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

You do understand don’t you that there are reasons why not?

My DD’s father knew she existed but we weren’t married and thus he had to consent and be there to be on the certificate - he didn’t.

if he is absent during pregnancy why would the woman agree he can have an immediate parental right without committing to at least wanting him to show up and be consistent first!

what about women who have been attacked or later find out the father is married, drunk, liar etc easier to add them less easy to take them off

A father being named on the birth certificate means absolutely nothing in terms of medical records. My father is not on my birth certificate but even if he had been put on I'd still know nothing about that side of my genetic inheritance. Yeah it's not ideal, I could be genetically predisposed to anything and I am completely ignorant, but it's better than a man being forced back into our lives who is tied to so many horrible memories for everyone concerned.

If you hang around here long enough there will be a new post by a woman who is at the end of her tether because an abusive ex is using their shared child to control her. It is absolutely correct that every woman who has a child to a man with previous form for ANY type of abuse uses any and all tools at her disposal to try and prevent him from taking an interest in and gaining access to the child. Not putting him on the birth certificate is just one of those and it does deter some of these men so for me it's worth it.

What a naive and stupid thing to post.

My biggest regret in life was to put my child's father on the birth certificate. Mine & DD's life would have been so much easier & happier.

Does giving up your body for 9 months not count as ‘earning’ anything?

You seem to be objecting to something which you have made up a story about how it works, because it just doesn't work the way that you're suggesting it does.

Firstly there is no such thing as "parental rights". Only parental responsibility.

Secondly, not being on the birth certificate does not deny somebody parental responsibility. All he has to do is basically announce his parenthood to the local court and it is done. If the mother denies that he is the father or refuses to sign the document confirming it, he is allowed to apply directly to the court and a DNA test is one way this can be proven.

Thirdly, if you want the father to be named on the birth cert and you are not married to him then he has to come with you physically to the appointment. So it is hardly "not letting him" be on it. If you're not in a close relationship with the father then the default position is that it is unlikely he will be named on the birth cert, because of the difficulty in arranging the appointment.

Fourthly, not being named on the birth cert does not mean that the father is classed as unknown, and a birth certificate is not the only way that a child can get information about their birth and heritage.

Fifth, parental responsibility does not really grant many rights. It doesn't mean that the parent is entitled to have contact with their child, unless this is considered to be in the child's best interest. Although "all" parents with PR are supposed to be consulted in the event of major decisions, in practice this really only comes into play if the major decision is something like a name change which has to go through court. A parent (e.g. a mother) is allowed to make minor/everyday decisions without the input of the other parent.

(This is all taken from gov website).

And how would that work in practice do you suppose? A woman gives birth to a baby and from the time the cord is cut, until such time she proves herself sufficiently unshitty to have parental responsibility (proves to whom? And what form of proof would she give?) who will be responsible for her child? The midwife? The care system?
It would be awfully time consuming and expensive to implement wouldn't it? I'm not sure many people would think it worth it just so that men can be equal to women in this one thing. Especially when they have the advantage over women in pretty much everything else, so don't do too badly overall.

An unmarried mother cannot add a father to the birth certificate @HorsePeopleAreStablePeople

Well then fathers could get away with not paying maintenance just by refusing to attend the appointment.

Fundamentally this is not how birth certificates work in this country. The father needs to be there to be on the birth certificate unless you are married, so it's much more of an option in system than you seem to understand it as.

Also, what does who is on your birth certificate have to do with your family or heritage? It's very easy to tell a child who their father is without them being on the birth certificate. Just like you know your extended family by other means.

I think that when posters advise doing it they seem to imply that not putting the father on the bc means he can never be involved when if a man wants to be, and this could equally be because of control, he can just go to court.

I do think though that a woman should only be able to claim maintenance if the father is on the bc.

That's not fair?

Mothers have to go through the life-threatening process of pregnancy and birth. THAT'S not fair. Biology isn't.

And lest we forget; you're your mother's baby, you're your father's maybe. Biology again.

The mother earns it by being pregnant, giving birth and turning up to the registration appointment.

The father earns it by having sex, and turning up to the registration appointment. Or having sex, and applying for declaration of parentage.

