to be seriously thinking about registering the baby in my name

(169 Posts)
frenchboy Tue 06-Aug-13 22:46:40

DP and I are engaged, and expecting our first child imminently.

Recently we've had a lot of stress and money worries over CSA and contact issues for his daughter. It's got to the point where I'm wondering what the hell I've let myself in for, and often can't see myself staying around to put up with this sort of nonsense for much longer.

With this in mind, and the fact that even if all this were sorted out we could never afford even the most basic of wedding ceremonies, I'm getting increasingly sceptical about registering our baby with his surname.

Aside from all the practical issues - travel, school etc, I'd quite like my child and I to have the same family name. If DP and I worked through everything, and somehow got the money together one day to get married, we'd need to reregister the birth anyway so it would be no problem 'updating' baby's surname too.

AIBVU to be considering this? Haven't even broached the subject with DP yet, but he'd be very p'd off. Might leave it until we're actually registering to bring the topic up....

Bambi27 Tue 06-Aug-13 22:50:15

I think if you make the decision not to give your child your fiancées surname then he will be completely gutted and it may be the final nail in the coffin to your relationship. A wedding doesn't have to be expensive a registry office will do the job so if money is what is worrying you you don't have to have a big white wedding...however if you don't feel you will stay together that's your choice to put your surname but I think you really need to consider how this will affect your relationship.

Maybe don't think about it now wait until baby is born as it maybe your hormones making you think this??

Shellywelly1973 Tue 06-Aug-13 22:52:17

By giving the baby your name but having your dps name on the birth certificate, means your dp will still have parental rights over the child.

As your not married you could go & register the baby by yourself, give the child any name you chose & dps name can't be on the certificate unless he's with you at time of registration.

I would think long & hard...

ImperialBlether Tue 06-Aug-13 22:52:19

Is he a good father to his daughter?

Sirzy Tue 06-Aug-13 22:52:21

Why not change your name by deedpoll?

Hassled Tue 06-Aug-13 22:52:45

Can you do a hybrid-surname? Mine are Hassled-Bloggs, for example. Is that a compromise?

Amarena Tue 06-Aug-13 22:56:02

Regardless of nails in coffins, I would go ahead and register baby in your name.

You can change it to his if and when you get married but it would be a hundred times harder to do it the other way around. And if you do split, everyday things could be just that bit harder if his name is used.

Hugs, hope you're ok. I know from experience how emotional and stressful relationship problems at this point in a pregnancy are.


DH and I are married and I still use 'my' name. Which means that DD and I have different names. We travel internationally, have lives, without the slightest issue. You can get married for next to nothing.

That leaves whether you actually want the new DC to have your DP's name. Do you?

notanyanymore Tue 06-Aug-13 23:00:18

It is quite a big statement to make.
All my DC's have DP's surname (I felt it meant more to him then me) and it has never caused me any practical issues (even through the 18 months when we split up)

Alisvolatpropiis Tue 06-Aug-13 23:01:54

I absolutely would not register the baby, who your partner is as much as part of as you, without at least discussing it.

Before the baby is born. So all is agreed and as calm as possible when s/he actually arrive.

I think it's appalling you would consider doing this without discussing it within the baby's father and man you are intending to marry. Communication is vital.

Alisvolatpropiis Tue 06-Aug-13 23:03:17

Registering the baby in your name is neither here nor there in my opinion, as long as adult discussion has gone on first.

SummerHoliDidi Tue 06-Aug-13 23:05:34

Speak to your dp. He might be more enlightened than you think. A double barrelled name might work as a compromise. Even if/when you do get married you might decide to keep your own name, lots of women do.

My dd1 has my name, but dd2 has dp's name. It's strange having 2 separate surnames within our family but it works for us.

frenchboy Tue 06-Aug-13 23:10:01

Thanks Amarena. You've pretty much summed up my worries. I'm not sure we're going to make it as a couple. I've said as much to my partner numerous times when all this has got too stressful recently. And things are going to be difficult enough if we split, without factoring in the awkwardness of having a different surname from my child. I would of course not seek to exclude his name from the birth certificate, I'm just not sure about giving our child his family name when I can't say how much longer we'll be a family.

Leeds2 Tue 06-Aug-13 23:17:11

My DD (15) has OH's surname, with my surname as one of her middle names. I was however always confident that our relationship would last, and it doesn't bother me having a different surname to my daughter.

In the circumstances you describe, I think I would want to give the child my surname. But I would discuss it with DP first.

frenchboy Tue 06-Aug-13 23:32:25

I know I'm going to have to discuss if with him; I'm just dreading it.

We've had discussions before about my leaving due to the situation, but it never really goes anywhere as there's not a lot really he can do and we both want to make things work. This is different though, because of the set time to make a decision. And it will feel pretty final.

I'm pretty much decided that I want to do this. I guess I just need to get around to bringing the topic up now.

Wonderstuff Tue 06-Aug-13 23:37:08

Why should the chid not have your name, regardless of whether you are going to marry? Why if you do marry should you change your name?

Could you double barrel?

Wonderstuff Tue 06-Aug-13 23:39:18

I know the politics of the patriarchal naming system weren't your agenda, but bloody annoys me the assumption that children will take the fathers name.

frenchboy Tue 06-Aug-13 23:44:12

Wonderstuff - completely agree on the whole patriarchal name system thing. I like my family name. And when I actually had some type of career, then I loved the associated reputation that came with 'my' surname. But DP - useless in even having this sort of conversation with him. He would never get it. Case of picking your battles.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 06-Aug-13 23:44:22

Why would his desire to have his surname used be more important than your desire to have yours used?

It wouldn't be they are both equally valid but as you are not married legally its totally up to you.

littleblackno Tue 06-Aug-13 23:55:05

I'm getting the impression this is more about your relationship than the name?

ChippingInHopHopHop Tue 06-Aug-13 23:55:55

I would register the baby with my name if I was you - if it's the final nail in the coffin, then you were never going to make it as a couple... and if you get married you can either double barrel yours & DS's or change his by deed poll if you want to then.

Just remind DP that things are on rocky ground and if you don't make it as a couple you will be the one left in pretty much sole care of a DS with a different name which is not what you want and that if things settle down between you and you get married, then you can talk about changing his surname.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 07-Aug-13 00:15:37

I am all for feminism. I consider myself a feminist.

I do not see how keeping your father's (or grandfather's or great grandfather's) surname and then giving it to you children is more feminist than giving your child the surname of their father. It's a patriarchal name system. Whatever one does, that's what it is.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 07-Aug-13 00:22:49

Its not her dads or her granddads name its hers,it may also happen to be the same as those other relatives (if it is)but that does not stop it being her surname.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 07-Aug-13 00:26:54

But it is her dads/grandfathers etc surname that has been passed to her. That's how surnames work in patriarchal societies Sock.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 07-Aug-13 00:28:09

There's nothing wrong with keeping the surname one was born with nor with giving it to ones children. But I don't see it as being massively feminist.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 07-Aug-13 00:50:12

I agree its not a huge feminist issue.

But that does not change that its her name and became her name the day it was given to her just the same as the dads name became his the day it was given to him.

