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

This.
With bells on.

Agree with you thoroughly OP. Lots of women - especially on here - seem to enjoy the power trip that comes with being able to deny a child their father.

Is @HorsePeopleAreStablePeople really advocating for rapists to be named on birth certs?

Child support is to support the child.

Why should a child be denied the financial support to which s/he is legally entitled just because the father is an unsuitable candidate for parental responsibility?

The child still has needs- food, clothing, toys even if a man isn’t fit to be a parent.

Have you seen the abysmal rates of prosecution for rape and domestic violence? Do you genuinely think the authorities get this stuff right?

If the “father” of my baby was a danger to me and therefore very likely to my child, I would do absolutely anything lawful to protect my child - of which not naming the abuser/rapist on the birth certificate is one. Are you really saying you wouldn’t?

Even if he's abusive?

A mother can’t just put a man’s name on a birth cert. He either has to go with her to register the birth or a legal document, a statutory acknowledgment of parentage has to be produced.

Seems a strange hill for a woman to choose to die on on a website mainly used by other woman the OPs argument
Always heard this kind of viewpoint from those lovely MRA types

Approved further fixing @Naunet

Not at all. I am suggesting a woman shouldn't unilaterally decide a father can't have parental rights. If a man is a danger to his child his rights should be revoked by the authorities, as is the case for mothers too.

She can't. It's nigh on impossible to block a man being added to the cert if he goes through the process.

She can decide that he has to make an appointment, and sort out the process for adding him off his own back... But she can't stop him having parental rights if he gets off his backside and sorts it (which most guys not on the birth certificate don't bother doing).

Well you already know she can’t unilaterally decide that, so what exactly do you mean?

If a man is a danger to his child his rights should be revoked by the authorities, as is the case for mothers too.

No.

Firstly, men use the baby to have power over the mum. That means that a man who is a danger to the mother shouldn't have the means to control her. Not solely the child.

Secondly, have a little Google of the conviction rate for rape. Just to pick one crime men get away with 99 times out of a hundred. Think about how likely a conviction is for a man in a relationship with his victim. It is almost impossible to get a conviction. A woman has to ask her rapist's permission to take her child on holiday because he's on the BC? Fuck that.

Third, VAWG is not taken remotely seriously. Risk management should be at a very very different level to criminal conviction. For example, if you want to convict a man of CSA, you need to reach 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Would you let someone who is 'probably' a CS offender babysit? Just because he didn't reach the level of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? I don't think you would.

The reality is that men who are a risk to women and children get away with it all the time. And this is one small thing women can suggest to other women to protect them. And you, a woman, can only think of the man in all this. Talk about internalised misogyny.

If a convicted rapist can keep parental
responsibility I doubt the courts would be all that interested in sorting out your common or garden controlling wanker OP

You kind of are though.

You talk endlessly about rights. But not responsibility.

what about the shitty mothers who automatically get parental rights? That's not fair? It should be automatic for both

What Mothers automatically get, is responsibility.

Which is what Father's frequently dodge.

Do a new post about 'parental responsibility'. That would be much more thoughtful than that's not fair.

You have no idea how the court system works do you?
Abusive men are given access all the time.

It is the process and it is absurd. Its the reason I haven't been able to claim CMS. Because, to avoid paying maintenance he would request a DNA test to be added seeking 50:50. As long as I don't seek maintenance, he has no interest in being on BC. It's a crazy system, he still has control over me.

You only have to read the papers and threads on here
A poor woman recently had to go to court to get parental responsibility removed from a man convicted of raping her.
The courts still initially wanted to allow a man who had raped the mother of his child to see and spend time with that child
But yeah it's the men that need helping and protecting..

The naïveté in this sentence 🙄🙄

That is already the process, if the man states he is not that Dad. Edited: Sorry to claim CMS, not to be added to the BC and given PR.

You seem to be entirely centering men in your weak argument op, completely ignoring the very real reasons why vulnerable pregnant or just post birth women do not facilitate making the fathers of their children lives easier whilst leaving themselves and their newborns open to more instances of harm.

You seem to ignore the fact that men often only start campaigns of abuse when they impregnant a woman.

You are worrying about the wrong thing here.

By rights ordained by biology you not only take on ALL risks of pregnancy and birth alone but you also would not ever be kept from being named on your child's birth certificate ( if you are a woman ).

If you are the father and are unmarried then you can have the same process by doing some paperwork and a potential DNA test at no extra risk and for reassurance the child is actually yours.

Does the child deserve to be abused or neglected? Does the child deserve to be taken by their dad only because it hurts their mum? You are ignoring the fact that a determined dad goes to court and gets added, often in the case of abusive men this earns the mum a few months of safety and knowing they can protect their child and care for them 100% through the youngest and most vulnerable period (don’t get me wrong, all childhood is vulnerable, but any protection you can get makes a difference and tiny newborns are very fragile)

Can I fix it further:

If a man's name is not on the birth certificate by her both parents choice, can she still milk him for support? is the baby still entitled to financial support?

It’s by his own choice too, remember @JudgeJ, unless you’re going to be another one pretending there isn’t an easy process for men already in place so they can add their name to the BC.

You do understand that there are abusive men everywhere that do not have a criminal record? Do you know how low the threshold is for a man WITH a criminal record to gain access to a child?

This is an absurd suggestion

Your putting way to much faith in the 'authorities'