Amendment Act 2002 had been allowed to become law without any further amendments, every child born to a Bermudian, whether within a marriage or outside marriage, would at birth automatically be deemed to possess Bermudian status," Mr. Lister said.

They would be Bermudians even if they were born overseas, provided they were Commonwealth citizens and their Bermudian parent was domiciled on the Island at the time.

Prior to the amendment the Immigration Minister had the power to require a "familial relationship" between the parent and child.

"Unfortunately by removing the Minister's tests for familial relationship between parent and child, not only would people with no real connection to Bermuda become Bermudian, the door would be opened for criminal elements who could falsely claim a Bermudian child as of their own, or claim rights of residence in Bermuda on the basis of the existence of a Bermudian child of which they were the natural parent."

The changes to Immigration law plugged the loophole by restoring the Minister's powers. Before recognizing a child as Bermudian, the Minister will have to be satisfied that the child is a biological offspring and that a "genuine, ongoing familial relationship" exist between the Bermudian parent and the child before it reaches 15 years of age.

The tests will only be necessary where parentage is under doubt, and to deter "adoptions of convenience."

Legislators had little difficulty with it but pointed out that it contradicted Government's aim to remove distinctions between children born in or out of wedlock. The Opposition's Maxwell Burgess pointed out that it was entirely possible that his daughter Kim was not his despite the fact that he was married to her mother.

A related piece of legislation was even less contentious. Government introduced changes to the Registration (Births and Deaths) Act 2003, which allowed the registrar to re-register the birth of a child who was born out of wedlock under the father's surname, when the parents subsequently married.

"It is not uncommon for a child born before the marriage of his parents to be given the father's surname at the time of his birth registration," Mr. Lister said.

"However in those cases where this does not happen, the Bill allows not only for the surname of the child to be officially changed to that of his father's on the re-registration of his birth, but also for the surname of the child's mother to be changed to that of her husband."

Mr. Lister said the bill was in keeping with moves to remove the stigma faced by children born out of wedlock.

"The bill does not impose any legal obligation on the parents of the child to re-register his birth upon their marriage.

"It does however provide the necessary housekeeping facility to formalize the family's surname, strengthen further the family unity and enhance the feeling of security and well-being within the child upon the marriage of his parents," Mr. Lister said. "The stronger the family unity, the stronger the society we live in." Mr. Burgess concurred. "This bill makes good sense," he said.