To think it's wrong to refuse to put a father on the birth certificate

As other posters have said.. mothers also cannot put the fathers name on the BC if they’re unmarried. He actually has to be there in person.

I don’t have a father named on my BC. It’s had no impact on my life in any way shape or form.

Id rather have it blank than have the sperm donors name who couldn’t be arsed to give a shit for the last 40 odd years of my life.

Some fathers are abusive, make life very difficult for the mother and are complete deadbeats.. I wouldn’t want them on my BC either if that was my situation.

Presumably OP thinks those men should be forced to put their name on, right OP? Maybe police go and track him down and then force him to sign?

I think it’s quite understandable if the father is dangerous or abusive. If I had a child who was the result of rape or I was being abused I wouldn’t trust this person with access to my child. It would make it easier for them to get at the child.

A woman was in the newspaper a few years back, her pedophile (he was really really awful) ex kept dragging her through the courts to try to get access to their daughters. She was utterly skint because she was having to fight him relentlessly. It is sometimes very much in the interests of the child to put a few stumbling blocks between them and their father.

Are you a mother OP?

Thank God someone is finally thinking about men and their rights. Now perhaps finally you can do something about the £3.7 billion owed in unpaid child support.

@KeyWorker exactly this.

If men want the automatic right to have their name on their children's birth certificates they can assure this by being married to the mother of said children.

Lots of men don't want to do that, they want to fuck around and get mad when they find out.

I don't think it's wrong at all and in fact is a great idea if the father is abusive.

It's got nothing to do with parental rights...it's about the child. Once on the birth certificate the father has legal parental responsibility. That's enough reason to leave them off it if they are a abusive/risk to the mother or child. It's not a permanent thing. They can be added at their request following a DNA test if they are interested in being in the child's life. Unfortunately, many aren't and consider it a lucky escape. I think it is so important to have this option.

The fundamental difference here is that babies literally grow inside and then come out from their mother's bodies... So a father can be absent in a way a mother simply can't.

For a mother to no longer have a relationship with her baby would involve a separation. A father can, from the moment of his ejaculation have nothing further to do with "his" baby. No relationship with his baby, no knowledge even. No separation is required for this, it's actually the default state of being - the father has to establish a relationship with his baby through his actions before and after birth.

It might not be fair, but it is literally our nature / biology.

My father refused to be on mine for this reason. Didn't want to have to pay CM.

If a father could refuse rights to the mother there would be uproar and rightly so, so why isn't it the same when women deny fathers their rights?

Jeez, if the father wants to carry the bigger inside him for 9 months then push him or her out of his genitals, I might be more sympathetic to this argument. There’s hardly parity when a woman has just given birth, is there?!

If a father is wanting to be an active part of a babies life it is wrong in my opinion to make them go to court, however if a father has left and isn't pulling their weight I wouldn't suggest that they are chased to put their name on the certificate

If unmarried.

Am I wrong …. In UK, father has to be present at registry to be on birth certificate ? It’s not simply “naming” him.

In most cases where a woman chooses to or is advised to leave a man off the BC he has already shown himself to be neglectful, unloving, unsupportive or uninterested. Or abusive.

Being on the BC does not, sadly, ensure that men show any responsibility or love but what it does do is hand an abusive man a means to control and impede the mother… who is doing all the parenting.

You can tell a child all about their Dad, photos, identity, they can even be in contact with their Dad without being on the BC.

If an abusive man wants to block you moving house, going abroad on holiday, choosing the most suitable school etc make him work for it by going to court. Don’t hand him a tool of cj from on a plate.

@5128gap

<applauds> Brava.

Its an issue because someone has noticed one of the very very rare situations where the ease, wishes and convenience of men is not immediately apparent as the driving principle of a process. So shocking is this, that some people go into a tailspin at a glitch in the natural order, and select it as the equalities issues most in need of their attention. Because its not like there's any more urgent ones....

Parents don’t have rights, they have responsibilities.

There is a legal process for unmarried men to follow if they want PR for their child.

"...sometimes no reason at all". Link to this thread, please.

It’s parental responsibility not rights.
All the father has to do is get off his backside, and apply to court to be added.

99.9% of women on MN who are advised not to invite the unmarried partner or ex partner to register the child are because the man is abusive.

Realistically, you have to be there to register the birth and go on the birth certificate. Most mothers are because they are doing all the work of caring for the baby. My one friend who doesn’t have her dd’s father on her birth certificate didn’t add him because he wasn’t there. He walked out when she was 3 months pregnant and while his parents see her, he’s never met his daughter. He pays CM, does not dispute she’s his child. Just didn’t want to know her. She’s 12 now. 🤷🏻‍♀️ You can’t make someone be a father.

In circumstances of rape or abuse then of course, it's absolutely different.

But I agree with the OP when it's rolled out on MN as a viable option for any old reason (and sometimes for no reason at all). A child has every right to know who their parents are, and have a complete and accurate record of their birth. Denying them that simply because the Mother & Fathers relationship has failed, or there never was one, is not in the best interests of the child.