Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think she should have told the father about christening?

184 replies

Zippylovesrainbow · 20/10/2014 18:16

My friend had her son christened at the weekend... And didn't tell his father.
She says it's because they are in court over access.

I can't believe a vicar would do a service without the father present either! He isn't on the birth certificate, but he has rights as he applied for them via court.

It was a lovely day, but this has just ruined it, for me anyway. I know I'm probably being unreasonable, but I just feel that her sons special, religious day is now tarnished by a lie and deceit.

OP posts:
merrymouse · 21/10/2014 07:52

That might be your beliefs, Merrymouse, but many denominations do not share them, believing that baptism is a sacrament regardless of age and where baptism is primarily of babies.

My belief isn't relevant. The point is that while different denominations have different views on baptism - Some christian denominations don't have sacraments (Salvation Army), some denominations don't have infant baptisms - they would all generally require a little more commitment than an infant baptism to regard somebody as a member of their community.

A christening is a beginning, not an end in itself (unless you are really concerned about original sin but don't care about any other aspects of christianity, which would be a bit odd) . Having said that I don't care why anybody christens their child. However it isn't like getting married and it doesn't have a significance beyond the significance given to it by the people involved.

Bulbasaur · 21/10/2014 08:01

As I said, no one knows the full story. People don't cheat or leave unless there were problem in the first place. People in happy and healthy relationships don't suddenly decide to leave. She could be embarrassed to share the details, or she could quite rightfully not want to divulge certain details to her judgmental friend here.

I have never met a mother who would deliberately exclude a father from the birth certificate unless there was good reason. It's rarely a decision made lightly.

Is she acting correctly in the eyes of the law? Probably not.

She could be a spiteful bitch. He could be going after the child as a means to control the mother and continue a cycle of abuse.

All we do know is that there's an extreme incompatibility with each other, and no one is innocent in a broken relationship (barring abuse).

bf1000 · 21/10/2014 08:17

I have never seen the same understanding given to a husband who has left his partner/wife for another person on here. People dont tend to say he must have had his reasons as men don't cheat if they are in happy healthy relationships so there must have been a problem in first place.

DiaDuit · 21/10/2014 08:54

I'm waiting for the thread in a few years time where it turns out the father is catholic and
takes the child for their first communion without inviting the mother.

Unless the mother has no contact or the dad is asking the child to lie to their mother then the mother would have a fair idea that communion was on the cards and if bothered could find out where it was happening. Children are around 6-8 when communion happens here- older in other churches.

I'm surprised the mothers legal representatives didn't advise her against this.

You have no idea what she has been advised- if even. All we are being told is how OP feels about the whole thing. Next to no actual facts provided other than mummy is a bad bad woman who likes other men Hmm

Fairenuff · 21/10/2014 09:56

Zippy looking at your other thread, are you in fact the child's father? Confused

basgetti · 21/10/2014 10:01

Wakey I had my DC baptised without his Dad present. The Judge was very hostile to his Dad's attempts to prevent it and said I was perfectly within my rights to do it. And he already had PR. So why would she be advised legally not to have her baby christened?

WakeyCakey45 · 21/10/2014 12:38

basgetti the fact that your case was subject to court proceedings is an indication that it is not a cut and dried situation.

If the OPs ex is active in a different faith, a magistrate or judge may take the view that her actions were deliberately hostile.

Particularly as her explanation to her friends for not involving him in the christening is not the religious importance of such an event, or the risk of harm to her or the DC, but because "they are in court over access".

I can understand why the OP is feeling uncomfortable. If the current court action was such a barrier to the parents attending together, then the christening could be delayed. Scheduling a Christening for during court action and then using it as an excuse not to invite the DCs father (who has made concerted attempts to be involved in his DCs life) does suggest poor judgement on the part of the mother.

basgetti · 21/10/2014 12:59

My court proceedings were related to contact, not the baptism issue. The Judge made it very clear that I had the right to baptise my baby just like any other mother, and the argument about waiting until DC was old enough to make his own decisions could be applied to any parent who has their baby christened but people still do it. He also said that whilst DC's Dad could make an application to prevent it, it would fail and be viewed as a waste of the court's time. And in the meantime I could go and get him baptised as he couldn't be 'unbaptised' one it had been done.

To be fair DC's Dad had no religious affiliations of his own, it may have been different if he had. But the issue in the OP seems to be more about the father attending it than any other argument, so I'm just not sure why it would reflect badly on the mother here. She may have legitimate reasons for needing to go through court and given how long proceedings can drag on she may understandably not want to leave her baby unchristened indefinitely.

