Are baby's "footprints" on birth certificate used for official ID?

“the FBI continues to advocate and encourage footprint-ing infants at birth, believing that this process represents a reliable, expeditious, and cost-efficient method for establishing probable personal identity. This article offers justification for continuing this important practice and provides information for law enforcement professionals desiring to train hospital personnel in proper printing techniques. The Value of Footprinting Print experts agree that every individual’s prints contain friction ridge minutiae, i.e., ridge detail, that are unique to that person. Even the footprints and fingerprints of identical twins are different. Furthermore, friction ridge minutiae remain naturally unchanged throughout a person’s life. Because of this consistency, FBI print experts have identified the adult victims of such disasters as fires and airplane crashes by using the footprints of the individuals taken in infancy.” Source

Whenever I dealt with ID issues for my kids, there were specific conditions mentioning that hospital foot prints WOULD not be considered proof of anything, whatsoever.

Not that I’ve run into. Anytime I’ve needed to provide documents of citizenship or I.D., the footprints one has not been admissible.

Are you asking if the footprints can be used to identify a physical person or a corpse for I.D.? Those cases, yes as @marinelife wrote.

No.