To re-register DD's birth with DP named as father instead of him adopting her and all the hassle which goes with that?

[WeakCough]

I have a 10 year old DD who adores my DP and says he is the 'best Dad ever', etc etc. DP has expressed a wish to adopt her as I am 35 weeks pregnant and we would love to be a complete family.
DD has discussed this and would love for DP to be her 'real' dad (she knows he is not biologically).
She has never met her bio dad and he in turn does not wish to have any contact- I have given him numerous opportunities and choices over the years and he has only ever responded once to say he doesn't want to know.
There is no father named on DD's birth certificate and it strikes me that it is a much easier process to just name DP as the father on DD's birth certificate and re-register her birth- i stumbled across the info when looking at forms for DP to go and register our new baby's birth.
Can anyone see any potential problems with this? Is it morally wrong (everyone concerned knows the actual situation, nobody is being deceived- just would be so much easier!)

Op i have a friend whose dp has just done this (adopted her son) i think it was very straightforward, she didnt mention ss or having to adopt her son herself so maybe the process has changed? I will ask her :)

all babies born after 2003? Whose father is named on the birth cert have pr from both parents even if not married.

My dp thetefore has pr for three if our children, but not the older two who were born before the law changed. Bizarrely if dp and i get married we are meant to re register the children! Dont know what dufference pr makes tbh despite not having it for ds1 and ds2 he has still taken them to the drs, hospital app and signed to give consent for ds1 to have an.operation its never been mentioned that technically he doesnt have pr for the elder two ir caused any issues.

Brandy, I'm afraid you're wrong. If your children were born after 2003 and their fathers are named on the BC they have PR married or not.

I remember the changes being made too, it was just before DS was born. It's easy to be mistaken about these things Brandy, particularly when there's been a change in law.

If you get married after having children, you do have to re-register the births of those children. But this has nothing to do with PR. Any dad named on the certificate after the law change has PR whether they are married to mother or not.

So DP doesn't have PR for our DD, born 2000, but does for DS born 2004. We'll get around to sorting PR at some point.

Brandy, you only have to google Parental Responsibility to confirm that the information you were given is incorrect. In England and Wales, fathers named on birth certificates after 2003 are automatically awarded PR. It was 2006 (I think) in Scotland. The Governments online official guidelines on PR are not incorrect. The registrars you spoke to were.

OP you already know that it is illegal to deliberately name the wrong father on the BC, but I would look into step parent parental responsibility once more. I may be wrong, but I don't remember ever reading anything that said CAFCASS have to be involved with a PR "agreement". An agreement is made in your situation for example, when there is no other person with PR to consider or if there is, they agree to the new person gaining PR.

The only time courts and CAFCASS become involved is if an agreement cannot be reached and an application has to be made to court for a PR Order. That wouldn't be necessary in your case as DD's dad doesn't have PR and he hasn't been involved in her upbringing at all.

A PR agreement also doesn't cost anywhere near £500 as far as I'm aware. You don't need solicitors involvement. You fill in some details on a form and take it to a court where someone witnesses the signatures. I think a fee is payable to have the agreement made and sent to you but not £500. A court application only costs £200.

Adoption is the best way to integrate in my opinion. When my dad died intestate, my older brother didn't have any claim on the estate despite my dad being there at his birth.(biofather ran out as soon as pregnancy announced) My parents just never got around to the adoption bit but my brother now feels like he was never really part of the family and it's caused no end of heartache despite us all agreeing to split estate equally.

Urgh can people stop thinking they know better then me. I know because the registrar told me to my face both times, I would not have put their names on bc if that was the case.

My ds dad got deported, while he was in the detention centre his solicitor was going to get him court ordered access to help his case. Because he did not have pr I had to say I was refusing him access so it would go to court and the solicitor said the first thing to go to court so the judge would award pr as he did not have it.

I know what I'm saying is right so you can all shush telling me I'm wrong when I know I'm right. I'm hiding this thread now because it's making me cross.

Good good

You are wrong, just for the record.

But why doesn't he have PR Brandy, there must be a specific reason as its normally automatic. Is it because he isn't a uk citizen, going off what you've said about him being deported?

No both of them are Jamaican if that's anything to do with it...

No I am not wrong but I'm curious why it isn't that case.

There may have been confusion here about whether or not PR gives you a right to remain in the country - it doesn't. UKBA expects you to all go and exercise your right to a family life in the father's country, if he has no right to enter or remain in the UK.

