People using child PR as a weapon?

[marantha]

AIBU to think that there is a growing trend for mothers who are separated/divorced from child/children's biological father to get them 'adopted' formally by their new partner/husband and that -unless natural father a COMPLETE monster/deceased this is wrong?
It does seem to me that it is selfish of the mother to change child's status in this way and it is often about HER wants to create new family unit and not the child.
Also, are we not in danger of creating a society where people mistakenly (obviously) end up sleeping with half-siblings because nobody knows who is who anymore?
Sounds melodramatic, I know. But when children have different surname to their siblings it's a real possibility (why I think it is best to adhere to the old-fashioned system of child taking father's name. Not sexism-if the traditional system was that the kids got mums' name I'd advocate that)

It is wrong, children only ever have one father, not two. They should only ever call one man dad and that is their real dad.

I cannot abide women who use the if you don't give me any money you aren't seeing the kids malarky.

I was in an abusive relationship with my childrens father but never stopped him seeing his kids whenever he wanted, he never paid a penny in maintenance either for ten years, but they only get one dad and he was it.

marantha - I don't think this is a growing trend at all. I think it used to happen in the past, but is no longer approved of at all by society at large/the powers that be.

BTW, there is a very real and much greater danger of half-siblings forming relationships posed by Artificial Insemination by Donor.

My DD1 has my surname, I met my DH when she was 4 months old. She has absolutely no contact with her biological father, despite me trying several times to involve him. He doesn't want to know. He saw her one day at an outing and about an hour later I walked into him and I asked him what he thought of his daughter. "Nothing" was the reply. He is not a "monster" I suppose, in that he never murdered anyone. But has no feelings for his child whatsoever so really (to my DD anyway), he might as well be "deceased". My DH is going to adopt DD as she is all he knows. I want her to have the security that my DD2 and other children will have. She knows about her biological father but he will never give her love like the man she knows as her Daddy.

I think it's bugger all to do with anyone else what arrangements a family come to re adoptions.

Can't children be allowed to decide for themselves who they call dad though, Fabby? If their bio dad walked off when they were conceived and never heard of again and they have been raised by a loving stepdad, who is going to tell the child they must never refer to him as dad?

Marantha, the courts simply don't hold those views anymore, they just don't!

Oh yeah and her "father" wouldn't put his name on her birth cert, therefore I couldn't give her his name even if she wanted it. Hes not worthy of such a beautiful, kind, lovely child carrying his name anyway.

Fabby, in an ideal world, yes, you are correct - children should only know one father.

But some parents (men, in this instance as we are talking about fathers) are feckless wastes of space. Mine buggered off when I was about 6 years old. Never wanted to know me. He doesn't deserve to be called Dad.

The man who is legally my step-father knows more about parenting in his little finger than my biological one. As such, he earned the right to drop the 'step' many many years ago.

I can see both sides to this.

My DH died when DS2 was three, and DD only a few weeks old.

Manshape is the only 'Daddy' that DD has ever known, and she calls him Daddy. DS2 calls manshape by his name - he remembers DH and knows that he is his daddy, and sometimes refers to manshape as being his other daddy when speaking to other people. DS3 obviously calls manshape Daddy too, as he is.

Both DS2 and DD have DH's surname. I never changed mine when i wed. DS3 has manshapes surname. It's never been a problem for us. And we wouldn't change anything when manshape and i get married. I'd still keep my maiden name and the children would keep their names too.

On the flip side to this is manshapes ex. She thinks nothing of danging their son in front of him like a carott on a stick. Manshape doesn't currently have PR and she uses it to her full advantage. If manshape does somthing she's not happy with then she refuses him access, and has on more than one occassion threatened to take his son to Ireland, where she's from, and not return.

I am not defending useless fathers at all; but, bad or not, I think it is important to recognise who is father of child.
I DO realise that the nuclear model of married parents has its flaws (after all, women had affairs and her husband may not be father of child), but I think it's better than this system of mum not even wishing to recognise biological father.
I am not saying here that children ought not be brought up by another man just that it should still be recognised-legally and by taking natural father's name (very important) that the child has biological father-else we run risk of inter-breeding because nobody knows who is parent of who.

