Footprints on Birth Certificate

How many people here, the older ones have footprint stamps on there origonal birth certificate?
I do . From 1963!!! yes I am old. I wonder how many other people can use this for I.D. if they still have it?
Is it usable or does your foot change as you grow ?

No footprints on mine, just my name, not even my parents name.

:doh: 1963 Old. LOL try 1948

Well if you were born in New Jersey around that time and you are missing, you could have footprints.
That's weird I remembered that. I wonder if any other Hospitals did that?


Ahh wait , It's one foot.They ink one foot and stamp it in the Hospital on paper. I remember my sisters making fun of me for having the BIG FOOT

My two sons were born in '66 and '68, one in Oregon and one in Washington. Both have a footprint on their birth certificate.

In the mid fourties they didn't use a footprint!

I thought my memory fading. See that I am not the only one.
I wonder how good those prints are if you ever needed them......

ihadcabinfever said:

I thought my memory fading. See that I am not the only one.
I wonder how good those prints are if you ever needed them......

Click to expand...

I have heard they are as individualistic as a dingerprint or eye-print. Each unique to one person.

My sons prints were little works of art - very clear and intriquite as could be. I had never realized how many wrinkles are on a baby's feet!~

Good to see you Ihadcabinfever! <<WAVY GUY>> Scandi

I was born in Chicago in 1959 (wow, and I don't consider myself old, LOL) and mine have footprints - my brother from 1962, Chicago, also has them. Hubby 1958, St Louis has them.

scandi said:

I have heard they are as individualistic as a dingerprint or eye-print. Each unique to one person.

My sons prints were little works of art - very clear and intriquite as could be. I had never realized how many wrinkles are on a baby's feet!~

Good to see you Ihadcabinfever! <<WAVY GUY>> Scandi

Click to expand...

Hey Scandi

Born in PA 1971--I have mine!!!

I was born in 1968, here in Florida. My children were born in 1988, 1993 and 1995. We all have both footprints on our birth certificates. Since we were all born at the same hospital, too, it's really neat to see how the certificates have barely changed over time.

Sidenote: I have to get Social Security cards replaced for my daughter and I, and SS will take the footie certificates as proof of identity.

I was born in chicago in 1967 and my "official" Birth certificate that is filed with the county does not have foot prints. However, the Hospital birth certificate does. I do know that as far as the hosptial birth cert. goes it is useless as a form of Identification (other than having the actual foot print) You cant use it to get a state ID, Drivers license, register for school, marriage license or obtain a SS#.

FLMom said:

Sidenote: I have to get Social Security cards replaced for my daughter and I, and SS will take the footie certificates as proof of identity.

Click to expand...

The SS office her in IL did NOT accept the hospital certificate or the county Cert! New rules as of Jan 1 2006. I had to show my son's insurance card as to proof of his ID. I was really shocked since he was not even a year old yet and they wanted an ID. I was like "well I have not allowed him to drive yet so what do I do?" That is when they told me that they would accept an insurance card.

I was born in 1980. My official BC from the county does not have them, but the one from the hospital in my baby book has my foot prints.

gidget641 said:

The SS office her in IL did NOT accept the hospital certificate or the county Cert! New rules as of Jan 1 2006. I had to show my son's insurance card as to proof of his ID. I was really shocked since he was not even a year old yet and they wanted an ID. I was like "well I have not allowed him to drive yet so what do I do?" That is when they told me that they would accept an insurance card.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's fun and games at the SS office---unreal.

I pulled ticket number 55 when they were calling in the 30's. Ugh. My purse was was stolen a few years ago, and I never got around to getting the replacement cards for my daughter or I.

I thought hers would be easier since mine involved a name change. Wrong-o! I got told, "Well, we'll need to see her driver's license". OK, 'cept the reason I needed the SS card for her was that the DMV wouldn't give her one until she got her SS card!

Mine was even more fun. Even though everything I have for ID has my married name on it, I still have to go through our files (double ugh) and find the ORIGINAL marriage certificate---they won't even take a certified copy.

Oh yeah, and I've got to find her footie birth certificate too, cause they won't take the county's certified birth certificate.