For all we know both parents could have been brought up by single mums who used there own names not the dads. ( unlikely I'm guessing but we do not know either way)

itchyandscratchy26 Wed 07-Aug-13 01:05:43

I'd do it. Without wanting to be a complete pessimist, babies can put strain on a relationship, especially if there are already problems. Me and DH have had some humdingers since DTs arrived 10 weeks ago, and we are a happy couple! Plan for the future, just in case.

FloweryOwl Wed 07-Aug-13 01:17:48

I'd talk to your partner about it. I wish my dd had my surname. I had her when I was 19 to a man I thought I loved and she's only seen him a handful of times. I just don't think he deserves to share a name with my daughter when he's a shit dad. And now I'm married with another child and my dd is the only one with a different surname and she has asked before why hers is different to ours. Now she tells everyone her name is the same as ours and nobody knows her as her fathers name.

Inertia Wed 07-Aug-13 06:45:01

At the very least you can give both surnames.

It's very easy for someone to "not get it " when they don't want to move from their standpoint to accommodate the wishes of others.

haven't read all the replies but if you're not married then give the child your name.

to me it really is that simple.

why would you give your child a different surname to yourself? what does that say? that he is more important? that the child is his not yours? i just don't get it.

calmingtea Wed 07-Aug-13 06:50:02

If I had more children without a doubt I would insist they had my surname. Ridiculous outdated nonsense that the children have to have dad's name, en par with taking the grooms name on marriage. If you have any doubts my advice is do what feels right to you, not something to appease someone else.

if all goes well, it works out and you get married you change the child's name to his at the same time as yours or if not changing your name the child's stays the same. if his ego has issues with that that is alarm bells in itself.

if things don't go well and you go it alone you do so with you and your child a clear family with the same name and the same name as your parents etc.

honestly there is no way on earth i'd give the child his name.

Cherriesarelovely Wed 07-Aug-13 07:08:08

I totally appreciate where you are coming from here op. In your situation I would give your Dc your name or double barrell it if your Dp is very upset by this. I don't think he can possibly object to that. Why would he assume the Dc will have his name? Sorry, I am a lesbian so perhaps don't see things from quite the same perspective!

Cherriesarelovely Wed 07-Aug-13 07:09:07

I agree with swallowedafly with regards to the ego thing.

Isetan Wed 07-Aug-13 07:20:36

If you can afford to have a baby, than you could afford to have a basic wedding, kids are damn expensive.

My DD has the surname of the man who tried to kill me, her father. Do I regret this, do I shudder when the name is written and spoken, no, its five letters and in the parental headache scheme of things it isn't on the radar. The day I decided on DD's surname was a moment in time and my reasons for that decision were appropriate then. Choosing your child's surname is not a hedge bet; if we stay together then I'll do this, if we get married I'll do that, if he leaves the toilet seat up...... ahhhh!

This is about the state of your relationship and not surnames. I'd suggest you really examine the reasons for your decision because from what I've read here, it seems like a "I'm fed-up and we can't even afford to get married anyway" reaction rather than a "I really want my child to have my surname" decision. If your child having your surname is important to you, then the time for this discussion is now, not in the presence of the registrar. You are having a child for FFS, grow up!

ExcuseTypos Wed 07-Aug-13 07:22:25

If I was in your situation OP, I wouldn't give my child the fathers surname. I would want to have the same name as my child so I would give the child my surname.

And to those suggesting you change your name by deed poll, why would you do that? confused.

Isetan Wed 07-Aug-13 07:27:36

There is no good reason why your child shouldn't have your surname or part of your surname, it's your implied conditions that would piss me off.

RappyNash Wed 07-Aug-13 07:27:46

I hate this assumption that children will get the father's surname automatically if you are unmarried.

YANBU, and YWNBU even if you were confident the relationship was going to last.

ZillionChocolate Wed 07-Aug-13 07:28:01

I agree with Isetan.

My surname is my father's, but it's also been my mother's for all the time I've known her which is most of her life.

HerrenaHarridan Wed 07-Aug-13 08:02:50

I told my ex in no uncertain terms that unless our names were the same she was getting mine.

We compromised on double barrelled (with a contentious hyphen)

They don't go together well and it doesn't sound great but it leaves everyone's options open

I know too many kids who's dads don't bother any more wondering why they have the name of a man they don't even know while the rest of their family shares a different name.

isetan i'm glad it doesn't bother you but wonder if it will bother your dd. you don't mention that part.

frenchboy Wed 07-Aug-13 08:09:04

The fact that we're not getting married is not really pertinent ATM, I only really mentioned it as an aside to put in context.

It is more about the state of our relationship, and I guess it comes down to I don't feel secure enough in us being together long term to give our child his surname. If it all goes tits up, I'm likely to be the one 'left holding the baby' and at very least I don't want to correcting every teacher, healthcare worker my son comes into contact with or more importantly, trying to explain to customs officials that I've not trafficked my son.

I am fed-up. And I guess it does come down to that.

SoupDragon Wed 07-Aug-13 08:09:50

why would you give your child a different surname to yourself? what does that say? that he is more important? that the child is his not yours? i just don't get it.

Equally, why should the child have different surname to the father? What does that say? That he is less important? That the child is not his? I just don't get it.

The naming of a child is something that needs to be discussed and agreed on by both parents. Each surname is just as important as the other and each is just as big a part of who that child is. Simth, Bloggs, Smith-Boggs Bloggs-Smith, Smiggs... take your pick.

MikeLitoris Wed 07-Aug-13 08:22:01

Can someone explain these problems with dc having a different surname?

I have 3 dc and none have my surname. They dont even have the same name as each other.

Never once have I had any issues with schools, doctors hospitals or travelling abroad.

In fact I grew up with a different surname to both of my parents. Did not affect me in any way.

I honestly dont get the angst over a name.

I think the fact that you cant even discuss this with him is more of an issue than your childs name.

And btw you can get married for hardly anything if being married is important to you. Although I wouldnt advise it based on what you have said here.

samandi Wed 07-Aug-13 08:23:46

Why wouldn't you give the kid your name? confused Were you planning on double-barrelling before?


*I am all for feminism. I consider myself a feminist.

I do not see how keeping your father's (or grandfather's or great grandfather's) surname and then giving it to you children is more feminist than giving your child the surname of their father. It's a patriarchal name system. Whatever one does, that's what it is.*

No matter how many times this issue is explained some people just don't get it. The point is that it is her surname that she has had since birth. The point is that you don't change your name.

Changes have to begin somewhere. My surname is my name, which will be given to my children. It then becomes their mother's name - that's not a patriarchal name system.

But, as I said, you either get it or you don't. The logic is really very simple.

AKAK81 Wed 07-Aug-13 08:25:59

IMHO nothing screams pretentious twats like parents who give their kids a double barreled surname

ChinaCupsandSaucers Wed 07-Aug-13 08:34:26

if you don't make it as a couple you will be the one left in pretty much sole care of a DS with a different name

That's a hell of an assumption and rather ironic given that feminism has been raised several times on this thread.

