to resist adding my child's father's name onto his birth certificate?

[stickystick]

Was with his father on and off for a year. To my huge shock I got pregnant at the age of 39 (!) despite using contraception and not having any desire for a baby. Decided after a lot of angst and indecision that I couldn't go through with an abortion and instead to continue the pregnancy. The father (to put it mildly) disagreed vehemently with this decision. He is financially comfortable but already has three teenage kids and an alcoholic ex-wife and was worried about the disruptive effect of another child on them. He tried very very hard to get me to have an termination, including promising me a " life of misery" if I didn't. Our relationship ended immediately, needless to say. He was very aggressive and unsupportive during the pregnancy (he was still going on about terminations when I was nearly six months along). We continued contact only to sort out what level of financial support he legally needed to contribute for his child, via the CSA and mediation with a family law barrister.
At one point, when he was being very hostile, I finally said, OK, you win. Let's agree that you don't have anything more to do with us once the baby is born - you don't have to see him, or even tell your family, and thus you can minimise the disruption to your life which you are so worried about. He didn't like that - he said that he didn't want anything to do with the baby now but he wanted to keep his options open just in case things changed in the future.

Needless to say, he didn't want to be there when the baby was born. Refused to let him have his surname (I had suggested the baby had both our names) because he said he had an unusual name and didn't want people knowing it was his son. Wouldn't come to his christening, and asked his own mother to turn down her invitation too. When our son was diagnosed with a serious condition and had to have brain surgery twice in his first six months of life, his father wouldn't come to any of his appointments or operations. Didn't see him at Christmas and has arranged to be elsewhere for his first birthday.

Despite all this though, I've continued to extend an olive branch. Since our son was born, I've regularly sent his father photos and kept him informed about his medical issues. He never rings to ask how his son is, or asks to see him, but every few weeks I offer him the opportunity to see him anyway (very low key), and about half the time he says yes. When he does see him now, usually for a couple of hours every three weeks, he is actually quite affectionate with him. His older sons have now met the baby twice, and his daughter a few times more. It is not the disruptive disaster that he forecast, partly because he was massively over dramatising, but also because the baby lives with me and he doesn't have to do any childcare or any organising of medical stuff or nursery.

The problem between us right now is about the baby's birth certificate. At the time he was registered, his father said he wanted to be named on the certificate because his lawyer had told him there was "no legal downside" - he still had financial responsibilities whether he was on it or not, but being on it would give him a say if he wanted one down the road. I was not very impressed with this reason at the time, not least because at the same time he also mentioned he didn't want the baby to have his surname on the birth certificate because he didn't want anyone to know it was his son (!) I also felt that if he wanted parental rights and responsibilities such as making joint decisions about his medical care, he actually needed to turn up to some scans and appointments. So I went ahead and registered him and left the father's name blank - although he registrar assured me that the father's name could be added very easily at any point in the future, if we both agreed.

I thought that my baby's father had forgotten about this, but a couple of months ago in our last mediation session, he unexpectedly added it to the agenda at the last moment. He said he wanted to be on his birth certificate and he wanted to know when I would add him on. The mediator asked me if I would be willing to do this. I said no, because I felt his reason wasn't good enough. My baby's father said he had better reasons now. The mediator asked what they were, and he replied that a) he didn't think it was very nice for our child to see that he had no named father on his birth certificate when he came to apply for a driving licence or passport. And b) he said that as he was paying £X in child support, it was his right to be on the birth certificate [legally this is not the case: in fact financial support and parental rights and responsibilities are usually strictly separated].

I said I still didn't think this was good enough. He thinks I am being unreasonable. Am I?

splash you were asking about inheritance and you're right illegitimacy is different however it still doesn't change anything for example in my case because he is paying child maintenance that would be accepted as acknowledgement that he is the father, in other situations a dna test is not difficult to do. A bigger issue would be with a completely absent father and not knowing if anything happened to him but the same is true even if he is on the birth certificate.

In this day and age where “illegitimacy” is not an issue and there’s an expectation that fathers are far more hands on with child-raising than they used to be, it’s likelier that my son will feel upset that his father hardly spent any time with him and that there are no good explanations as to why he was always missing from big life events, than his father’s name isn’t on a bit of paper.

Amazingjumper – thanks – which bit?

Mrsdevere - the point is he doesn't actually WANT pr, at least not now. He just wants the option to have it should he want to exert any control at a later date.

Sockreturningpixie – no I probably wouldn’t fight it, unless I had specific information that he was planning to use his PR in a damaging way.

Tiggytape –his mother disapproves of the whole thing in general, being Catholic and of the 1930s generation that labelled children of unmarried parents as illegitimate and irretrievably blighted. However, I doubt she would encourage him to do anything to stir things up like going to court, unless she really thought I was a danger to her grandson. That may sound dramatic but his ex-wife was subject to a court order for that reason. As for the rest of his family, they think that he behaved quite shamefully by refusing to allow his son to use his surname too. So I don’t think it would come from there either.

