Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not want to re-register DC

98 replies

Liskee · 09/01/2018 12:51

DH and I got married a year after DS2 was born. On both DC birth certificates are DHs name, and my maiden name. I changed my name when we got married (my choice, very happy to do so, this thread is NOT ABOUT name changing).

MIL is now suggesting though that we re-register DC births so that BCs show my married name. I dont think it's necessary to do so. DC were conceived and born to two loving parents in a relationship who have since married. We're not embarrassed by our non-married state when we had the DC and we're delighted they were both able to be at our wedding. However MIl is saying that if I'm happy to have all of us with same name now, then it should be on BCs too.

AIBU? (I know I'm not - just want to know other peoples experiences/thoughts really).

OP posts:
CurlyRover · 09/01/2018 12:53

YANBU! Why does it matter what's on his BC? You're absolutely right, he has two loving parents and that's all that matters. Tell her to jog on.

Battleax · 09/01/2018 12:53

I didn't either. I couldn't see a point. I don't recognise illegitimate/legitimate as a concept, so meh.

Figrollsnotfatrolls · 09/01/2018 12:53

I didn't reregister my older dc. Younger one will be as dh wants the double barrel surname changed to just mine.
Your mil sounds nosey BTW!!

WishUponAStar88 · 09/01/2018 12:54

Yanbu. What a waste of time that would be, no point to it at all.

minisoksmakehardwork · 09/01/2018 12:55

sadly YABU. We had the reason why it needed to be done explained to us. Should you have more children after you are married, they will be considered higher priority in the event of any dispute in the event of your deaths. EG, the children you have after you have married can stop any older children receiving anything from your estate.

For us it was nothing to do with shame and embarrassment of having conceived 'out of wedlock' but a very basic protecting all our children's interests. We had twins a year after we got married so re-registered our elder children at the same time as registering the twins births.

Derekmorganwasinmybed · 09/01/2018 12:56

I didn’t reregister my 2 didn’t see the point

Peachyking000 · 09/01/2018 12:58

, the children you have after you have married can stop any older children receiving anything from your estate.

Really - even if you have made a will? I’ve never heard of this, but am happy to stand corrected.

lynzpynz · 09/01/2018 13:00

Birth certificate recorded your status and names at a fixed point in time. You all have the same name now (which was her reasoning) - by that kind of logic you should be amending your own birth certificate too never mind your kids to reflect your happiness with your current name!

Don’t let your MIL’s opinion sway yours, and there’ll possibly be a fee to change a bit of paper over something you are perfectly content with.

minisoksmakehardwork · 09/01/2018 13:04

Yes! Because technically the older children are illegitimate. It is all tied up in illegitimacy laws, even if the married couple are the parents of the older children. While it is a law and it is unlikely anyone would be fined if they did not re-register their children, no one can say what will happen between siblings in the future. IF there is a fall out and you do not re-register the births, a younger child who was conceived in the marriage, could stop the older one(s) getting their inheritance even with a will.

"The law was introduced as a result of an archaic law which meant babies born to unmarried parents would subsequently be prohibited from acquiring any kind of inheritance.

However, it is now considered outdated by solicitors who suspect that a parents aren’t likely to be fined for failing to re-register their children’s births after they have wed.

“The re-registration is not to grant the father parental responsibility,” Katharine Marshall, associate solicitor at WHN Solicitors, explained to the newspaper, “he’d already have this as an unmarried father, provided he was included on the original birth certificate - but for the child to be recognised as a ‘child of the marriage."" - this is taken from an Independent newspaper article. The Gov.uk website doesn't have much information but money saving expert explains it the same way.

WillowySnicket · 09/01/2018 13:04

Also (just a thought), might your husband have trouble travelling with the older dcs if they aren't in the same name? I know women who have had to prove all sorts of things because her dc had her dh's name and she didn't. It was a real faff.

DrMarthaJones · 09/01/2018 13:05

the children you have after you have married can stop any older children receiving anything from your estate

No they can't. Not anymore.

Battleax · 09/01/2018 13:06

Isn't that a law that changed thirty odd years ago?

DrMarthaJones · 09/01/2018 13:06

Also (just a thought), might your husband have trouble travelling with the older dcs if they aren't in the same name? I know women who have had to prove all sorts of things because her dc had her dh's name and she didn't. It was a real faff

They all have the same name.