The problems in the OPs relationship are regarding support for an older DC of the OPs DP, so it doesn't sound as if he's the kind of man to walk away from a DC without a backward glance - whose to say he won't want to be primary/equal carer? Isn't it just as difficult for a father to have care of a DC with a different surname to themselves, or is it only mothers who have that problem?

no it says that 99% of the time when a relationship breaks down it is the mother who ends up being the resident parent and in a significant number of cases the non resident father doesn't even bother seeing that child.

it is pragmatic and realistic whether we like the facts or not to base our decisions upon them.

i'm a single parent, my ds' father does not see his son, that's enough of a burden for my son without also having to have a different name to me, his grandparents, cousins etc. to have to carry the name of a man who you don't even see would be salt in the wounds imo especially having to explain no, my mum's surname is x, i have my 'dad's' name. no, no please don't go on to ask questions about him because then i'll have to explain to you the private matter of the fact that my dad has chosen never to see me and deal with your response and my emotions about the whole thing.

no way.

PrettyKitty1986 Wed 07-Aug-13 08:46:00

at very least I don't want to correcting every teacher, healthcare worker my son comes into contact with or more importantly, trying to explain to customs officials that I've not trafficked my son

Eh? What are you on about? Seriously, where do people get these imagined problems from?

I have a different surname to my dc. There has never been one issue, not the suggestion of one because of this. Ridiculous excuse. If you are determined to cut the father out of any decision making then that's your call but don't try to justify it with crap reasons hmm

pretty do you know how your children feel about having to make those corrections and explain them? i'd find it quite invasive especially if it was a sore subject due to my father's absence.

i keep asking this question of people because those saying how ridiculous doesn't bother me in the slightest never mention their children's perspective and how they feel about them having to make these explanations and share private information unnecessarily and that they may not feel comfortable divulging to strangers.

I would double barrel the name, just from a practical viewpoint. You want your DP's name on the birth certificate and you say that you want the relationship to work. If you refuse to give your DC, your DP's name in any shape or form, what you are saying is "we are not really a family" and then you really won't be! If you DO split up, regardless, then it will be easier to claim through the CSA (or whatever they are now called) if your DP is named on the birth certificate. My DS had MY name at birth, but that was because his birth father didn't come and register him with me, now he shares my surname and my DH adopted him after we married.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Wed 07-Aug-13 09:08:03

swallowed Well, in that case, parents shouldn't separate ever, in order to protect DCs from the stigma of having to explain that 'Mummy doesn't live with them' or 'I spend weekends with Dad'.
And don't get me started on subsequent relationships "that's my stepdad" is such a horrendous thing for a DC to have to explain, isn't it?

Different surnames are no longer unusual; in our l - it is a convenient

burberryqueen Wed 07-Aug-13 09:09:00

agree to Double barrell it in whichever order it sounds better -

ChinaCupsandSaucers Wed 07-Aug-13 09:10:03

swallowed Well, in that case, parents shouldn't separate ever, in order to protect DCs from the stigma of having to explain that 'Mummy doesn't live with them' or 'I spend weekends with Dad'.
And don't get me started on subsequent relationships "that's my stepdad" is such a horrendous thing for a DC to have to explain, isn't it?

Different surnames are no longer unusual; in our local primary school there are more DCs with different names than the same.
What happens if the OP marries in future and has more DCs? Will she give all her DCs her name rather than her DH?

frenchboy Wed 07-Aug-13 09:15:31

I have thought about 'what if...' Etc future scenarios, and know that if I do give the baby my surname then I'll be committing to keeping that same family name myself. Regardless of what might happen in the future.

that's irrational china.

in this instance the parents are not married, he already has a history with NRP'ing and the OP is not feeling confident about the future of the relationship.

how saying that in this case you should put your name on the birth certificate equates to parents should never separate is a mystery.

and still no one is answering the question from the child's perspective.

YANBU to not accept a baby should automatically have the father's surname, but YABU not to discuss it. Both surnames are equally valid and you will have to make a decision somehow. You could pick one (flip a coin or pick the nicer name), double-barrel, or even pick a totally new name.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Wed 07-Aug-13 09:44:36

OP I'm not sure I understand - on the one hand you say that if you and your DP do get married, you'll reregister the biith so your baby shares your married name, but on the other you say that if it doesn't work out with your DP, and you marry someone else in the future, any subsequent DCs you have will share your name, which you will keep, not their Dads?

What is the issue here? Is it the name? Or the implication?

I understand that for some people a name is very significant - my ex tried to convince me to change mine back to my maiden name after we divorced - but the long term implications of what you decide to do now could create issues down the line when you least expect it!

flowery Wed 07-Aug-13 09:54:07

He would have no more right to be angry about the baby not having his name than you would if the baby did have his name.

Sounds like he is just assuming that even though you are not married and have no intention of getting married (which surely means you are not engaged? confused), the baby will have his name instead of your own. You need to knock that assumption on the head straightaway, and have an adult discussion about what name to give the baby, whether it's yours, his, or a double barrelled version or whatever.

SoupDragon Wed 07-Aug-13 09:55:19

especially having to explain no, my mum's surname is x, i have my 'dad's' name.

I imagine that 99% of people would be totally unsurprised that a child has a different surname to on or other of their parents. A complete non-event.

Regardless, there is a world of difference between an involved, but separated, father and one who fucked off.

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 10:18:59

OP - I get the impression that you have started this with the unfortunate mindset of 'YOU deciding whether or not to 'let' the child have it's father's surname' - I don't think this is purely your decision to make. What if the father doesn't want the child to have your surname - is that not equally as valid?

It may be old fashioned to assume the child gets the fathers name - but to then do it the other way around and assume the child has yours is just as bad! Why does the man have to have a ring on his finger in order to have an equal decision on what surname his own child has? I just don't get that. I think THAT is old-fashioned!

You've said "I'm just not sure about giving our child his family name when I can't say how much longer we'll be a family." The child IS his family regardless of whether you split. What if you get 50/50 - going by your reasons it may be 'difficult' for him to have a child with a different surname...

SoupDragon - I agree with your last statement. It's completely different.

Easiest and most fair thing in this situation would be to have a double-barrelled name. If people think that's pretentious that's their problem.

Isetan Wed 07-Aug-13 10:40:39

swallowedAfly, DD is 6 and a very opinionated 6 year old at that, if she had a problem she'd tell me. I have my fathers name who has been absent my entire life and It doesn't bother me. If it bothers DD in the future then we will discuss it but I suspect she probably has my "who cares" attitude on the subject. Her surname is the also the same as her grandparents who adore her and she them. My apologies for not consulting with her at the time of her birth.

I have sole custody of my daughter and I have never had to explain why her surname is different to mine, when we travel internationally I take a copy of the document stating that I have sole custody but I have never been asked for it.

Break-up, don't break up, use his name or use your fathers name but its about bloody time that adult conversations were had.

