Advanced search


(12 Posts)
JoshuasMummy Thu 17-Mar-05 10:07:06


I am really concerned about something my partner said to me the other day. We have an 8 week old son and when we registered him, we used my partners surname (we are not married). The registrar did say, that doing this would give my partner full parental rights, which was fine by me as i feel he is entitled to this.
But my partner turned round the other day and said that IF we were to split up (we have no intention of this!) before we are married, that I would have no rights to our son, as I agreed when we registered him?!
We did argue over this a bit, but I left it as him thinking he was right.

PLEASE tell me that he is wrong and if we were to split up, he wouldnt get my son automatically as I have no parental rights??


tarantula Thu 17-Mar-05 10:12:10

No It doesnt mean that at all. Just means he has the right to see his sons school records and stuff like that. Actually doesnt give him a huge amount of rights at all really

tarantula Thu 17-Mar-05 10:13:31

Sure other people will be able to tell you more tho and point you in the direction of where you can look into this

JoshuasMummy Thu 17-Mar-05 10:13:58

Thank God for that! Thankyou!

As you can imagine, when he first said that i felt so sick! Thought what had I done!! But you've cleared that up! Thank You! :-)

rickman Thu 17-Mar-05 10:14:00

Message withdrawn

Freckle Thu 17-Mar-05 10:14:11

The biological mother of a child has automatic parental rights. The only thing that registering the child with your partner present (whether you use his surname or not) does is to confer parental rights on your partner. The biological father of a child does not have automatic parental rights unless the parties are married or he is present when the birth is registered.

Freckle Thu 17-Mar-05 10:15:43

Actually, correct that. It confers parental responsibility not parental rights (although many people are more interested in rights and not responsibilities).

HappyDaddy Thu 17-Mar-05 11:53:05

Even with his name he has virtually no rights, if it gets disputed. As a judge happily reminded me.

HappyDaddy Thu 17-Mar-05 11:54:55

Freckle that's correct. I have the parental responsibilty to provide for my child (fair enough). I don't have the right to see her or object if my ex decided to move abroad if she felt like it.

horseshoe Thu 17-Mar-05 14:09:58

Dont mean to Hijack this thread but everyone is right....Mummy has main rights.

I'm currently doing a will and I was told that because DP and I are not married.....even though he is on the birth cert and has parental rights...If I was to die.....he would not automatically get custody....even if we were living together when I went....If another family member contested it, and could prove they could provide better care....the courts in theory could grant custody to them...Yet this wouldn't happen if DP passed away...I would automatically get custody!!!!

wheres the sense in that!!!!!! will says otherwise now.

Caligula Thu 17-Mar-05 14:20:36

Is that true HappyDaddY? I know someone French who has been prevented from going back to Paris by her ex (where her family and support network are) because he doesn't want his child to be taken out of the country.

And in the Archers (where I get all my information from ) Roy stopped mad Kate taking Phoebe to South Africa, didn't he?

I think it may depend on which judge you get.

HappyDaddy Thu 17-Mar-05 23:33:42

If she just took him to France, he wouldn't be able to force her to bring him back.

Don't listen to the archers, sorry.

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: