Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To just be appalled a pregnant woman has been jailed over this ?

153 replies

Sootyandsweep2019 · 18/09/2019 20:38

Yes, ammend the certificate to be factually accurate. But I am genuinely scared and appalled the CPS felt this was in the public interest to prosecute here. I mean, are they going to knock on the door of all Jeremy Kyle guests in a similar situation ? And there are many other cases where I'm just aghast a prosecution was thought to be in the public interest.

There are also women, who will protect a child by having someone else register as the father to keep a domestic abuser out if a child's life, I think we have a real, real authoratitive problem in this country as I could not trust any authorities that thought this was okay ( Daily mail story about mother jailed for naming the wrong man on birth certificate , trying to link but struggling on phone)

OP posts:
Coyoacan · 18/09/2019 22:36

Strange how much importance people are giving to a bureaucratic record. Maybe it is not a feminist issue but, as willstarttomorrow says, people get away with no sentence or shorter sentences for violent crimes. Even if, in the actual case, there is a lot more to it than that, I am surprised that people feel so very strongly about the idea of giving the civil registry the wrong information that they reckon it deserves such a severe sentence.

HennyPennyHorror · 18/09/2019 22:39

Coyoacan that's an issue in tonnes of cases...for men and women. There are men out there getting shut up for a matter of months for battering someone half to death! That's something to sweat about...predominantly male killers getting out after a few years. Worry about them.

How long was this woman's sentence?

ivykaty44 · 18/09/2019 22:47

Fraud has always had heavier penalties than violence, that’s how our system was set up

BrunetteBuns · 18/09/2019 22:47

YABU

It’s a deterrent - birth certificates are legal documents and should be treated as such not as a weapon to use against an ex with a bad breakup.

She and her new boyfriend did this out of spite. They lied and therefore are punished after SS were involved and then DNA was confirmed. TBH I doubt that she would serve full time. If she has left it blank the legally she would have done nothing wrong but as they both turned up and lied, @HenryPennyHorror - Its reported that mum and boyfriend have been jailed for 8 and 6 months.

tillytrotter1 · 18/09/2019 22:50

Being pregnant is irrelevant, she broke the law for her own ends. Pregnancy isn't a get-out-of jail card.

gostiwooz · 18/09/2019 22:51

Appalled that she was jailed, or appalled that she was jailed when pregnant?

You can't get away with committing a crime just because you happen to be upduffed.

milveycrohn · 18/09/2019 22:53

The problem here is that the birth certificate is a legal document, so to knowlingly enter false information is a crime against the state, and which are always dealt with harshly.
The fact that other women may have done this, does not make it ok.
Morally, I think it important that the correct details are entered, so that both child and parent have a right to know and possibly form a relationship. Yes, I know that some parents (of either sex, but most often the father) abandon their children and have no relationship with them, but the default should always be to enter the correct father.
If the mother is married to a different biological father, then the husband is assumed to be the father, but that does not make it right (IMO).

StrangersToLove · 18/09/2019 23:00

If the mother is married to a different biological father, then the husband is assumed to be the father, but that does not make it right (IMO)

They are not assumed to be the father. Otherwise how does this work for same sex couples where it is biologically impossible for them both to be the biological parent, and yet they can both be named on the birth certificate?

It would seem in law being married trumps biological relatedness when it comes to birth certificates.

Tonnerre · 18/09/2019 23:01

How is it the mother’s crime? You have to be married to the dad to put them down without them being there; if not married he has to go with you. So it’s him that commits the crime, isn’t it?

Hardly, if he doesn't even know the child is his. Even if he did, it doesn't excuse putting a deliberate falsehood on the certificate.

RubbingHimSourly · 18/09/2019 23:01

I know the usual opinion on here is that all women who stop contact do so because they're being abused. Which is bollocks, there are plenty of spiteful women out their who take great joy in using their children as weapons. This is one of these women and she deserves all she gets.