TheCatIsUpTheDuff Wed 07-Aug-13 10:55:08

Having the same name doesn't protect you from officious customs types. My cousin took her little girl to Canada for a family wedding - cousin is married, she, her DH and little girl share a surname. Little girl aged about 4 was aggressively asked by a large, imposing customs official "where is your father?" Only after several minutes was cousin allowed to intervene - after she'd rephrased the question to "where's daddy, why didn't he come with us?" little girl got it and explained that daddy was at home with baby brother because daddy had to work. A verbal explanation from a 4-year-old was enough, which makes me question how serious a concern it was, but it was very scary for her.

ChunkyPickle Wed 07-Aug-13 10:55:45

Why is everyone saying 'use his name, or use her fathers name'.

Surely you mean use his fathers name or her fathers name - in both cases it's the grandfather's name - just because you're a man doesn't make you magically own the name more than a woman does!

Both names are valid choices, personally I'd be very put off by someone who made the assumption that we'd be using his name for our children (although DS does has his Dad's name, for shallow, scansion reasons), or who demanded that I changed my name upon marriage.

samandi Wed 07-Aug-13 11:06:37

*Why is everyone saying 'use his name, or use her fathers name'.

Surely you mean use his fathers name or her fathers name - in both cases it's the grandfather's name - just because you're a man doesn't make you magically own the name more than a woman does!*

The odd thing - but the only conclusion I can come to after many debates on this issue - is that some people do actually believe that men own their names in a way that women don't. They believe that a woman's use of any name is only temporary - whether it is the name she is born with or the name she takes on marriage.

I suppose it comes down to how you view these things, but I certainly do not believe that men are any more entitled to own their surnames than women are.

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 11:16:36

This thread and others similar only goes to prove that despite protestations that they consider everyone equal, some women really do have an inherent thought process that they are 'top parent'.

Yes, we carry the baby and give birth, but this is purely a matter of science. It doesn't mean that we are the superior decision maker and it also doesn't mean that women go through this because we are going to be a better parent than the father.

Women happen to carry the baby, the man doesn't but is still an equal.

if you're not married only the woman can register the birth and it is her registration process. so it is actually up to her in law.

she can also choose to take him with her or not, put his name on or not, though obviously he can contest and have it added and i'm not suggesting this as a way forward just looking at the law and process.

so actually in law their opinions are not equally valid because they are not married and the child of an unmarried woman needs registering by the mother.

have just checked my facts and i'm spot on before anyone says i'm wrong wink

if an unmarried man wanted to register the birth of a child without the mother present he'd need a legal document signed by her to do so. as an unmarried mother registering the child, the child's surname, whether to include the father on the birth certificate etc is entirely up to the woman.

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 11:35:33

That doesn't make it right or fair. And until attitudes like that change and people stand up and bring attention to it, the law will never change and we'll always be stuck in the dark ages.

yeah, yeah. our biggest priorities are making it so men have the right to tell women what surnames their offspring get. not making sure men actually financially support their offspring or tackling the levels of domestic violence etc. it's those poor menz we need to worry about.

SoftKittyWarmKitty Wed 07-Aug-13 11:42:19

OP, I was in a very similar situation to you and I decided to give the baby my surname. In the end we split up while I was still pregnant and I ended up registering the birth alone, so not only does DS have my surname but his 'dad' (I use the term loosely) isn't even on the BC (we weren't married). Seven years on, I'm glad I made that decision to give him my name because DS's dad chose never to see him, nor take any responsibility for him, nor be involved in his life whatsoever.

He also had issues wrt CSA/kids from a previous relationship and all I'll say in regard to that is the way he treats them and how he deals with the CSA for them, is a MASSIVE indicator for how he'll treat you/your child should you split. If only I'd known that then <naive> hmm.

smokinaces Wed 07-Aug-13 11:56:32

OP, I did get married prekids. So my children both have my (now ex) husbands name. We have been separated 4 years, and the divorce is finally going through. I had to think long and hard about my own name - whether I wanted to revert back to my maiden name or keep the same name as my children. At 7 and 5 they discussed it with me and asked me to stay as Ms Smokin, the same as them. My ex husband is also ok with this situation, though I think his girlfriend finds it more difficult.

If I wasnt married, the children would have had my name. And ex-h knew that. it was part why we got married tbh.

I dont think YABU. If you do end up getting married then you can both take your now husbands name if you wish. But it is harder to change baby's name from his to yours, simply as he has to give "permission" until baby is 18.

So personally I would say YANBU. I do think CSA/Step children can really rock future relationships, and if you're unhappy now you will become resentful in the postnatal stages unless you manage to sort some of this out.

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 12:04:01

swallowedAfly - you are missing the point. I'm saying there should be equal decision making on BOTH sides for things like this. Your sentence about women's biggest priorities making it so men have the right to tell women what surnames their offspring get is completely opposite to what I have been saying. NO-ONE gets to demand anything - both parents should have a discussion and if there is a stale-mate, think of a compromise.

This thread is not about domestic violence or the fact the OP is worried her partner may not pay - that is completely different. You've just lumped all 'menz' into one category which is unfair.

There is an assumption here that the OP's partner is going to disappear and not pay which I can see is based on other people's terrible situations - this is not what appears to be happening here.

AnnabelleLee Wed 07-Aug-13 12:05:50

If you go and register on your own, he won't even be on the birth cert. Thats a pretty shit trick to pull on him.

I'm not into the automatic use of fathers name at all, but do any of you attempt to look at it from someone elses point of view? You are your childs parent, as the mother, it is never questioned by anyone. You can register the birth alone and deny the father, if you want. A man wanting to give his child his name can merely be him staking his claim as the other parent, which is not automatically given to him, in this circumstance. Don't assume its patriarchal dick waving and think about someone other than yourself.

SoftKittyWarmKitty Wed 07-Aug-13 12:16:33

I didn't deny my child's father, Annabelle. My child's father denied my child. His decision, not mine.

The OP's situation is different to mine but in her situation I'd register the birth together to put the dad's name on the BC but give the baby her surname. That way he'll still have PR. In the seemingly quite likely situation that they split up, it's highly likely that the OP will be the one who, in her own words, will be left holding the baby. On the other and, if/when they get married and if the OP chooses to change her surname to his or double-barrel it, they can change the baby's surname then. But I would never, ever give my baby a surname that isn't mine, just because it's 'tradition' or 'just what you do' or to placate the father. If he can't understand the reasons for doing it as above then quite frankly I'd question his understanding and consideration of my feelings.

SoftKittyWarmKitty Wed 07-Aug-13 12:18:15

*On the other hand

AnnabelleLee Wed 07-Aug-13 12:20:39

I didn't say you did. I didn't even read your post, afaik.
I said any non married woman COULD, if she chooses. Like OP is talking about.

you said 'do any of you'. as if we were one big borg mind who'd all said the same thing.

AnnabelleLee Wed 07-Aug-13 12:35:38

no, I said do any of you, as in I'm asking if anybody does.
I think you're over-analysing.

SoftKittyWarmKitty Wed 07-Aug-13 13:02:01

Just clarifying my situation.