Chunderella (great username btw) – was aware I could pick any surname/s I wanted, but in the end chose just mine. Anything else would have been unnecessarily inflammatory… also it’s really about the symbolism. I had suggested some practical reasons that the baby had both our names: so it gave him options for the future and made it easy for both of us to travel with him. But on another level I was also offering his father a chance – by agreeing to contribute his surname - to say, OK, I was against this but now the baby’s actually here I am prepared to put that aside, publicly acknowledge him as my son and do my best for him. For me it was more about that acceptance than the actual name itself.

Ifnotnowthenwhen & Velvetgecko - to add him to the birth certificate now would require both of us taking coordinated action. I can’t do it by myself and neither can he (unless he went to court). Either we have to make an appointment to re-register and turn up together, or he has to fill in a form which I have to take along to the registrar.

Justmyview – apologies, my assertion came from misunderstanding a conversation I’d had with my family lawyer. I thought she had once said that the person listed under Father doesn’t have to be the biological father. But I asked her this afternoon and she said she had been talking about a case involving lesbians who had had sperm donation. Apparently the rules are very different for mothers who have used donated sperm, because they can name almost anyone as father, even a woman, so long as it isn’t a close blood relative.
However she says in my case, a stepfather could apply to adopt my son, if the biological father gave permission. That would be an interesting dilemma for him, because on one hand it would absolve him from any more financial contribution, but on the other it would give up all his potential parental rights forever, should he change his mind down the road. I think he would say no for the simple reason that all his family know about his son now, and they would be horrified if he “gave him away”.

I've always taken the view that if a father goes to the trouble and expense of going to court for PR then they are probably motivated and engaged enough in their child to deserve it and will be a consistent parent who is around long-term. Obviously in the absence of any form of abuse/violence etc.

StickyStick May I ask why you are going to mediation? What is the objective long-term?

The reason I ask is that your son is coming to the age where he will start to notice the lack of commitment from his father and the fact that he is treated as a second class son by him.

If it were me I'd be very near giving up wholly on any form of relationship fostering. IMHO your DS's father has very little time left to prove he can be a decent parent to his fourth child before any shortfall is noticed by your son and has a detrimental effect.

If that happens it will be a very bitter pill for you to swallow. It may be better to think about cutting all contact and preparing for the withdrawal of the CSA contribution.

Jacks does paying child maintenance count as legal proof of parentage? Genuine question. I don't know if anyone can quote any case law.

I am thinking of a case where a father dies, and is not on the birth certificate. Other family members may not want child to have part of inheritance. I can see in this situation that being in the birth certificate would make things a lot easier for the child.

It is not possible to put an unmarried father's name on a child's birth certificate unless he chooses to attend the registration of the birth. It is HIS responsibility, the mother cannot just add him, it's not possible.
Just thought I'd clear that up.

As I understand it this thread is about a mother refusing to allow the baby's father to have his name on the birth certificate. As quoted from the OP He said he wanted to be on his birth certificate and he wanted to know when I would add him on. The mediator asked me if I would be willing to do this. I said no, because I felt his reason wasn't good enough. That was what I was replying to. He is the child's father whether he is a good one or not is neither here or there. His name should be on the birth certificate and it seems like the OP is the one who is preventing this. She has not said that he has refused to attend the registry office to have it put on.

Probably projecting but my father lost contact with me at an early age. He IS an arse but my mother denied his existence as she remarried and would never discuss him. Seeing his name on my birth certificate (that I applied for when I married) was a woo moment and I am 100% sure that I would not know it or anything about him if it wasn't on there. I think it is important for the child whatever the mother's feelings about it.

PerplexedPirate Thanks for that.

YANBU. Being on the birth certificate is no longer just a statement of fact. He will have the right to interfere in your child's life and given his behaviour and attitude so far, I don't think that would necessarily be in your child's best interests.

This may change in the future but for now, I would leave things as they are. Don't make it easy for him to get parental responsibility until he demonstrates that he cares about his child.

I am thinking of a case where a father dies, and is not on the birth certificate. Other family members may not want child to have part of inheritance. I can see in this situation that being in the birth certificate would make things a lot easier for the child.

I think that DNA tests establish rights to an an inheritance.

Yes if other family members want to dispute it then it would have to be down to dna testing but that wouldn't bw difficult to do but by the same token family members could also dispute a birth certificate too and again it would go to dna testing so there is still no advantage. Whether the father is named or not the child still has the same legal rights.

Haven't rtft so others have probably said this - but YANBU - if his name is on the BC then the 'life of misery' he threatened could well become a reality! Some posters seem to think it is just a record of birth but it's not. He would be able to veto any decisions you made about medical care, holidays etc, he would be able to stop DS going on school trips and so on. His behaviour so far suggest that you DO NOT want him having this kind of power! And power is what it's all about for him. If he didn't give a shit when your lovely DS was in hospital as a tiny baby, why should he suddenly have everything as he wants it? And why should he have any power over your DS life?