I met this woman recently who had a 3 year old DS with an Ex and a baby DS wth her new DH... she said 'oh well, I have new husband now so I'm going to get him to adopt DS1', I said does his Father not see him then? 'Yes, he does' she replied' but I have a new family now'.

So essentially there was no room for the inconvenience of another Father

I'm pretty sure she can't just have her new DH adopt the child anyway, but I was at her attitude that a Father was something you could just change with you circumstances.

Strictly that is for the father, I am in Ireland but I presume the rules are the same here - that the father can object to the adoption. But I suppose he is then getting into trouble with the mother, who in turn will make life hard for him to see the child.

My mother was formally adopted by the man who was her step father. Her real Dad she met once very briefly in the street when she was about 3 yrs old and that was it - he was never seen again. Just as femalevictor describes.

I think the adoption was the right thing and that was in 1948.

Once a child is adopted, is all financial responsibility taken away from the biological father?

I can see plenty of biological fathers who dont give a toss looking on it as a viable option too if that is the case.

'But when children have different surname to their siblings it's a real possibility (why I think it is best to adhere to the old-fashioned system of child taking father's name. Not sexism-if the traditional system was that the kids got mums' name I'd advocate that)'

So what about famillies where the siblings do have differing surnames because they have different fathers?

"....I think it is best to adhere to the old-fashioned system of child taking father's name."

And what of those situations where the father refuses to be named on the birth certificate? If you are not married, a man needs to be present at the registration of the baby's birth in order for his name to be on the birth certificate. So, you get a loser like femalevictormeldrew's ex (sorry, femalevictormeldrew, but he does sound like a complete tosser) who would not go onto his child's birth certificate but you would want the child to carry his surname?

Mind your own business is what I think.

Maryz is right. It is the men who go around impregnating multiple women at the same time who are the ones responsible for the very real risk of interbreeding.

strictly that's what my DPs exW did, she got preganant and remarried then decided Her DD only needed one dad (new DH) and despite my DP having his daughter 3 days a week she stopped contact. It took 9 months in court for him to see her again, and he had PR!

It has back fired on DSDs mum though as she wants to live with her dad as soon as she's old enough for the court to take her opinion into account. She's 5 is proud she has her dads name even though she's made to call her step dad 'daddy'

I agree when children have contact with both parents they should only have one mum and one dad, however if the child doesn't see one parent ie dad due to him being an arse and their step dad is there I can't see a problem in them calling step dad 'dad' and him adopting them.

My son calls my partner daddy.

His bio father couldn't give a damn and dropped my son as soon as he met his new lady (about three months after I left him - and I made a HUGE effort for them to see each other - the ex always 'had stuff to be getting on with'). No birthday cards/texts - nothing. We've not seen or spoken to him for about six years.

He still pays £5 a week maintenance out of his Jobseeker's Allowance though, so thumbs up too him for that (rolls eyes).

My partner thinks of my son as his. Loves him, looks after him and my son adores him. They are how you'd imagine a father and son should be - it's wonderful. We got together before my son could really talk and he started calling my partner daddy. Not sure which one of them initiated it but it was definately the right thing.

My son has my partners surname now because I absolutely agree that a child should have his/her father's name. I changed it by deed poll about a year ago (he's seven now), but did ask my son whether he wanted my name or his dads when he started school.

Having his biological father's name would be weird to me. It was also a bugger to spell!

This is not about how good the biological father is: I appreciate fully that some are rubbish and that stepfathers can be wonderful, it's just that I think that, as a matter of record, if someone fathers a child it is HIS name that should be listed on birth certificate and that he is recognised by authorities as such- just as a matter of public record and because it would go some way of preventing interbreeding (although, of course it wouldn't solve it completely as married women also have children by men other than their husband).

I am aghast, though, that a child's name can be altered by the mother- I thought that the child had the choice of doing this once he/she had reached 18.

I am also a little bit puzzled why people change name of child to partner's when they are not married . Not that I think marriage is any guarantee of commitment at all (far from it!) just that if I were going to to this I would get married because a name change does not mean anything in terms of legal rights etc.