SoftKittyWarmKitty Wed 07-Aug-13 13:08:13

Oh, and you said that as the mother, it's never questioned by anyone. There was a thread quite recently which, iirc, was about the rise in number of parents getting stopped at airport security if they are travelling without the other parent and have a different surname to their child. So, yes, sometimes as the mother it's questioned. Given that most single parents are women and lots of those women may well have a different surname to their child(ren), that's potentially a lot of mothers that may be stopped, questioned and asked to prove their relationship to their DC.

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:17:25

In that case let's just make it law that father's can never pass their surname to their children - makes it SO much easier for everyone (oh no, just mothers...) hmm

a country that i regularly go to would give me serious delays if my son had a different name to me.

the law is already clear bluebelle as we've seen.

Erlack Wed 07-Aug-13 13:28:14

I have my own views on what I would do if I could rewind the clock but everyone's circumstances are different so I am not sure my personal anecdote is helpful. What I would say is don't leave it to the moment you are actually registering to bring it up...that is not a good time to resolve an important issue.

perhaps if this issue is so important to you you'd best petition your mp or something? if the idea that an unmarried woman has autonomy over the registering of her child's birth seems so offensive to you you could campaign about it.

MikeOxard Wed 07-Aug-13 13:34:40

Why on earth would it be U to give YOUR child YOUR surname?? You're the one giving birth! If you think now that you may split up, and want the same name as your dc, then really yabu to consider giving it any other name than your own, why do that to yourselves? To save an argument with your OH? It'll be an argument you'll wish you had when you do split up an have different names, especially if you then go on to have any more children and this child ends up feeling the odd one out. sad

thank you mike. exactly.

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:51:25

There are lots of issues I feel strongly about as I'm sure there are with you. Are you planning to campaign against everything you disagree with?

I feel strongly that a lot of views about this subject are outdated and sexist so I'm going to say something. Don't you try and explain things when you post in order to maybe make someone look at things slightly differently? I've read your posts and don't agree, you've read mine and don't agree - it's no big deal.

eccentrica Wed 07-Aug-13 13:52:34

bluebell "Yes, we carry the baby and give birth, but this is purely a matter of science. It doesn't mean that we are the superior decision maker and it also doesn't mean that women go through this because we are going to be a better parent than the father. Women happen to carry the baby, the man doesn't but is still an equal."

It might be 'purely a matter of science' but it appears to have some significance if you look at the number of fathers who don't bother to/don't want to see their kids, compared to the number of mothers who do the same.

In my circle of friends and acquaintances alone, I know 3 or 4 men who have no contact with their children, and I know 3 or 4 women who are raising children with no contact from their father - not through the mothers' choice in any case.

It is naive and ridiculous to say that being the parent who carries and gives birth to the child has no impact on what happens next (indeed in many cases the father has already made himself scarce before the baby is born).

Unmarried women choosing to give their children their own name, rather than the father's, is hardly 'being stuck in the Dark Ages' hmm

Disclaimer: I am not married and my daughter has my surname.

eccentrica Wed 07-Aug-13 13:53:53


Honestly bluebell, your insistence that women having rights is 'outdated and sexist' is truly bizarre. Reading your posts I feel like I've fallen into a looking-glass world. Are you a covert member of Fathers for Justice by any chance?

yep women having autonomy over their own wombs and how to register the children that come out of that womb is sooooo dark ages

oh and personally carrying my son for 9 months and giving birth to him was a bit more meaningful than a pure matter of science. do you want to denigrate female experience any further in the interest of 'not being sexist'?

god even the man on the thread gets it.

you're tripping over yourself to worry about men, disregard women and denigrate female experience and ignore socio political realities.


bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:00:34

eccentrica - I haven't said that being the parent who carries the child has no impact on what happens next - I didn't even imply it.

If it was the male that got pregnant and gave birth, there would be many more stories of the mothers fucking off and being feckless. People are people and there are some crap parents and really good ones no matter what the gender is.

Unmarried women choosing to give their children their own name is just as bad as the man assuming the child will have is. I don't get why that is so difficult to understand.

OhDearNigel Wed 07-Aug-13 14:03:01

That's a hell of an assumption and rather ironic given that feminism has been raised several times on this thread.

Feminism or no feminism i think we all know that it's extremely unlikely that the OP wont be left as a single mum if she and the father split up. Especially as the OP reports that he already has one child that he doesnt maintain agreed contact with

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:15:24

So because you think I'm saying father's should be seen as equal in the eyes of the law I must be a member of Fathers for Justice - seriously? There's no room for someone to just have an opinion on something...? To be honest I haven't even been concentrating on that - I've been saying that the parents should be equal - not one or the other. I thought that was fairly obvious and I don't get why people are so against it.

It is a wonderful experience to carry a child and give birth - I just don't think that makes me the superior parent and an over-ruling decision maker shrug

Blu Wed 07-Aug-13 14:29:39

Whether or not you get married, you can still keep your own name.

Give your baby both your surnames. That names the baby with the names of both it's parents which is surely the fairest and most C21st thing to do, whatever the parents' realtionship status.

Then sort out your relationship problems and don't bring this into it.

Sparklyboots Wed 07-Aug-13 14:45:05

OP, I'd give the baby your own name and keep your own name, even if you married. I don't think this issue is what will end your relationship; if it does, you can be sure it's just the thing that came up at the right time.

FWIW my son has his dad's name and our daughter has mine. We both wanted them both iyswim but double barrelling would be fucking ridiculous in our cases. So this is our system. People rose extraordinary objections: 'People will think they have different fathers' (HV) 'If you split up your son will feel left out' (acquaintance), 'If you split up, they won't feel like a family' (acquaintance).

Shakirasma Wed 07-Aug-13 14:54:52

My husbands DD was given her mothers surname.

After her parents separated, her mum married another man and took his surname, they had a child together.

Her dad and I married and had 2 DC, so we all have his surname.

As a result my DSD does not share a surname with either her mother, her father, or any of her siblings!

My Eldest dc has her dads surname, and although it isn't the same as mine or her siblings it is the same as her dads.

I have never come across any difficulties with this, and she is 15 now!

MikeLitoris Wed 07-Aug-13 15:15:40

Thay is pretty much what happened to me as a child Shakira. I've never had an issues and I grew up without the dad I was named after.

Do people really ask why you or your dc have diff names? I've never experienced it and neither have my dc.

By all means call your baby whatever you want. But dont use rubbish excuses like it will be a hassle to have different names.

it could be as innocent as hello, right so your name is mike lite, oh it isn't? i just assumed because that's your mum's name..... (loaded pause that small child doesn't know they're allowed to ignore) no it was my dad's name, oh right sorry i didn't realise you saw your dad, err no i don't see him because.... (small child doesn't realise it's none of this nosey parkers business so feels they have to expose themselves and their private business that they maybe don't feel too confident about).

random example badly worded but yes, i can see how it comes up and wrong foots a child who already hurts about the fact they don't see their dad anymore.

or other way round the teacher is writing a letter to 'mum' and writes wrong name and child has to say that's not my mum's name and is forced to deal with the issue again.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Wed 07-Aug-13 15:40:39

OP reports that he already has one child that he doesnt maintain agreed contact with

The OP had not posted details when I commented - I assumed from the OP that the issues were that he was seeking more contact with his DCs.
I fail to understand why the OP would choose to have a baby with a man who is already failing his DCs - hence my assumption he was a hands on dad who was being prevented from sharing parenting.

oh so she should just have an abortion then you think? or are you saying she should never have had sex with him? or that if she did she should have made sure she was sterilised first just to be sure of no contraception failure?


