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

Getting added to a birth certificate later is not a difficult process thanks to DNA. You should be more angry about the NRP not paying child maintenance rather than this issue

This. Very, very little effort. So why is it an issue?

The problem with this is that putting the man on the BC gives him joint parental rights. This can cause all kinds of problems. It could mean he can get a passport and stop the mum getting one, for example.

As a pp has said, with rights come responsibilities.

Can can know all that without him being on the bc

Men are perfectly capable of getting their name to the birth certificate, they just have to put a little effort in. Men having to do a little admin work is really not the end of the world.

I tell people to register the baby alone when the ex is abusive and likely to bully the mum into a name that she doesn’t want. (The abusers seem to always want their surname)

I say it for the sake of the safety of mum, baby and registrar at the appointment - not because I think that dad should have his rights prevented. I don’t think that being on the birth certificate is a father’s right- I would argue that it’s more of the child’s right tbh. If dad is the type to kick off at the appointment then he shouldn’t be there - especially if he’s not paying child maintenance or hasn’t been involved during pregnancy if needed (eg helping with older kids that the couple have )

I think it can be quite stigmatising for the child not to have the father recorded on the birth certificate.

I've always been surprised to see this recommended on MN. I'm also sure the father still has responsibility (for CSM) should the mother submit a claim regardless of being on the birth cert. If the bio father accepts paternity he will be expected to pay and if a DNA test is needed he will be pursued legally. Years ago I used to interview benefit recipients who didn't want to chase for maintenance as they thought this would give the bio father some right of access (it didn't). Often they had chosen not to put the bio father on the birth cert (sometimes for very good reasons) or he had refused to do it. Bloody nightmare.

I'm pretty sure the bio father has parental rights should they wish to pursue them - though this may have to be via courts and vary across England & Wales law vs. Scots law and depend on what's deemed best for the child by the court - suppose it will depend if they have formed any relationship with child.

Would be interesting to look up the legal position and to see if it's ever changed over the years.

And what challenge do you think the registry office should have given you? Would you have preferred if the midwife brought it up at every appointment, essentially shaming you for having a baby out of wedlock? I thought we had left this sort of judgement behind in the 1950s.

There's clearly a lot about life you don't understand.

All the man has to do is take it to court and ask for a DNA test, seems reasonable to me.

As someone who has the (then shameful, early 60s) line in the father box on my birth certificate, I should agree (I did insist on naming him on my marriage certificate after explaining and it was accepted)

However, I have enough imagination to know why sometimes it is best for automatic paternal rights not to be given.

I think it makes perfect sense. If you want parental responsibility you should step up and persue it. Why in the game of god would you want to be beholden to someone who isn't even arsed to do that. Essentially it's entirely up to the man whether he wants to be on it or not.

A lot of the time that people recommend doing it I think they are misguided, but many times there are very good reasons to leave fathers off the birth certificate, because lots of fathers are coercive and controlling and would misuse their parental responsibility to harm the child or the mother.

Good point. It's not the mum leaving him off it's him not being arsed/around to be added.

Because its not usually a decision a woman takes lightly. Think about it. Why would a woman want to bring her child up without the financial and practical input of a decent co parent if it was a viable option? So when a woman chooses to forego this by not naming him, she will have her reasons, and these are almost always based on least harm to her child. Which should always be a guiding principle and priotised way ahead of being 'fair' to a man.

Women are very vulnerable at that time and if they feel the need to make themselves feel safer by keeping the dad at arms length for a while, I accept their decision.

no one is being denied their rights

Even if left off the BC it’s a simple process for a father who wants to go on the BC to do so. But doing so usually means being liable for CM so many don’t bother.

If unmarried, the mum just can't put him on. He has to go to the register office himself.

It also means a mum doesn't have to explain to a child their dad is a convicted murderer/child abuser/whatever nasty scum until the child is ready

I get your point…but.

Most of the time it’s not about “refusing” it’s about not actively doing it. If parents aren’t married, then the father has to turn up to the appointment. I don’t think it’s the mother’s responsibility to ensure he is there.

Secondly, the mother cannot stand in the father’s way. If she registers the child without him, he can go to court to be recognised.

So to me it’s more: if the father can’t be bothered to take the steps necessary to have PR, should he really be entrusted with it?

That’s leaving out the fact that when this subject comes up it’s normally in circumstances of abusive or just plain awful men.

He could have challenged you though, if he wanted. He could have gone to court and gone through the process to have himself added.

It wasn't the midwife's place to challenge you when she has no idea of the circumstances of why you'd said it was only you.

If a man wants to be added there is a process for that. If a woman was raped I don't see why she should be forced to name her rapist on the birth certificate.

It's a very simple process for a man to have himself added to their child's birth certificate.

I've never known a woman not add the father simply out of spite. If a woman has a reason for it it's normally a good one.

Men who are unmarried and who don't want to be on the certificate are protected by the fact women can't add them without their permission so I'm not going to cry over a few men who behave so shitty the mother resorts to leaving them to have themselves added through the court.

The fact so few men go through the court system to be added is very telling.