As soon as I find everything I'll be able to rest, cause I'll be sitting and waiting in the SS office for three hours til my number comes up. Hopefully the "rules" won't change by the time I get to the window!

I was born 76 I have footprints on my BC my sons, one born in 94 and one in 03 both have foot prints. However my son born in 03 also had a genetic profile done (swab in the cheek) that this hospital starting doing in 2000 for safety reasons. Apparently a child was inadvertently switched or something so now they do it on all babies born in their hospital also keep it on file forever (so they say) in case something happens and they should need such info. It is kind of scary to think about but personally I think everyone's DNA should be entered into one big computer at birth. (Oh no somebody's gonna jump all over me about BIg Brother :truce: ) But it might make law enforcements job a little easier.

I have mine... from 1961! I also have them on the ones for my kids (1982, 1986 and 1989). The footprints are (or should be) on the courtesy copy that the hospital provides, not the legal one filed and sent to you by the City or County.

ihadcabinfever said:

How many people here, the older ones have footprint stamps on there origonal birth certificate?
I do . From 1963!!!

Click to expand...

So do I. Same year, different state.

ihadcabinfever said:

Well if you were born in New Jersey around that time and you are missing, you could have footprints.
That's weird I remembered that. I wonder if any other Hospitals did that?


Ahh wait , It's one foot.

Click to expand...

Both feet on mine. Hands as well. There's even the caption "Left Foot", "Right Foot" underneath each one which I always thought was odd, as if we couldn't tell the difference! My take is that this was done mostly for sentimental reasons, I don't think it was intended for ID'ing purposes. Heck, maybe it was done simply to prevent hospital staff from inadvertently switching babies on sedated mothers.

As you imply, this was done at the hospital and does not appear on the official birth certificate issued by the state. I have no idea if the state keeps a copy of those footprints or if it's restricted to hospital records.

gidget641 said:

The SS office her in IL did NOT accept the hospital certificate or the county Cert! New rules as of Jan 1 2006. I had to show my son's insurance card as to proof of his ID. I was really shocked since he was not even a year old yet and they wanted an ID. I was like "well I have not allowed him to drive yet so what do I do?" That is when they told me that they would accept an insurance card.

Click to expand...

I live in VA and they offer child ID cards to any child 15 and under (they automatically expire at 16). I don't know how widespread it is, but I had an ID card for years before I got my permit - it made it tons easier when dealing with anything 'official' requiring ID. (like applying for a passport)

When I applied for my permit, my ID counted as a form of...ID.

(I was born in 1982 and I did have footprints on my original birth certificate.)

I had my footprints taken. 1962.

One of my daughters was born with a club foot, and you couldn't tell if it was right or left from a mere footprint as there wasn't the typical shape to it. I wonder if that's why some see 'left foot' 'right foot' on their birth certificates-for deformities like that....

As far as footprint ID goes-this is from Wikipedia:
Friction ridge skin present on the soles of the feet and toes (plantar surfaces) is as unique as ridge detail on the fingers and palms (palmar surfaces). When recovered at crime scenes or on items of evidence, sole and toe impressions are used in the same manner as finger and palm prints to effect identifications. Footprint (toe and sole friction ridge skin) evidence has been admitted in U.S. courts since 1934 (People v. Les, 267 Michigan 648, 255 NW 407).
Footprints of infants, along with thumb or index finger prints of mothers, are still commonly recorded in hospitals to assist in verifying the identity of infants. Often, the only identifiable ridge detail in such impressions is from the large toe or adjacent to the large toe, due to the difficulty of recording such fine detail. When legible ridge detail is lacking, DNA is normally effective (except in instances of chimaerism) for indirectly identifying infants by confirming maternity and paternity of an infant's parents.
It is not uncommon for military records of flight personnel to include bare foot inked impressions. Friction ridge skin protected inside flight boots tends to survive the trauma of a plane crash (and accompanying fire) better than fingers. Even though the U.S. Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) stores refrigerated DNA samples from all current active duty and reserve personnel, almost all casualty identifications are effected using fingerprints from military ID card records (live scan fingerprints are recorded at the time such cards are issued). When friction ridge skin is not available from deceased military personnel, DNA and dental records are used to confirm identity.