GreenSkittles Wed 07-Aug-13 15:55:59

It will be a lot easier for baby to have your name, and change it if you both get married (IF you do want to change your names then), but almost impossible to change it to your surname if you split up. I know a couple who went to court over this, and the mother was not allowed to change her daughter's surname.

So if it means a lot to you, use your name. But I would try to have a civil discussion about it first, ask how he would feel about dc having your surname. Your trump card is his first dc but I woudl only use that as a last resort. If things are already dicey between you, he should actually understand why you wouldn't be keen to use his name.

KristinaM Wed 07-Aug-13 16:01:45

My kids schools send letters to " Parent or guardian of Jane Smith " . My children manage to get the letter to me even though I'm not called Mrs Smith. They are clever that way

If someone said to DD " You must be Jane Brown " she would say " no I'm Jane Smith ". It's not difficult

I can't imagine an adult asking her " Why are you Jane Smith when your mother is Professor Brown? " Or " do you still see your father Dr Smith? " . But then I don't live in 1950

i think you must have a lack of imagination then kristina.

but hey maybe i do live in the 1950's. i live in a naice village and my son goes to a naice village school where they still talk about jesus as if his messianic status was a given.

you know it may be a shock but actually there are lots of places and situations where having a different name to your mum isn't common or having three kids with different surnames isn't normal or easily overlooked.

there are places where you may be the only single parent in the playground or the only child who doesn't see his daddy.

you don't have to go back 60 years for this.

if i had another child it would have the same name as me and my son. i wouldn't do it to them just to please the ego of a guy i was with. tbf i wouldn't be with a guy who couldn't understand my need for my children to have the same name as each other and me.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Wed 07-Aug-13 16:21:20

swallowed as a Wicked Step Mum myself, I went out of my way to ensure that issues between my DP and his ex were being resolved before I committed to him - I wouldn't move in with him until he'd secured a legal agreement regarding contact, for instance, because his ex repeatedly withheld the DCs from seeing him.
Forgive me if I was applying my own values to the situation - just as you are by highlighting the impact of different namrs on a DC despite others saying its not a problem for their DCs.

Obviously the OP is having second thoughts about her DP due to his lack of commitment to his existing DCs (although I've reread the thread and can't see where she has said that is the issue?)
On that basis, I fail to see the issue - if the OP leaves her DP off the birth certificate all together, it seems unlikely he'll seek PR so she can change her DCs name as often as she wants to!

that's great china but if you'd have gotten pregnant without securing those issues despite not planning to would you have just gone and 'got rid of it' because the circumstances weren't tidy enough for you?

and 'wicked step mum' is your own projection - i hope you weren't imagining attitudes onto me?

TheSecondComing Wed 07-Aug-13 16:28:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JodiLeighLeigh Wed 07-Aug-13 16:35:13

Quite disgusted that there are people here saying you should just go ahead and give the baby your surname.

I'm pregnant and do occasionally have doubts that my relationship can go the distance. But I'm not daft enough to act as though me carrying the baby for 9 months means I get to make these choices without consulting my OH. It takes 2 to make a baby.

That aside, making this decision without him will put the nail in the coffin as you'd just be proving that his side of the situation doesn't matter to you.

If you do (god forbid) break up before the birth, then yes, your baby should have your name. But while you're part of a parenting unit, the unit should decide together rather than one half of it undermining the importance of the other.

You owe it to your relationship to make family plans rather than contingency plans.

TheSecondComing Wed 07-Aug-13 16:38:30

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 16:44:37

No-one is talking about trying to please the ego of the man though swallowed The point to the debate is about the male and female having an equal say in the decision rather than the woman saying 'well I'm mum so I'm going to just do what I want or the man saying the child should have his surname just because he is the father'

You wouldn't be with a man who didn't understand the need you have for a child made by BOTH of you to have your surname - you couldn't POSSIBLY consider that the man might like his child to have his name and come to a compromise.

My SD has my husband's surname. It is different to her mums and different to her brothers. We have had a couple of discussions about whether she would like to change it and the answer is always no. She loves her name, she isn't bothered about it being different to her mums as it is the same as her dads. If she had her mums surname - I'm sure her attitude would be the same. As long as she has one of the surnames it wouldn't matter!

I appreciate some children might find it difficult and some may come across other children that are mean about it but that is certainly in the minority.

err well the law is 'daft enough' to say you get to make these decisions.

JodiLeighLeigh Wed 07-Aug-13 16:53:34

swallowedafly - and you don't think that law even slightly leans in favour of the mother?

As adults, it's our own responsibility to make sure we have children with people whose opinions we can at least respect as being of equal importance to our own.

I'm not saying the baby should have the mother's name over the father's or vice versa, but while they're a parenting unit, she shouldn't be acting like he's not on the scene just because the law allows her to.

jellybeans Wed 07-Aug-13 16:53:46

DD had my name when we were not married. No questions. As main carer I didn't want a different name to my child.

i think that law leans in favour of the lesser evil. if two people are not married, re: they do not have a legal binding contract that they have willingly and commitedly entered, and the woman gets pregnant someone has to have the say and given she is the one who has carried that child and in the vast, vast majority of cases will look after that child and take responsibility for it for it's whole life the decision is hers.

she is registering a birth. a birth she went through. the law says she gets to do it if she is a single person.

who would register a birth except the person who went through it or the man who has committed himself legally and fully to her and that child through marriage?

realistically a pregnancy is created by sex. a simple act of sexual intercourse. that may be all that was involved on the male part. a pregnancy and birth is a bigger deal - one that a woman chooses to go ahead with, faces the physical, financial, social and psychological implications of and at the end of it, hopefully, gives birth to a child through hours of pain and labour.

you would really tell that woman that a man she had sex with 9 months ago, a man who potentially raped her or a man who potentially beat the hell out of her whilst pregnant and she had to hide from in a shelter or a man she found out was married or a man who has fled the scene has an equal right to decide what to name the child or a right to be present at the registration?

now that is the reality of a different law - that those things would happen. would you actually want that or do you agree that the law as it stands is the pragmatic, safe way for things to be even if not ideal in a world where all was mills and boon?

and if we're talking about adults having choices about who to have a child with (which ignores a zillion scenarios obviously but let's go with it) then men have the choice to not risk impregnating a woman unless they are married.

but we live in the real world.

JodiLeighLeigh Wed 07-Aug-13 17:55:38

Are you deliberately missing the point?

You think that because the law 'errs on the side of caution' she should deliberately exclude her partner from a decision involving his child?

The law isn't always steeped in good morals.

JodiLeighLeigh Wed 07-Aug-13 17:57:11

When the hell did this become a debate about a potential rape victim rather than a real life couple?

