Adoption vs PR stepchild

[Mamabooksbabynumber2]

Hi there, I posted this on the step families group and felt very misunderstood and so thought I would come in here instead. Dp would like to adopt dd. We have been together for 6 years and he has been her father from day dot when she was 6 months. They adore one another and he is a fantastic dad. We are not married. Biological father is not on birth certificate. What is the best way to make him her father legally? Please no references to how we should be married and commited legally to one another as that's all these ladies on the thread were hammering at me. But marriage isn't particularly important and we are are solid family and relationship and even if we ever split he would always be her dad. He does everything for her and we are really super lucky to have him. So what's the best way to make dp legally her father and how likely will it happen if we are not married and will we need to seek out non involved bio dad? Dd understands dp is not bio related. We are also trying for our second :)

I think you used to have to be married, but very much doubt that is the case these days.

Is this helpful in seeing the difference between adoption and getting PR? raydensolicitors.co.uk/blog/should-my-new-partner-adopt-my-children/

You don't say if any of the biological paternal relatives are involved? Is there any chance bio dad will step up in the future? I don't think they would need to contact bio dad if he doesn't have PR.

I, as an adopter, think adoption is a huge thing. It can be fantastic, giving permanence and security, and being clear who legally is who. However, as mum to a child who has an absent father, I don't think I would go for adoption in his case, no matter how great my new partner. Adoption severs all legal ties will the biological parent, and that is a big thing. In my younger child's case, the legal ties to birth family are certainly best severed to give the best chance for my child, but with profound effects on identity, etc.

I believe, but haven't tried the system, getting PR for extra people who are doing the parenting, is simpler, legally, than adoption. It may avoid opening a can of worms, causing adolescent identity problems, and is less final. It would mean that if you died, your partner would be able to exercise PR just as you have been doing, and cause no disruption, that your partner can consent to medical procedures, and that your partner had to consent to you taking your daughter abroad. But going for PR rather than adoption means your partner is not her legal 'dad'. Since bio dad does not have PR just now, I would research what sharing PR, either by an adoption or a PR order, means. If I didn't share PR for a child, I'm not sure I'd voluntarily give up sole PR. But then I have been in an abusive relationship, so that influences my thinking. Do you want to have to have your partner's permission to take your child abroad, which school, etc etc?

OP, I saw your other thread, and I'm not sure that you'll get different responses here. Most people on here are adoptive parents who know how serious and final a thing adoption is, and that it severs the legal relationship with the birth parent forever. You have the option of getting your partner PR of your daughter via marriage and paperwork without severing her relationship with her biological father and without giving your partner an inalienable lifelong role in her life, whatever happens in your relationship. A family court will want to know why adoption rather than your partner having PR is in your daughter's best interests, and you didn't seem to have an answer on your other thread, other than that you didn't want to get married. What will you say to your teenage DD, when she asks why?

Are we sure you would have to be married for your partner to gain PR?

That sounds archaic.

Could you ask a solicitor?

Mama it sounds like step-parent adoption is your best option if the birth dad is not, and does not want to be involved in your child's life. It's particularly important that her step-dad has PR should anything ever happen to you. It's also extremely important for your child's sense of identity.

You don't have to be married. If you go on the GOV.UK website and look up adoption the guidance is pretty straight forward on who can adopt.

If you scroll down the adoption section on MN you'll see several recent threads on this issue.

No you don't have to be married to adopt.

But you would be mad to try for a baby and give up work and be a SAHM or go part time or take maternity leave or otherwise jeopardise your career to have a baby with someone who doesn't have any legal link to you.

It's not about a wedding. It's about cold hard cash and security for yu R children - pensions, earnings, child support, savings , wills .

By all means don't get married - just put most of the same legal protections in place. Own half the house, save the same amount into both pensions, both take the same time off work and pay for childcare., make wills, amend life insurance policies.

If he's as commmited to you as you say , he won't have a problem with it.

Kr1stina- unless the OP earns far more than her partner, and has a good mat package, and the house is already 'hers' in her name?

I'm in a career where I earn more part time than many would earn full time, own my house, have generous leave for children. There is no way I would risk that by getting married to anyone lower earning who didn't own as much property... it's cold hard cash, and security for my children.

But there's also no way I'd be giving PR of my child to anyone, either, no matter how involved they'd been so far, so I accept perhaps I'm unconventional on these points.

Ain't no man getting half my pension, or stopping us holidaying abroad after a split. No way.

Yeah, chilled. But this isn't about you and your situation, it's about the OP. Who plans to get married sometime when she can afford it. So she must be pretty hard up if she can't afford £100.

So I'm guessing that she doesn't have a large pension and savings pot, properties and a well paid career.

And her main reason to adopt is so that she can change her first childs name to her partners and she will give her next child her partners surname too.

And she is convinced that if she and her partner split, he will continue to parent and support her child, with whom he has no legal or biological relationship.

And she thinks that marriage is piece of paper but adoption isn't.

All of these things suggest to me that she doesn't have a clear grasp of the legal and financial implations of either marriage, separation or adoption

OP, I'm sorry that I'm not saying what you want. But you really MUST get informed about these legal and financial matter and sort out thing between you and your partner BEFORE you conceive a baby with him, let alone before you pursue an adoption order.

Fair point!

I just hate it when I see people posting "You would be a mug to have children without being married!" Because it's not always true!

mama I think your thread has been a bit hijacked. Will PM you

Yes it appears to have been. Thanks crisps.

I don't think it has been hijacked.

If OP wants to be married, but 'can't afford it', then she probably can't afford adoption.

Some people confuse MN with a free legal advice / question and answer service . They want people to give them the exact advice they want in the way they want it, when they want it. For free of course.

They get annoyed when people raise other pertinent issues, especially when these questions are about the welfare of someone apart from themselves , such as a child.

The OP got equallly annoyed at posters on the step parenting board who asked why adoption and not PR and why this was in her child's best interest.

Which are exactly the kinds of issues that a social worker and a court will consider.

OP I suggest that you go to a solicitor, you may find their advice more suitable. Good luck.