And this travelling stuff I've only ever seen on MN. Despite I and most women I know having a different surname from our children (women don't change on marriage in my home country) none of us have ever had a moments issue, despite flying in and out of the UK frequently.

minisoksmakehardwork · 09/01/2018 13:08

It is how it was explained to me, but you appear to be correct as this

Why do you have to re-register the birth of your child?
There are two reasons as to why you would do this: –

To add the name of the father onto the birth certificate, whether by choice or due to a Court Order;
If the parents have married since the birth of their child.
Point numbered 1 above is widely known but it seems that point numbered 2 comes as quite a surprise to parents.

The law is rather outdated. It relates to a time when illegitimate children could not inherit from their parents.

The Administration of Estates Act 1925 changed the medieval rule that land passed on death to the eldest son (otherwise known as the heir) and since then the rule has evolved further to take account of situations where the deceased did not have sons who survived them and thus allowed other children to inherit. This meant that all children could inherit but they could only do so if they were legitimate, in other words, if their parents were already married when they were born.

The Legitimacy Act 1926 enabled a child to be classed as ‘legitimate’ as long as their parents married after their birth (provided that they had not been married to someone else at the time of conception) and provided the parents re-registered the child’s birth after marriage so that the same is evidenced on the child’s birth certificate.

What surprises parents is that there is a legal requirement set down in The Legitimacy Act 1926 which states “that it shall be the duty of the parents of a legitimated person or, in cases where re-registration can be effected on information furnished by one parent and one of the parents is dead, of the surviving parent to furnish to the Registrar General information with a view to obtaining the re-registration of the birth of that person within 3 months after the date of the marriage by virtue of which he was legitimated”.

It seems that the legal requirement referred to above only really becomes apparent when either: –

a Registrar mentions it to you when you register a child for the first time or;
At a wedding. If the Registrar is conducting the wedding ceremony and becomes aware that you already have a child together they will advise that you should re-register the birth of that child.
The Legitimacy Act 1926 Act also states that any parent who fails to give information as required by the Act shall be liable for a fine not exceeding….£2! Furthermore, the Act states that the failure of the parents to furnish the information referred to in the Act shall not affect the legitimation of that child. So, this begs the question, what is the point to this rule?

In reality, legitimacy has no effect on inheritance as the Family Law Reform Act 1969 gave illegitimate children the right to inherit on the death of a parent.

comes directly from a solicitors website.

So in a nutshell, I was wrong! So you do what you decide is best for your family, but not what mother in law feels should be done due to outdated laws.

Battleax · 09/01/2018 13:08

Yes, The Family Law Reform Act 1987.

RB68 · 09/01/2018 13:08

It none of MIL business and as all family have same name and only shows mothers name at the time it really is of no consequence.

Get DH to tell her to shove off

Battleax · 09/01/2018 13:09

Oh maybe there were two Acts Smile

FloraPostIt · 09/01/2018 13:11

I have to disagree with the poster above - the law no longer distinguishes between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' children. I don't know when exactly it was changed but long before I started practising. I have never heard of alegal concept of 'child of the marriage' in the context of inheritance law - whether under a Will or under intestacy. Please do worry. All of your children would be treated exactly the same under the law whether they are born before or after you are married. I promise!

Blackteadrinker77 · 09/01/2018 13:15

It's a law that needs changed, it has no place in modern times.

ElBandito · 09/01/2018 13:15

The gov web site suggests you ate supposed to re-register
www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-re-register-a-childs-birth-following-marriage-of-natural-parents

LyraPotter · 09/01/2018 13:16

Ignore all of the nonsense about inheritance. The law in the UK no longer makes any distinction between children born in or out of wedlock and hasn't done for decades. The children born before you married have exactly the same legal rights and status as any children born after your marriage. And in any case, changing your name their birth certificates wouldn't change the fact that they were born before you were married.

As you said, your children were born to two loving parents and you have no need to try and hide or cover anything up. Your MIL is being old-fashioned and unreasonable.

Battleax · 09/01/2018 13:17

It already was Black. Decades ago. It's just the usual Mumsnet misinformation. Like "common law marriages".

LuchiMangsho · 09/01/2018 13:18

The travelling thing is true though. I was asked in Paris last week for my DC's birth certificate (taking the Eurostar back and DH was staying on for work). Luckily I had it. DH who shares his surname with them was also asked for a letter from me when taking them to Canada last summer.

LuchiMangsho · 09/01/2018 13:20

The government website says you need to re-register to add the father's name to the BC. In this case the father's name is already on the BC so that's not an issue.

RancidOldHag · 09/01/2018 13:20

The law which says you need to reregister had not been repealed, so yes you are committing an offence if you don't.

I'm sure the only reason why it's not been repealed is because no Government has got around to it.

You could be fined. It's about £1 (not been changed in about 50 years). Almost worth it just to frame the paperwork and hang in the loo.

Swipe left for the next trending thread