Aliennation · 21/10/2014 13:23

Well spotted fairenuff.
So OP is the father or the father has an overly invested friend/DP.
More likely the former, why people do this I have no idea. Hmm

WakeyCakey45 · 21/10/2014 16:50

So OP is the father or the father has an overly invested friend/DP.

If we're speculating, I suspect the OP is actually the mother - seeking validation for the decision she made.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 21/10/2014 19:30

wakey

I'm curious why,in the absence of any indication that the baptism is the matter before the court or that any orders pertaining to a baptism exist you think it could be contempt of court?

WakeyCakey45 · 21/10/2014 22:10

sock because the mothers reason for not inviting the father is said to be because they are in court over access.

Not, "because he's an abusive bastard", not "because he hasn't bothered since the baby was born", not even because " I hate him, and can't cope with seeing him again on my baby's special day" but specifically because the court case is taking place.
On the basis that the mother, who is party to the proceedings, is linking the the fathers absence at the Christening with the court case, it's not an unreasonable assumption to make that there is a link.
Contempt of court does not, afaik, have to be a direct contradiction of a direct order. An act that is deliberately designed to contradict the intention of the courts order (such as a further hearing to establish PR) could also be considered as contempt by a pedantic judge.

Fairenuff · 21/10/2014 22:13

Well, we won't know will we. Because OP started a thread with very little information and didn't bother coming back.

GiveMeSomething · 21/10/2014 22:22

What a ridiculous judgement! I bet if he'd been there it would have been a really awkward day for everybody. Also, if he's not not named on the birth cert and is applying for rights, he doens't have them now. Not every child is even christened so it's a weird thing to be so worried about on behalf of your friend's child's father. Why are you more focused on his rights (not actually true yet) to be at his son's christening). I'd wait and see first if he fulfils his responsibilities before you go investing yourself in to whether some random man's rights are interpreted as you believe they should be, in your capacity as the friend of the baby's mother.

GiveMeSomething · 21/10/2014 22:22

oh she never came back!? I'm wasting my breath then.

Fairenuff · 21/10/2014 22:26

We think 'she' may be a 'he' Give

jacks365 · 21/10/2014 22:29

Wakey we are not speculating about the op being the father we are saying that he has confirmed on another thread that he is the father. If he is an abusive bastard he is hardly going to confirm it is he.

DiaDuit · 21/10/2014 22:33

who is party to the proceedings, is linking the the fathers absence at the Christening with the court case

When i was attending court over contact with my son's grandparents it was made clear to both of us that NO contact was to be made between us oustide of what the solicitors corresponded. The same when exp and I involved solicitors to negotiate his contact. First meeting with solicitor i was told no contact.

It's entirely possible that when asked why her EX wasnt attending the woman answered "because we are going through court" meaning "i'm not to contact him"

Fairenuff · 21/10/2014 22:38

the mothers reason for not inviting the father is said to be because they are in court over access.

According to the OP.

Who may or may not be the father.

And if he is the father, he isn't going to post...

"because he's an abusive bastard", not "because he hasn't bothered since the baby was born", not even because " I hate him, and can't cope with seeing him again on my baby's special day"

So, clear as mud then.

WakeyCakey45 · 21/10/2014 22:40

Wakey we are not speculating about the op being the father we are saying that he has confirmed on another thread that he is the father.

I didn't realise the OP was a name changer - the scant previous posts on the OPs username don't confirm gender (and are entirely consistent with the OP of this thread being the Mum) but I'm obviously not keeping up with peoples multiple identities.

jacks365 · 21/10/2014 22:45

Wakey you are right he didn't confirm as such but the posts are written in such a way as to deliberately hide gender, to me it shouted out father. It also explains inconsistencies in this thread ie why did the father not being invited ruin the ops day.

BlackeyedSusan · 21/10/2014 22:47

the coe church I go to does full immersion adult baptisms. think they also offer christening/infant baptisms.

bf1000 · 22/10/2014 06:41

Jacks - I assumed the friend may be male but not the father. And the reason it upset OP is that as a father he is upset that his friend would exclude the childs father - because he would be upset if he'd been excluded. Or the OP is a woman who has a brother/partner who is also excluded from their childrens lives and she knows first hand the effect actions like this have.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 22/10/2014 09:59

wakey

That's very far reaching even for the "I like to come on and intimidate lone parents with inaccurate statements about what courts will do" brigade.

Its not unusual for people to fall out and not wish to socialise together when they end up in court.

Fairenuff · 22/10/2014 10:21

I'm wondering why OP hasn't come back to the thread to either clarify who they are, or engage with the posters regarding all the different queries that have come out of this.

What was the point in starting it in the first place Hmm