A demanding customer sent me this blank Federal form “Statement of Consent: U.S. Passport Issuance to A Child”DS-3053 to print to come and notarize.
I’m unfamiliar with this new form issued in 2024. I gave it a look and I realized it’s illegal wording in California I’d have to affix my certificate. Not only that but a third party, not a parent, is allowed to sign a US Passport issuance of a child. It wasn’t even filled out to boot!
I once did a similar document and my certificate got rejected because the clerk required my signature on the form itself as well, something that’s unlawful in California.
I let the customer know the issues and he was still demanding I notarize it having a tizzy. I was coming in the morning so he had plenty of time to drop at FedEx. I found the customer suspicious so I referred him to UPS. Am awaiting a one star review. Can’t win them all.
We have our office manager complete the I-9’s. However I occasilnally get inquirys from my Google site. I tell them to go down the local police office and get it done for free.
Now the passport application issue. I’m no stranger to that form. I check for blank spaces, watch them sign and stamp it right on top of the noncompliant wording with a Jurat stamp on the left and my notary stamp on the right.
@CherylM we’ll agree to disagree on that. I was asking if you could compare it to, say, the Patriot Act form where you sign off that examined the ID and you sign the form but not apply your stamp. After reading the form you supplied in the link, you’re not notarizing their signatures…you’re just verifying you saw the ID.
Maybe that’s against your laws…not sure. That’s why I asked. Not going to beat this to death any more.
People take things very personally here and unnecessarily so. If you’ve been a professional for a good while you have a thicker skin. And let’s face it earl we’re old.
U.S. form DS3053 on Section 4 calls for Oath/Affirmation. That in itself tells me they want a Jurat. A California notary is required to use specific Jurat verbiage (Government Code section 8202). The verbiage on the DS-3053 is non-compliant. We must, therefore, affix the compliant verbiage (stamp or attach loose certificate).
Insofar as the notary seal, per the California Notary Handbook (2025): “The law allows a limited exception when a notary public may authenticate an official act without using an official notary public seal. Because subdivision maps usually are drawn on a material that will not accept standard stamp pad ink and other acceptable inks are not as readily available, acknowledgments for California subdivision map certificates may be notarized without the official seal. The notary public’s name, the county of the notary public’s principal place of business, and the commission expiration date must be typed or printed below or immediately adjacent to the notary public’s signature on the acknowledgment. (Government Code section 66436(c))”
Finally, LindaH-FL asked if CA looks at these forms and treats them like an I9. The simple answer is no. The DS-3053 requires notarization. The I-9 does not. California considers the I-9 an immigration form. From our Handbook: “Immigration Documents - Contrary to popular belief, there is no prohibition against notarizing immigration documents. However, several laws specifically outline what a notary public can and cannot do. Only an attorney, a representative accredited by the U.S. Department of Justice, or a person who is registered by the California Secretary of State and bonded as an immigration consultant under the Business and Professions Code may assist a client in completing immigration forms. (Business and Professions Code section 22440)
A notary public may not charge any individual more than fifteen dollars ($15) for each set of forms, unless the notary public is also an attorney who is rendering professional services as
an attorney. (Government Code section 8223)”
I was asked to do an earlier edition of the DS3053 form. It had notarial language in the notary block, so if I filled it out, I would be doing a notarization. I decided the language was adequate for a verification on oath or affirmation, so I completed it. But I think that was an error; the older form didn’t mention that the signer signed in my presence, and I’m required to have that in a verification on oath or affirmation.
The problems I have with the new form
From the other language on the form, I think the signer is supposed to swear or affirm, but no words like “sworn”, “oath”, or “affirm” are present in the notary box
the word “subscribed” is now missing from the paragraph; the word “executed” may or may not suffice in various states
The name(s) of the affiant(s) is not explicitly stated in the paragraph; there is merely a reference to another part of the document; the short forms for Vermont have the signer’s name in the certificate
There is no hope of fitting a notarial seal in the space provided on the form.
It’s hard to fit my state, county, commission expiration date, and commission number in the box.
In the case of the one and only DS-3053 I’ve done, I would suspect there might have been a problem with the form if I heard the little girl laughing and playing while she was scheduled to be out of the country.
Very good question. Obviously, these clients are contacting me through my Google ad, and the majority of them do because the previous notary attached a jurat to the document. This was rejected by the authority. I notarize the document and tell them if it’s rejected, call me for a refund. That’s the best method to monitor my service.
Do you know which authority rejected the DS-3053 with an attached jurat? Was it the local passport acceptance facility (such as a post office or library) or was it by the US State Department?