As far as I know, the only way a father with no right to remain could not be removed or deported would be if there were care proceedings on going - UKBA have confirmed they won't seek removal whilst those proceedings are still live.

spero so in ghosts case the fathers do have pr? Or can it be affected by nationality or say illegal immigration? I would assume it covers all fathers named on the birth certificate?

Spero it was not about being deported, it was if the judge granted him pr and contact so he would be able to come back for court ordered access. I am not confused although others seem to be.

I expect that's because you told the solicitor he didn't have pr. and were as adiment as you are now. Incidentally one of my teenagers dad has no legal pr he had no idea he doesn't neither did I as we were told he did. not one of the 2 solisters I consulted told me nor did any of the 5 he saw nor any of the several judges we were involved with for over 5 years until my mother noticed some paperwork the hearing was adjourned with the judge confirming he had no pr.

The only ways a father would not have pr if the birth was registered after 1/12/2003 and he is named on the cert is

1. A court order removes pr.
2. The child is adopted.
3. The mother at the time of birth and registration was legally married to a different man AND he presents himself to the registra or court claiming the child as his.
4. The child has reached 18. Or married.

Immigration is rather more confusing but being a none uk citizen even if you are in the uk without permission does not prevent you from obtaining PR in the uk via the normal birth registration process.

It gets rather more complicated if you are trying to enter or stay in the uk
Due to having a British child.

If entering you must be outside the uk the child must be inside amongst many other things.

If both in the uk the person trying to stay must be the sole person with pr nobody else.

Most not be in a formal relationship with the other parent if the other parent is British

Must be able to evidence that they are actively playing a substantial parental role and evidence contact arrangements and that this will continue.alongside being able to maintain the child etc.

Pr is only relevant if its the mother who is not British ( not being sexist it's just pr is automatic and instant for mothers and for pr to be relevant she has to be the only one with it) obviously barring her having it removed and dad having it.

Brandy if them not having pr is absolutely essential to you, it sounds like it is and they are named on the cert ( not judging it being essential I intentionally registered my youngest without the dad for that very reason) I'm guessing the reason may be very simmerler to mine if it is, I'm begging you to directly ask your solisiter ( or any family law one) actually directly ask if they do in the uk without first biasing them by stating dads don't have it.

The only reason I can think of that would mean they didnt was if there country of origin was somehow exempt but I can't think of any that are

Unmarried Fathers named on the birth cert after 2003 definitely have PR.

Absolutely no doubt about that.

God knows what those two registrars agendas were, but they told you wrong information.

No I was not adamant, ds da and solicitor cooked it up between them before I knew anything about it I had a formal solicitors letter stating what would be happening if I refused to take my son to see him. Then when I had spoken to him it was reiterated again from him that he has no pr. So if the registrar told me and a solicitor told me both people who know about things like this I have no need to check because I already have been told by officials.

It's not actually is essential to me, ds will probably never see his dad again anyway.

Sounds like they just wanted to sort out court ordered access to help him out.

What everyone here is saying is right, as are the links to gov websites.

Its a shame that your ds wont see his dad again.

Ok then did any of them say why he didn't have pr despite meeting the conditions for automatic pr at the point that he put his name on the birth certificate?

What rule he didn't meet or criteria he did not fit to make him different to every other father named on a birth cert of a child born after dec 2003 ?

Brandy, you're worryingly ignorant in this area. DH has an older son who despite not being married to the mother HAS PR. This was August 2003. This is the law.

Blistory
So sad for your older brother- showing the importance of making a Will. And kind of you all to share the inheritance with him - some family's wouldn't have, in certain circumstances.

OP
Good luck with your decisions .

A contact order can be important to a father who is removed from the UK because there are certain visas you can get which allow you to enter to exercise contact rights. But I think if you are deported that is different and you are not allowed to come back for any reason. Bit hazy has haven't done any immigration work for a while.

I thought any father of any nationality got PR if on birth certificate after 2003 but maybe that only applies to British or EU citizens? Intrigued now, will google.

A father can have a contact order without having PR but I would expect the two to go together.

Spero it doesn't only apply to British or eu citizens.

It's possible that it effects his rights/ responsabilities outside of the uk but if he's named on a British cert the in the uk he has pr.

Brandy, are you in Scotland? As in Scotland the law didn't change until May 2006, according to the DirectGov website.