ChinaCupsandSaucers Wed 07-Aug-13 18:26:43

swallow I didn't risk an unplanned pregnancy prior to committing to my DP though - I didn't want to deal with the complications that would bring, given the hassle he was having with his ex, the fact that my DDs dad was being difficult and the fact that it was the first new relationship for both of us for 15+ years.

Sex isn't compulsory, you know!!!!

no it isn't. i was checking that that was what you meant. that you didn't have sex with him until he met a number of conditions on what he should do about his ex and his child. that's fairly demanding but fair play. so your advice is we should all write contracts before having sex? or decide exactly what we think they should do with their lives and make them do it first.

jodi - no, i'm saying given he already has contact and csa issues with one child, given the OP does not feel her relationship is likely to last, given she has a good chance of raising this child alone she is not being unreasonable to consider giving this child her name.

and the rape etc example was explaining why the law is as it is and thank god it is. but then you know that.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Wed 07-Aug-13 18:43:27

or decide exactly what we think they should do with their lives and make them do it first.

I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I can make anyone do anything - but you clearly think you can! We agreed together; we both have DCs, we took things slowly and put our own lives in order before joining forces. If nothing else, our DCs deserved that from us.

Perhaps if more people thought about the potential consequences of sex before they jumped into bed with someone, they wouldn't have a nasty surprise when they discover the father of the baby they are carrying is a deadbeat dad - which is what you say happened to the OP.

As I tell my DC 'choices have consequences'.

JodiLeighLeigh Wed 07-Aug-13 18:58:06

The contact and CSA issues should have come into play before deciding to have a child with him. NOT used as the excuse for excluding him from what (between a couple / the parental unit) he should be consulted about in order for them both to decide.

This isn't about the law or your endless 'what ifs'. It's about common decency and respect for the opinions of the person with whom you decided to have a child. Even if the OP does decide the child should take her name, she is still in a relationship with the father and he should be consulted.

bluebell8782 Wed 07-Aug-13 19:58:27

Yes..well said Jodie.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 07-Aug-13 20:15:57

Life is full of situations where people can not agree because each party wants there own result. Its a part of life and with regard to this particular matter when both cannot agree in the absence of a marriage the law will always back up the mothers naming wishes.

That's just the way it is. And I think that's the right way but thats IMHO

JodiLeighLeigh Wed 07-Aug-13 20:32:24

I understand that and wholeheartedly agree, however I don't think it negates the courtesy of having the discussion rather than letting her OH think one thing is happening while planning on doing another.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 07-Aug-13 21:03:20

Well I agree with that not hing wrong with raising it.

PrettyKitty1986 Wed 07-Aug-13 21:16:22

pretty do you know how your children feel about having to make those corrections and explain them?

Again, what are you on about?

What corrections do my children need to make and who do they need to explain to just because my name is different?

KristinaM Thu 08-Aug-13 15:19:21

Swallowed -I just asked my Teenaged DD is anyone has ever asked her why her surname is different from mine . She looked at me as if I was stupid and said " no"

I'm much amused at your suggestion that this problem doesnt arise for my children because i dont live in a "naice village " and my children dont attend a " naice village school " . In fact we do and they do. But people here are "naice " enough to have manners. And it's RUDE to ask a child why they have the name they do. In the same way its RUDE to ask someone why they are cohabiting and not married or if their children are illegitimate or how much they earn or why they got divorced.

I would not like to make decisions for my children worried about what one rude person might ask them at some time in their childhood. There are more important factors to consider, which other posters have mentioned down the thread

ChinaCupsandSaucers Thu 08-Aug-13 16:54:00

Kristina I was wondering where this naice village primary that swallow was referring to was as well wink

My DD (who attended a small primary school in a rural town) was asked why she hadn't been bridesmaid at mine and her Dads wedding in the past - we had in fact for married 2 years before she was born! There was no stigma associated with her saying that - any more than there was for the little girl who asked the question and who was going to be a bridesmaid at her parents forthcoming wedding!

swallow unless you know the intimate family details of all the households in your 'naice village' I think it's fair to say that you'd be surprised to discover how many couples who you assume are respectably married with 2.4 DCs are actually co-habiting, divorced, blended/step, estranged etc etc. I'm certain that at your DCs school, just as at any other, there are DCs who do not share the surname of their primary carers. Some may not even be related at all!

this is delightful piss takey behaviour. perhaps it is normal for your circle to have three kids with three different surnames, in mine it isn't and no there genuinely aren't any single parents in my sons' school and having different names would stand out.

but you know best because you need to defend the fact you gave your children the surname of the man you happened to have gotten pregnant to instead of your own.


OP - beyond the bitching and nastiness directed at me i'll just go back to answering - yanbu and i would strongly advise you do give your child your own surname. any sane man will understand that given you're not even married and he already is an nrp to other children. if you insist on then going on and getting with another man and having more children by another father i'd suggest you give them your surname too.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Thu 08-Aug-13 21:24:05

but you know best because you need to defend the fact you gave your children the surname of the man you happened to have gotten pregnant to instead of your own.

I share the name of the man I happened to of got pregnant to - and i was married to him at the time - hence my DD is one of those DCs you approve of, whose family is nice and tidy and all have the same surname.

Except..... her Dad and I are divorced, and he's got remarried so DDs stepmum also shares her surname, and I haven't changed my name to my DPs, so he has a different name to the rest of us - but it's the same surname as his DCs and his exW's grin

I think Jeremy Kyle should spend a week in your village, swallow - he'd uncover all sorts of hidden skeletons that you don't know about! Human nature is what it is; if your village is so statistically different to the rest of the UK, it would have made headline news by now.

JodiLeighLeigh Thu 08-Aug-13 21:39:19

Swallowedafly - I have to say, I'm quite frankly flabbergasted that you know the relationship status of the parents of every single child at your son's school.

I'm even more amazed that according to you, there aren't any single parents. I can only assume that either it's an extremely small school or your son is home schooled. I doubt there's a school in the country that can boast they have no children on single parents. Certainly not one with more than 100 pupils.

I'm also going to gather from your own comments that you're quite a snob. Yes YOU may notice if a child has a different name to the parent, and YOU may judge the parent for that rather than acknowledging that relationships sometimes break. The rest of us live in the real world. It's 2013, not 1920. Many couples don't marry, and a huge number of women do not grow old with the father of their children.

Personally, I have no problem with women who have 3 kids with 3 different surnames (your example, not mine). I would only have a problem if the children weren't well looked after and loved. I can guarantee you, children would much rather be loved than have matching surnames.

Even in my dcs teeny weeny village school in ultra-conservative area there are a few single parents / blended families / unmarried parents.... can't believe there are no situations like that in SAF's school.

i am a single parent. i've never encountered another at the school in the two years i've been there.

it's not about families i approve of it's about a woman who is not married, pregnant to a man who already has children he's in csa drama over and who the woman doesn't see the relationship working out with and my opinion that in those circumstances she'd be mad to give the child his surname.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Fri 09-Aug-13 07:50:59

And I ask again - on what are you basing your assumption that the OPs DP is a deadbeat dad and has turned his back on his DCs?
The OP hasn't said what the issues are that are putting pressure on their relationship, other then they are linked to CSA and contact - I know how tough it was supporting my DP when he was seeking contact with his DCs and we weren't living together and I wasn't pregnant! Just because he was 'doing the right thing' didn't make it easy.