They can’t be equal, because only one parent gets pregnant…

Unmarried parents need to both be present when registering the baby in order for both names to be put on the birth certificate. If he isn't at the appointment he can't be added to the birth certificate

Many men don't see that rights come with responsibilities.

So you think a child abuser should have parental responsibility? There are abusive men everywhere. A birth certificate is more than a Dad's name on a piece of paper. It gives the man a right to take the child and the police would not get involved until court have decided the child should be returned to the mother. It is easy to get your name added and be given parental rights, by going to court. If a man cannot be bothered to do that then why not?

Interesting how women are being blamed for men not being on the BC.

In RL I’ve seen many cases where ‘dad’ simply didn’t turn up…

This.

And if men are kind, committed, involved, safe and present, no one suggests not putting them on there.

Once men put in the effort to be those things, and judge and exclude men who don't, maybe we'll all have enough energy to defend men's rights.

I agree. A child should know who their biological parents are, both of them.

There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, the legal reason why an unmarried father isn't named on the birth certificate if he doesn't attend the appointment is to protect him. Otherwise a woman could name literally any man as the father of her baby, without his knowledge, and he'd have parental responsibility. If he believes he is the father of the baby and he wants parental responsibility, he can get himself added on later.

The mother, on the other hand, is known to be the mother because the hospital notes will confirm that she is the one who gave birth to the baby, and short of giving her baby up for adoption, she doesn't actually get to choose whether she has parental responsibility or not. (But then I suppose the father doesn't get to choose whether she keeps the baby or not, so it's swings and roundabouts there.)

Secondly, if a father has parental responsibility, the mother is greatly restricted in what she can do. She can't move away from where she is living unless her baby's father consents. So if she has moved to be near him, they break up, she has no right to any of her assets or any support from him at all other than meagre child support, but he's on the birth certificate, he can stop her from moving back in with her mum 100 miles away, or moving back to her home town where her family can help with childcare. He can refuse consent to the child receiving recommended vaccinations. He can refuse to let her take the child on holiday. If the mother is from another country and her family live in her home country, he can essentially stop her from taking her child to visit their family. Why should an essentially absent parent have that kind of power?

When you're the one left literally holding the baby, you need to be able to do what works for you and not be dictated to by your child's Disney dad.

None of that requires the father to be on the birth certificate.

The reality of a birth certificate in the modern day is that its primary function is as the document which grants Parental Responsibility. Some parents exercise this responsibly, some irresponsibly, some use it to abuse. Mothers and fathers are different. The birth mother just has to be on there, unless she dumps the baby at birth, the father has a different relationship.

Nah, one's very obviously the parent because the child has left her body. The other one is up for debate, whether it's because he doesn't want anything official to make him responsible for maintenance, is convinced that because she's left him that she's been sleeping around or because he's an abusive prick who would put her at risk, put the child at risk or just enjoy the feeling of controlling her for the next eighteen years.

If the man is named then a rapist or abuser can dictate all sorts of terms from location to access. When abuse in relationships is equally distributed between the sexes and both sexes injure, kill and rape similar quantities of victims then it might be worth revising but until then it offers a modicum of protection.

No i dont agree. The vast majority of women who leave a child of their birth certificate do so for good reasons. You can still tell a child who their father is without having to tangle yourself legally with him.

Because when you have a controlling, coercive gas lighting, petty fucking abusive arsehole in your life that will go out of their way to make the rest of your life a misery, and then because of baby and being on birth certificate, will always wheedle their way into your life and continue that way and also decides to threaten you, intimate you and use the baby/child as a pawn in their mind fucking games, for years and years. Threatening to remove the child, refusing to give them back, demanding you do this, that, the other, otherwise you'll never see your child again, they hit and abuse your child, but still continue to have access and gloat in your face about how you are a fucking useless mother and you can do nothing to stop them... etc etc etc.

You might think twice about putting them in the BC

How is having a father's name on a birth certificate going to help with medical records? I'm also sure that if a child needs to know about their father the mother is in a pretty good position to tell them.

Birth certificates don't say father: John Smith, blonde hair, quite tall, average intelligence with family history of early onset dementia.

You also realise OP that if the father doesn't turn up to the registration he is not allowed to be added even if the mother wants it?