To not understand why ex is taking paternity leave?

[marleyandme2014]

Split with my ex shortly after finding out I was pregnant.

Not had much to do with him during the pregnancy - not once had him ask me if I needed anything for the baby etc which I feel is a bit off - however all of a sudden he is contacting me asking for my mat b1 form so that he can claim paternity leave!

I thought this was for fathers who would be spending their time with the newborn - not in this case though - he said quite blatantly that he wants to use the time to catch up with friends and buy a car.

So as not to drip feed, I am with my long term partner again now - pregnancy with ex not planned of course but me and my partner are very happy and he will be fully involved in her care and upbringing. We will be getting married in the summer.

AIBU in thinking he is unreasonable, or is this OK?

Catlin of course. I hadn't thought about the implications of that. The legal aspects that sock talks about then come in to play later when this needs to be resolved (if people want to resolve it - which one would hope you would as of course, the child has rights)

It is just very sad to see the reaction of some posters and to see not naming on the birth certificate being used to wield power over a father. The fundamental right of the child would be to have a named father - in an ideal world.

It's great things worked out for you and felt complete for you.

Yes but not putting the fathers name on the bc is showing the mother's obstructive attitude right from birth. So you can probably assume she will continue to be obstructive

It's not always obstructive not to and no you cannot.

Does a dad who wants to commit fraud so he can have a jolly and pretend its pat leave really strike you as someone with a real interest in his child because to me it wouldn't even suggest a pretend interest

I saw it from a different perspective. I imagined this man being frozen out emotionally crippled idiot using this as a way to claw back a bit of power in a situation where he is utterly powerless.

I can see the complexity and have concluded that biological paternity really isn't as important as having a father and a child being safe. however that happens. But where does this leave us? Why as a society do we paint a picture of the nuclear biological family? This is surely creating all sorts of oppressions and confusions.

However. Women have so much more power than men don't they..really?

You do realise to take a child overseas you do not need consent if less than 28 days?

I know but I think it is very sad so many people are suggesting it and that it seems like as simple decision people can make without much thought.

The comment above that said leave his name off so that you don't need to worry about holidays abroad or sharing Xmas :( :(

Mothers need to realise that their children are not 'their' property. They are little people who will grow into adults very fast. Nobody 'owns' them. So i don't think making a decision to leave a fathers name off the birth certifcate so the mother can have easier holidays etc is very fair to the child when the result is that a relationship with their father is being obstructed.

Periodfeatures this is going to sound harsh, yes I'm fine and always have been, despite the best endeavours of people saying pretty much the sort of things you've been saying on here to try to make me not feel fine.

I was a very pretty, very clever, very confident and much loved child from a comfortable but eccentric background. I don't recall ever feeling anything was missing then or now. I got so fed up of people(like you?) trying and failing to me feel bad about myself.

The necessity to obtain permission to take a child out of the UK is not commonly known. It often depends on whatChildren Act Ordershave been made, if any, and applies whether it is a day trip to France, a fortnight to Florida or the whole of the school holidays with relatives in Pakistan.Consideration should first of all be given as to who hasparental responsibility. If both parents have parental responsibility and there are no residence orders or other restrictions in place, then neither can take the child on holiday outside the United Kingdom without the written consent of the other parent or any other party with parental responsibility. If consent is refused, an application to the Court will need to be made for permission.The situation is different where one parent has a Residence Order. A person with aResidence Ordercan take a child abroad for up to a month without the written consent of the other parent. However, it is good parenting to endeavour to agree the arrangements in advance; if consent is unreasonably withheld then an application may be made to the Court.loodyteenagers the 28 day rule only applies if there is a residency order which you wouldn't get where the other party has just disappeared.

Nina I agree with everything you say. I also understand where sock is coming from. There is reality and there is how things ought to be. I think it is sad that people can put their own bitter arguments before the needs of a child. I almost makes me wonder what is the point of all these law if they are things that can be opted in and out of and don't serve to protect the most vulnerable. (Which they clearly don't when courts are awarding contact to dangerous fathers)

period

I completely understand where you are coming from, but from a removing risk point of view (obviously the op has not stated what she means by him being not a very nice person so this is just a in general side view) some of the things that could happen would be impossible to prevent in advance.

You cannot obtain a none molestation order or a prohibitive steps order (the orders you would need to prevent the example I gave earlier) on the off chance someone may do something they would be quite hard to get just with something like a written threat or a verbal threat he would have had to have actually done it previously and be likely to do it again.

Once he had PR it's very very hard to have it removed so he could in theory by his own choice have no contact ever (because you cannot force a NPR to have contact they can only force you to make the child available even if they don't intend to show up) they could actively choose to not even meet their child but spend the next 17 years dragging you to court for strange reasons every time a big decision was made or anything granted after several years of this there are ways you can stop them but its expensive and they have to be quite obviously being vexatious.

Periodfeatures this is going to sound harsh, yes I'm fine and always have been, despite the best endeavours of people saying pretty much the sort of things you've been saying on here to try to make me not feel fine.