Why is this man a bad dad, and therefore the OPs DC is better off without his name?

did i say he was a deadbeat? i said there was csa drama which is as much as we know.

i haven't said he's a 'bad man' either.

in fact just re-read what i actually said rather than making up things i didn't say.

burberryqueen Fri 09-Aug-13 07:56:45

there genuinely aren't any single parents in my sons' school
where do you live, Stepford?

i am the only single mother i am aware of at my son's school. clearly i can't be sure of the intake behind us but i know there are none in my son's year or the year above and i've never known a single other one despite the fact i live locally.

no i don't live in stepford.

speaking of my situation - no idea why that begets such vitriol and sarcasm.

burberryqueen Fri 09-Aug-13 08:02:34

ah the only single mother you are aware of - that sounds a bit more likely tbh

ChinaCupsandSaucers Fri 09-Aug-13 09:19:46

swallow If dad was hands on, wanted 50:50 care, and is maybe even currently fighting to have primary care of his DCs, why on earth would the OP be better off giving the baby her name, not Dads?

Using your argument, if Dad is going to be an equal part of his DCs life, then surely the OPs DC will experience the same questioning and stigma if they don't share his name?

It's clear you have concluded that Dad isn't committed and that's why you think the OP should use her name and not consider her DPs views at all.

we've already been through this a million times and it seems silly to repeat the same reasons i, and others, have been through over and over.

most of my conclusion is based on the socio-political reality of the society we live in and what happens when parents split up in that reality.

QuintessentiallyOhDear Fri 09-Aug-13 09:35:37

Op I get you. You want to protect your future self and baby, you don't want a massi e custody battle. So you don't marry him, you don't put him on the birth certificate, and you don't give baby his surname.

Reading between your lines it is not so much IF it goes tits up but when.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Fri 09-Aug-13 09:48:04

Quin but the OPs DP can still apply to court for Parental Responsibility and contact with his DC.
It really does depend on what the issues with his older DCs are - is he an arse who can't be bothered with his DCs (in which case the OP may have to live with her decision to have a DC with him) or, is he a handson dad fighting for an equal role in his older DCs life, in which case the OP will struggle to exclude him from her DCs life irrespective of the name she decides on?

Only the OP knows as, regardless of the statistics about how many men walk away from their DCs, there are always exceptions to statistics - just as swallow has been at pains to point out!

Yonihadtoask Fri 09-Aug-13 09:55:27

I gave DS my surname. It was clear that his DF didn't want to marry me, so I was damned if I was giving exp the privilege of DS having his surname.

I don't understand why dc get the fathers surname when the parents aren't married. What a crock.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 09-Aug-13 09:58:43

Fwiw not putting him on the birth certificate will not prevent a residency Battle nor will it prevent him obtaining any of the rights being on it gives him.

If he wants to do so he can just take you to court for PR.

And in the great scheme of life it is highly unlikely for the csa issues to be caused by the pwc unless she's been fraudulent, its a cut and dried situation the amount they asses is the minimum you should pay but the max that can be enforced its a small % that gets reduced to accommodate your current situation.

The vast majority of csa issues are where the nrp has not bothered with paperwork job hopped to avoid it is lying about income or has to be forced to pay when they shouldn't have to be.

Its highly unusual for the csa to make a positive difference to the pwc when involved with a nrp who is willing fair amd does not mess about with payments.

or denies parentage and so is forced to take a paternity test.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Fri 09-Aug-13 11:56:46

swallowed Only the OP knows for sure - and I'm a naturally half-full person, compared to your half-empty!

bluebell8782 Fri 09-Aug-13 14:11:52

I gave DS my surname. It was clear that his DF didn't want to marry me, so I was damned if I was giving exp the privilege of DS having his surname. I don't understand why dc get the fathers surname when the parents aren't married. What a crock. - Yoni

And I don't understand the thought process of not having a discussion about it as equal decision makers. Seems the man has to have a ring on his finger to 'have the privilege' - talk about being bullied up the aisle.

'Sorry mate - the baby might be half yours but because you won't marry me you are less of a parent' hmm

It wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote - but that was the law back then so it must have been right....

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 09-Aug-13 18:33:11

Last time the figures were given (think it was about 1-2 years ago) only 7% of all the babies registered in the uk had no father listed. I would hazard a guess that the mothers of those babies had a very good reason to not add them or the fathers felt they had a very good reason not to attend the appointment.

Its not as if there is a wide spread denial of men going on.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 09-Aug-13 18:34:21

And given that the dad can actually turn up at the registration with a court order forcing the mother to name him he already has recourse to prevent it.

If he's not interested the mother has no way of doing so.

yes, you can't put the man's name on in his absence. so if he doesn't want it on there it doesn't happen. however if a woman leaves it off and he wants it on he can get it done retrospectively.

my glass isn't half empty and i wasn't suggesting anything about what the OPs partner had done actually - i was stating a reason that csa things can get dramatic or drawn out that had been left off of a list by another poster. you seem intent on accusing me of saying things i haven't.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Sat 10-Aug-13 09:20:14

i was stating a reason that csa things can get dramatic or drawn out that had been left off of a list by another poster

But there are hundreds of other reasons that you haven't mentioned - the most simplistic is that the NRP is refusing to pay, but here's a thought - what if the OPs DP is the RP and it is his exW refusal to pay CSA? That's likely to create tension with her DP, and put significant pressure on their household finances!

My DPs ex refused to confirm to the CSA that the DCs spent any overnights with him, that created drama, too! Malicious reports to HMRC, employers who don't pay over the Salary name it, it's possible!

You have repeatedly focused on the assumption that the OPs DP is the NRP, who is in the wrong, when all we know is that, like many blended families, the complications are putting pressure on the OPs relationship.

china you are projecting your shit with your dp's ex onto this scenario which isn't like that at all from what we can see.

you also seem to be redirecting a level of bile at me that surely has a more appropriate target? might explain why you keep saying i've said/believed/felt things that i haven't at all.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Sat 10-Aug-13 09:39:17

swallowed No more than you are - its just as likely that the OPs DP is resident parent as he is to deny his paternity.....are you projecting, too?

The OP has not given details of the reasons her relationship is rocky beyond saying they are having hassle involving his older DCs maintenance - you only need to check out the Stepparenting board to discover the imaginative ways in which the life of a reasonable, hands-on Dad can be disrupted by a malicious ex and how many relationships fail as a result.

Of course, it suits some people better to assume that the OP is a poor judge of character and has 'got pregnant' by a man who isn't doing the right thing by his older DCs.

and so it all comes out, predictably.

ChinaCupsandSaucers Sat 10-Aug-13 11:12:45

swallowed it's always nice to have a balance of stereotypical posters, don't you think? wink

Wicked SM vs Man hating single mum always makes for an interesting debate!

we could have our own little daily fail column.

bloody mn. wonder where all the energy we've channeled into this thread (from which the OP scarpered long ago) could have been used? <eyes laundry pile>

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now