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

No lovey, it didn't need correcting! If she is not willing to acknowledge a man as the father of his child then she shouldn't expect anything else from him.

But if the man wanted to and wanted to be a decent partner and support the mother, they could go together or in the case of being away from the mother - it’s a simple form to fill in to be added and applied.

I would think that should be easy for him - no?

I was raped OP - I took the morning after pill after sustained assault, but a week later tested pregnant despite the morning after pill. I then had a termination - I chose this action but others after a rape choose to continue. Why the hell would I put a rapist’s name down? If I had continued I would have left it blank

My ex did a runner when i fell pregnant. Literally moved out of the area. I couldn't put him on the birth certificate so ds had the blank space.
A few yrs later my (now)dh wanted to adopt my ds and we had to try and find him to get his permission (told by the court) Just because thry are not on the birth certificate does not mean they do not have rights.

Except that putting the father on the BC gives him rights. No responsibility. He gains rights that can be really detrimental to mother and child where he dies not have their best interests at heart.

How do you balance this with the value of ‘your heritage is white male from the NE with a history of violent rape’ as adding value to a child’s life? For example?

When certain people talk about their “right” to see their child it makes me uncomfortable. When a mother stops the father from seeing them it’s for a good reason and the child’s right to well-being comes above the fathers “right” to play families

10 o'clock news soon OP. Given what will be the lead story you may want to consider how appropriate starting this thread today was. Pretty bloody shameful.

Yep and it’s cos of people with attitudes like the pp:

All those “nasty ex wives” trying their very best to take kids away from “good loving fathers”, “just to be vindictive.”

Let's discuss the practicalities here.

Not much use DNA testing a baby for proof of paternity unless you're also testing anyone who might be the dad too. That realistically means anyone a mother names as a possibility. How do you think this would be paid for, and do you envisage coercive powers being used against the men who don't want to provide their DNA to the state? What are we going to do when there are inevitably mistakes?

I don't agree with that. DNA testing is just another way to abuse women, it's a suggestion that women are all liars and shouldnt' expect to be believed or that somehow we are all wanton harlots out there tempting all and sundry and need to be reined in.

My ex used the threat of DNA testing as a means to abuse me - told the CSA our children weren't his. Put me through having to have a conversation with a stranger on the phone essentially about my sex life and how I knew that the children were definitely my ex's. Then, after having no choice but to agree to testing if I wanted to claim maintenance (which he's never paid), my ex didn't live up to his side of the bargain and didn't bother sending in his sample. Because why would he fork out £hundreds to find out something he already knew?! That would've been too easy. Instead, he told a court that he wasn't our children's father and wanted a DNA test. Fortunately, a (male) judge listened to my solicitor about what had happened with the CSA and told him to sod off. Not in those words, exactly....! But of course his point there was to tell the courts that I was somehow not to be trusted, less than decent, not quite a good enough mum. He didn't get what he wanted - frankly he wasn't clever enough and it was easy enough to sweep up his trail of crumbs behind him with the truth....I got what I wanted in court which, many years later, I believe was in my children's best interests. They agree too. But it was the ex's behaviour that stopped it being the 50/50 he wanted. Someone with half a brain would be able to play the system way better than he did.

Mandatory DNA testing is not the way forward.

Fathers for justice
pmsl

Ah god OP you crack me up
you really do
bless

I think it's more wrong to guess at who the father is.

Mandatory DNA tests for all babies.

Also fathers for justice is a known front for abusive scumbags

I think you only have to read their headlines on their website to realise this.

However, that doesn't mean that there aren't men out there who are unfairly denied access to their children and it isn't good enough, in my opinion, to just say they need to take it to court (because that takes money and knowledge and requires that you're not so ground down and fed up that you can work your way through the process which is long and difficult and, at times, humilliating - that was my experience, as a mother, who's ex attempted to make it so I never saw our children). The misogyny in the system is....it's just there, but there are still men who struggle and there are still children who don't see their dads because an ex is vindictive and has played the system well. None of that takes away from the very many women forced to face their abusers on a regular basis doing handovers as well as the forced contact 'for the sake of the children' through the phone/text/emails, the stalking, the looking in the bins (yes, really!), or even using the fact that you've painted the door as some kind of evidence that the children are being abused.

I don't have answers. But there are children being shafted by at least one of their parents all over the place. I wish it were easier to get to the truth and to get those children both their parents in their lives without hassle and upset and stress. I don't think that will be acheived by always believing women. Nearly always. But not always.

But what if a court ordered contact with him?

And what if your capability to protect your daughter was impeded by the fact that, if you denied him contact, you'd be at risk of accusations of parental alienation?

What if your reports were considered problematic and you weren't believed or taken seriously?

And what if that meant your daughter could he removed from your care and placed with him?

There is a woman who posts on here who is in that exact situation at the moment.

This is true. The opinions of people who know things have higher value than the opinions of people who don't, but haven't let that stop them wading in anyway.

my assessment based on facts is certainly worth more than your half baked opinions on a subject you clearly know very little about

Not at all. I am suggesting a woman shouldn't unilaterally decide a father can't have parental rights.

There's no such thing as 'parental rights'. No parent has 'rights' only responsibilities. That what the R stand for.

Then I have no idea why you care such about their rights, but it is very sad.

Some paedophiles haven't had their 'rights' revoked. It is not an easy thing to do.
What you don't seem to want to hear is that not everyone is you, has your circumstances or your husband/father of your offspring.
It would be fabulous for all concerned if there were no abusive/wastrel/disappearing fathers but unfortunately there are, and these men are cunts.
These fathers have either not been around at all, were abusive during the relationship/pregnancy or not shown up for the registering of the birth.
In which of these circumstances do you believe 'wimmin' should put 'menz rights' first, over and above their own safety and the wellbeing of their child?

Also fathers for justice is a known front for abusive scumbags

Exactly this.

Because it’s like a white person caring about “white people’s rights”. White lives matter. Get it? Fathers for justice were an appalling movement and no doubt responsible for the awful stuff that goes on in family courts today that puts women and children at such risk.

OP you are very naive to assume that the courts will stop an abusive father from seeing his child. You only have to read some of the threads on here where men use the Family Court to carry on their abuse of their wife/partner or even the child.

Even where there has been physical abuse it is rare for the court to remove parental responsibility. There was a thread on here recently where a mother had to spend thousands of pounds having parental responsibility removed and I think the father might even have been in prison.

When you are in a loving relationship with the father of your child it is hard to imagine how a man can use his children to carry on abuse.

^ this.

Some parents lose parental responsibility for a range of reasons and some fathers can be a danger to their children. Men are known to be more dangerous towards women and children than women are. So to me it's important that women have the ability to make that choice in necessary circumstances. (Which men can always contest). Given that domestic abuse is more likely to affect women I think it's also important that this isn't exploited by men to further weaponise children against their mother.

However I do feel children should have access to information (appropriate for their age and level of understanding) as to who their father is for medical reasons as well as understanding who they are and their journey as a person through childhood. So to me, there should be a reason given as to why its being left off. Naturally that reason may be father unknown...