I was a very pretty, very clever, very confident and much loved child from a comfortable but eccentric background. I don't recall ever feeling anything was missing then or now. I got so fed up of people(like you?) trying and failing to me feel bad about myself

Caitlin, I think i'm probably expressing my feelings poorly. I just feel sorry for the bloke and sad that such sweeping and quick decisions can be made without seeking resolution. I'm going to shut up now. I wish i'd sat on my hands too now. God, i'm not trying to make anyone feel bad, it just doesn't seem the OP has the child at the centre of this decision. not does the father.

But being part of a childs life is not dependant on being on the birth certificate. It doesn't need to be both or nothing. There was a woman on here not long ago who was distraught because her ex had taken her child from nursery and there was nothing she could do, can you imagine being in that position. Sometimes protecting the child isn't as black and white as you think.

Jacks is correct

Sock Do you thing that the law should return to only married parents or resident parents having PR? Non resident parent not having PR unless granted by mutual agreement?

God. It's a freaking minefield isnt it.

Have you read the paper 'Ghost Fathers' Lena Dominelli et al. That fails to address the legislative framework and whether this compounds the issue.;

I personally would keep unpredictable man off my child's birth certificate, all these things considered.

That's pretty much what the law is now period.

Married dads ( or civil partnership parent 2) have automatic PR

all parties named on a residency order have PR for as long as that order exists (if the order is removed then so is the PR.

Unmarried dads only have pr if the mother names them on the cert (obviously they have to attend or fill in a declaration for her to be able to do so)

An unmarried dad even if not named will automaticity obtain PR if he Marries the mother at any time after the child is born.

He can also obtain it via court order.

For stuff like this being a resident parent is not the same as having a residency order so just living with your child would not give you PR.

I also think there are a lot of good dads out there who are neither married to or live with their childs mother and they do deserve pr I very much doubt there will ever be a perfect system.

Didn't the law used to be that PR was only granted to married parents?

There must be a way that legislation could make it possible for a father to be named but not given PR?

I also think there are a lot of good dads out there who are neither married to or live with their childs mother and they do deserve pr I very much doubt there will ever be a perfect system

Agreed Jack. I wonder whether fathers who are not acknowledged in law feel less empowered to parent. There must be something in between parental responsibility and no acknowledgement that can be legally upheld. It seems that whatever lies between these two situations is the jurisdiction of the mother, who is going to choose the safe option and protect her child from the possibility of awful things that could potentially happen. All or nothing. I'm waffling now but thanks for discussion. It's helped me think more rationally!!.

My personal view is probably very biased I work in DV so see a lot of the nasty ones.

But I personally think that back in 2003 when they changed the law to mean a named unmarried dad had PR it was one of the stupidest things they could have done.

Previously to that I would have never considered even suggesting a dad should not be named.

However according to a link that was posted on here about a year ago it's only a very very low % who are not named off the top of my head I think I remember it being something like 7%.

Obviously I'm not suggesting a unmarried dad is more dangerous than a married one and I wouldn't even entertain the idea that all dads are crap or risky because most of them are not i just hear far more about the shocking ones and if you have had the misfortune to get as far as marrying one of those then not much you can do about that other than get a divorce and try and deal with it.

Thats the point though if you are married and divorce then all these bits and pieces get dealt with in a divorce so for example residency but when you are not married and break up there isn't that legal framework so things like residency only get awarded when parents are fighting over it not if the father just disappears.

But I personally think that back in 2003 when they changed the law to mean a named unmarried dad had PR it was one of the stupidest things they could have done

Thanks Sock I can now justify sitting up until 2am as I'm 'working on my dissertation'!

Sorry OP to hijack your thread.

My vote is; do NOT put him on the birth certificate. And don't volunteer for a DNA test or anything else. If he is that interested in being in the child's life, let HIM take the initiative to take it to the courts. If he sincerely wants to be a 'true' father, he will be motivated to do so. If he isn't motivated, he won't bother himself with it.

Let him prove himself. Actions speak louder than words. If he steps up to the mark, then he has the right to be named and to be involved in the child's life. If not, you haven't made the mistake of making any 'official' acknowledgment of him as the child's father.

No worries (also sorry for the hijack from me as well op) PR is a subject that fascinates me for many reasons,I'm more than happen to continue this conversation via pm if it also interests you, I doubt many other posters are as captivated by the subject as I am so probably wouldn't be interested in it.

Only now I need to sleep I'm going to be woken up in about 3 hours by a small person who will not comprehend that the bloody cloud babies are sleeping and no they don't live in my iPad and I really would prefer not to get up and play.

The law says he must be married to or living with the baby's mother to qualify for paternity leave so your DP can take it but he can't grin

Irrelevant to the OP, but my ex got paternity leave and we weren't living together. They didnt even ask for my matb1 form and gave him full pay :S

He was looking after both of us though he didnt just take it off for a jolly.

op I wouldnt give your ex the form either.