" or he has to fill in a form which I have to take along to the registrar. "

OP When I asked The London Borough my ds was registered in about getting his fathers name on the BC, they told me that he would have to do it through a solicitor. I was not told that I could give him a form to fill in and take it down myself. Has this changed recently?
Although now I have learned that being named wouold give him automatic responsibilities I

oops

am glad I didn't!

ifnotnowthenwhen I don't know, maybe it varies by borough but mine said we just had to make an appointment to re-register. Maybe your council misunderstood and thought you meant what does the father have to do to get himself on the bc without your consent?

Maybe it does vary? They definitely didn't think it was without my consent, because I told them he couldn't make it on the day, but I wanted to put him on, and how could I do this.
Maybe they just didn't know there was a form? It can't be that rare though, surely? Many parents are unmarried, and one of them has to work on reg day, or gets ill?

It does not vary. The form is used all across England

My registrar stated the form needed to be witnessed by a solicitor and gave me the form for the father to complete so yes although it is just a form it's a form that needs witnessing. It is a way of ensuring that the person completing the form are who they claim.

That would be a statutory declaration of parentage

This is the other one

www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@government/documents/digitalasset/dg_176555.pdf

Ah, thanks.

bunchoffives Ahh mediation.
Well officially we are done with mediation now until late 2015.
But why did we do it?
Obviously a lot of professional legal people are on this thread so I apologise for inaccurately summarising, but basically the CSA can only cope with cases where the non-resident parent (usually the father) earns up to a certain threshold. If s/he earns more than that, and/or has a lot of capital, then usually the total amount of child support is settled by private negotiation or if that doesn't work, by the courts deciding. These arrangements seem to be more complicated than the ones the CSA do, because they can involve both monthly/annual child support and capital provision.

We were both legally advised that ours was a case above the usual CSA limit. We tried to settle it informally between us but emotions and hormones got in the way. But neither of us wanted to go to court - him because of his awful experience in court with his divorce, me because at the time I was pregnant, very worried about the baby's possible health problems, still at work up to the last minute AND needing to move home. The thought of court was just too stressful (and expensive).

So my lawyer and I suggested mediation with an independent family law barrister. We had about eight sessions in all, five before the baby was born and two or three after. We were trying to get it all done beforehand for obvious reasons, but he had to be born early. I remember my panic first thought when the doctor told me he had to be born within the next 48 hours was "Arggh, I need to cancel the mediation!"

Actually, for v boring technical reasons, I ended up applying to the CSA for an assessment anyway, which we both accepted. We have agreed to review things at mediation in two years time. Ideally I would like to be in a position by then when I don't need to take any money at all for child support, but childcare costs are so high that for now it is unavoidable at the moment.

Although the mediation process took some time and was quite expensive (although not as long and expensive as court would have been), we both found it useful. The mediator was very good at keeping things on track and defusing the situation when things starting getting emotional or heated. If anyone is in a similar situation and would like to use him, please PM me - I can't recommend him highly enough.

Early in mediation we talked a bit about PR&R, but it was so emotional and difficult that we decided just to stick to child support and try to get that sorted, else we would have achieved nothing. That's why I was surprised when the baby's father suddenly raised the birth certificate issue in our last mediation.

One other thing about mediation - the way we did it is not for the faint hearted. Our longest session was six hours long, and I felt absolutely exhausted by the end. There are types of mediation where you sit in separate rooms each with your own lawyer, but my XP wanted it to be just us and the mediator sitting round a table with no lawyers. It costs less this way, and progress can be quicker. But it means you have to do a lot of preparation and you have to be able to hold your ground, make your own rational arguments, and stay on your toes. If you are mediating about money, you also need to be reasonably financially literate, or at least as financially literate as your XP. The mediator helps to an extent to balance things, but if there is a big gap between you and your XP in terms of power or financial knowledge then the mediator probably will advise you to bring a lawyer with you.

Wow, six hours!

Mine is blank. Lived with it for 40 years that way.
Couldn't care less. It's a piece of paper

Sockreturningpixie great info and link thanks.

I'm a bit more confused now though.
The form lets you make lots of choices as to who needs to attend to sign. Can the father only sign if he has PR by the courts or would his DNA test be proof enough that he was the father to be able to register?

I'm not as good with this stuff as I should be,but my understanding is.

If a DNA is court ordered that would be enough to attend without your consent or attendance.

However any old DNA test won't do,it is also an offence for him to do a DNA test on the child without your consent in the absence of a court order and it could be an offence for the sample to be tested by the lab

Well our DNA test was through the CSA, simply through him refuting paternity. So legally asked for but not through the courts.

Could he use his DNA proof to put himself on the birth certificate I wonder since he obviously is the father (and there is no reason why he shouldn't have PR apart from being a git)

I had never thought he could do it arbitrarily. Not that he would but something to bear in mind.

It is my understanding that a DNA test that has not been court ordered can only be used for that reason if the wrong father has been named not if its blank.

But I've not had direct experience of this aspect of BC's so would strongly advise asking at the GRO in actual fact I have to phone them myself tomorrow anyway so I shall ask.