To not want to re-register DC

[Liskee]

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).

grannytomine
I am so, so sorry.
My heart goes out to you.
I have never objected to immigration officers checking the children with me. It should happen every time. Children should be kept safe. Even if it is a little bit inconvenient.

The registrar when we gave notice if marriage was very pushy about this too - actually told us that re-registering dc was 'the right thing to do'. We didn't and have no intention to. It's not the kind of thing that makes me feel angry but she was stepping so far out of her remit I was sort of intellectually angry if that makes sense. Agree re. Not recognising legitimate/illegitimate, it's such a dehumanising term.

Perhaps dehumanising is a bit strong. Hopefully people get what I mean!

We haven't bothered doing it either. 2 DC before the marriage, 3 after. Who cares?

Never underestimate the misery caused by lack of proper wills and legal documentation.
I could have been a millionaire by now if my relatives had made proper wills.
Sadly they didn't.

I am so sorry granny for what happened.

My 'little clones' comment was sort of musing out loud. Because I know of others who are checked, yet we have never been, so it was more an inconsequential musing rather than providing an 'explanation' if you see what I mean. I am perfectly happy to be checked and to have the child questioned/ family relationship questioned etc. That's why I am more than happy to have DH provide a letter saying he is happy for them to leave the country (my parents live abroad so I travel alone with them quite often).

If the parents have married after the child was born, they are required to re-register the birth to have the natural father’s details added to the birth record

But for many of us, genever the father's name is already on the birth record, even though we weren't married at the time.

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.

Hm... that would be rather interesting, wouldn’t it?

Wow, MIL really doesn't like the idea of YOUR birth surname being anywhere near her grandchildren then?

That was your surname when they were born. Your DC were born to a woman carrying that surname, not 'her' family surname.

That's what she doesn't like.

Tough! (and really none of her business).

Tell her you'll re-register them as double-barreled.

she was stepping so far out of her remit I was sort of intellectually angry if that makes sense

She was not stepping out of her remit at all. The law requires you to re-register the birth within 3 months of marriage. She was advising you of your legal responsibilities.

The gov web site suggests you ate supposed to re-register

If the natural father is not already on the birth cert. In this case he is on the certificate already. Its largely redundant and I think dates back to when people married to legitimise a child.

What would you change? The name at time of birth has not changed even though it is not the name in use any more.

Prh47 in that case she should have told us that it was a legal requirement; she didn't. She said it was 'better'.

Yes, but I think if anything she didn't step far enough not that she overstepped. She shouldn't have made it sound optional if she was trying to convey that it isn't!

If the natural father is not already on the birth cert

Even if the natural father is already on the birth certificate you are legally required to re-register the birth. As I say, it is a law that is largely ignored and you are very unlikely to face prosecution for failure to comply, but that is the law.

Just to correct myself slightly, that is the law in England and Wales. The law may be different in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Fair enough, genever, I inferred -wrongly- that you thought that unmarried fathers were not on birth certificates. Sorry.

Still not going to bother reregistering though!

Can we stop going on about international travel and having no issues if you are married please.

The actual law states that to travel abroad you need the consent of all parties with PR this is the case married or not.

Granted it’s rarely checked but it could be.

We were specifically told when we registered DC1 that if we married we would have to reregister. I find it odd that we seem to have been the only unmarried couple in the land that were told this.

@Xmas I couldn't see anything on the Scottish one. And when I downloaded the form on the links (to be nosey) it just said England and wales.

Me and dp aren't married but he's on the bc and dd has his surname so all good.

As DC have your husband's name as their's as well, they can all themselves anything they want. MIL is just being a busy body - and probably showing a bit of her own prejudices as well.

Well fair enough then if that's the law. It's curious that she presented it as her opinion then, she made it seem very much like a moral issue.