Not putting father on birth certificate

[louise5754]

Recently I've seen posters say they gave the baby their surname and didn't put the father on the birth certificate and "it's the best thing they ever did" They also advise others to do the same.

If you're in a relationship with the babies father what makes you think to do this?

Genuine question.

To do which? The name, or the birth certificate?

Both

It's about control and possession. So much easier to 'own' a child if you deny the other person PR. Of course, this means little whilst the relationship is sound, but it's the best weapon should the relationship breakdown.

Isn’t it normally people that are single? Ive not heard anyone recommend not putting the father on the bc unless they aren’t with the father, as for giving the baby their surname, I agree with that unless
Married.

I gave both our kids their dads surname. We are married now but weren't at the time. I didn't think anything of it🙈

I only know one woman who did this.

Deeply insecure and possessive, and she used it as an insurance policy against her DP.
In the sense of, "if you leave me you won't be seeing DS again because you've got no rights".

She remembered who the child's DF was when it came to making a maintenance claim, of course.

Maybe they were in an abusive relationship? Or the child's father refused to come to register the birth so they can't be put on the certificate (unless married to the mother) anyway.

These women aren't in relationships with the fathers though. That's the point.

If they are on the BC a controlling and abusive man has a say in everything to do with the child's life. Having been in an abusive relationship and having to deal with my ex over parenting issues I can assure you it can be extremely difficult.

If a father isn't in the child's life but is on the BC it can mean all kinds of issues arise.

I don't believe a good man should be left off the BC but in some cases it is in the child's best interests.

My eldest from previous relationship has my surname and would have done even if had been with his dad which I wasn't. I was barely 19 when I had him and yes we had split before I knew I was pregnant but even if we hadn't I think I new it was not going to work. I did put him on bc however. I got some stick from my mum over this as it gave him rights. Personally as a child who's father was not on mine and was not in my life I hated not so much as knowing a name. I was told later in life why and do not blame my dm one bit it was for the best. With my dc I put him on so that he knew where he came from even if his father was absent later on. It made contacting child support much easier when he would not pay for his child. He has been absent for the past 7 years of his life and was like a yoyo for the first 5 but I can say I tried and he can say he knows who his father is. Thankfully his had a wonderful dad since he was 2 in my partner. The bc does give them rights but they can take you to court to get those rights if not on it. It saves having to do dna testing if they later deny being the father to avoid paying.

BUt that’s the point, youre married to him now, what if you wasn’t? My ex is absent thank fuck I was smart enough not to give you hem his name.

Another genuine question: To the people who left the father off the BC because he was abusive to you. He's still the child father isn't he? If he was a danger to the kid surely court wouldn't let him have access? I don't know that's why I asked.

On the surname front why shouldn't the mother's name be given? I wish I had.

On the putting the name on the bc, if I was having a baby and the father was controlling and we split, I wouldn't put him on. He could be added later but with pr he could show up and take the baby at any time and you would have to go through court to get them back.

Ah right I see. So the police can't bring the child back if he is on the BC? That explains it.

You can have access even if you aren't on the birth certificate.

Why on earth shouldn't the mother's surname be given?. Its an equally vaild (if not more) choice.

Also having parental responsibility means they can interfere with medical treatment, veto nurseries and schools. Then you have to fight through court.
I know a woman who's ex constantly uses his pr to punish her. He doesn't bother with the child. Just enjoys tormenting her.

Another genuine question: To the people who left the father off the BC because he was abusive to you. He's still the child father isn't he? If he was a danger to the kid surely court wouldn't let him have access?

I’m guessing you don’t have much experience of the Family Court? Abusers are routinely given unsupervised access to their children. It’s a system not fit for purpose.

Quite a judgey post IMHO

ok so all 3 DCs have the same dad and they all have my surname. Had we got married, it would be simple to amend the birth certs to his name, no fuss. If we split and they had his name it is dead poll only and birth certificates stand. I did not want to have children with a different surname. My ex was flaky and I know I will be a constant in my kids lives.

I got tons of criticism. But nobody could explain exactly why my children SHOULD have his name. Be grateful if you could enlighten me though?

As for the birth certificates...here is the issue...I had 2 kids by choice with my ex. We split up. He raped me. I had DC3.

I didn't want DC3 to feel like the odd one out and wonder why her dad wasnt on her birth certificates, so as hard as it was, I put him on.

He is abusive. He has joint PR. He can go to the school anytime legally and get my kids.

He has been assessed as high risk to my kids after 3 years of SS involvement. 3 years of weekly visits, 6 weekly meetings and 3 monthly conferences.

I still need to apply to court to get an injunction or prohibitive steps, because you see, you cannot revoke PR.

IT IS AN ONGOING NIGHTMARE

@chickenyhead how can it be judgy it's a question. Forget the single parents. I've read people do this that we're in relationships.

People prob think I'm crazy for what I did.

Sorry I wrote the above without reading your post

@Willyoujustbequiet I'm not saying it should or shouldn't.

This...

louise5754

Another genuine question: To the people who left the father off the BC because he was abusive to you. He's still the child father isn't he? If he was a danger to the kid surely court wouldn't let him have access? I don't know that's why I asked.

This is judgey. You clearly don't have a scooby, so your innocent question is just trolling

A baby having their Father's name is not "tradition" at all!
By tradition, a baby has their Mother's name.

But, prior to ~40yrs ago, women were almost always married (so had the surname of) the father of their child. Therefore, baby has the shared parental surname. Not "the father's name".

If cases where parents are not married, then for both practical, security (ie passport and travel reasons) and any future potential r'ship issues, a baby should have their mother's surname.

@chickenyhead report it if you think
I'm a troll.

@louise5754

Grow up