Tonnerre · 18/09/2019 23:02

People on this thread are assuming that this was a first offence, but there is nothing in the report saying that.

Toomanyradishes · 18/09/2019 23:10

If you go through surrogacy and the surrogate is married you legally have to put the surrogates husband down as the father of the child even if he is biologically unrelated (which is usually the case) so it does seem unfair that the law insists on putting the wrong thing in one instance and punishes it in another but i suspect there is more to this than reported

Sinkingfeeling · 18/09/2019 23:10

The child’s mother and her boyfriend committed perjury and were probably prosecuted under the Perjury Act 1911. They wilfully provided false information at the time of the birth registration. The child’s natural father was denied the opportunity to obtain parental responsibility for his child and the child may have been denied the opportunity to know who his natural father was, or whether he or she may have inherited any medical conditions which could have affected them in later life. It appears to be a clear-cut case, but would probably never been discovered if a DNA test hadn’t been ordered by a court.

RosesAndRaindrops · 18/09/2019 23:15

Just had to google as there was no link in the OP www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7477527/Mother-30-jailed-lying-babys-father-birth-certificate.html
If it's this one, it says it wasn't just the mum, it was her boyfriend too.Not just her, they were both apparently sentenced.
So are people saying she should have got away with any wrongdoing just because she's a preggers female?
As it doesn't work like that.
It's taking away the parental rights from the actual father as well.
If you don't want their name on for any reason, you'd just leave it blank?
Not just lie and hand over parental rights to someone else.
What if they split up in the future?
Don't think she thought that one through myself, as what'd happen if he refused to pay maintenance or whatever?
It'd surely have come out at some point down the line.

Nomorepies · 18/09/2019 23:16

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on the poster's request.

31RueCambon75001 · 18/09/2019 23:28

Wow, I'm surprised. The man who put his name on birth cert did so willingly, and mothers are often obliged to have DNA tests when they know already who the father is and have said so. So they are disbelieved and forced to prove what's true, but also, not allowed to protect their child from the stillexisting stigma of father 'not named'

Tilltheendoftheline · 19/09/2019 05:20

I clicked the link. Why did she get eight months and the boyfriend six? They committed the crime together.

Because it was her child and her ex. She did it out of spite. If they know she did it out of spite, its was her idea. The person whose idea the crime is, usually does get more.

Strange how much importance people are giving to a bureaucratic record. Maybe it is not a feminist issue but, aswillstarttomorrowsays, people get away with no sentence or shorter sentences for violent crimes. Even if, in the actual case, there is a lot more to it than that, I am surprised that people feel so very strongly about the idea of giving the civil registry the wrong information that they reckon it deserves such a severe sentence.

The idea of giving incorrect information on legal papers. Legal papers that are actually the childs? A legal document that tells the child who their father is?
I am surprised you feel lying to your child about parentage to a child isnt a big deal.

Comparing it to something else, doesnt work. In the case of most crimes, someone had committed a worse crime. Some people have committed worse crimes and got lesser sentences.

Ita fraud. Ita fraud that was designed to keep a father away from his child, for no reason other than spite. Its was designed to dent the child a relationship with its father, because the woman wanted to.

Ita disgusting behaviour with no regard for her own child.

Tilltheendoftheline · 19/09/2019 05:21

not allowed to protect their child from the stillexisting stigma of father 'not named'

She knew who the father was. There was no reason for him not to be named.

malificent7 · 19/09/2019 06:12

Fraud maybe...prison is a bit harsh though. And then we have a system where actual rapists (men)get a couple of years in the prison and murderers get light sentences. Puts it in perpective tbh.

malificent7 · 19/09/2019 06:17

Does it say what her ex was like? If he was an abusive twat i think it's more than fair to leave the dad off but ahe ahould not have put her new man on there.

Tilltheendoftheline · 19/09/2019 06:22

Comparing it to other crimes is pointless. We can all name cases where we think a sentence should have been harsher. Might as well not send anyone to prison.

Theres been absolutely no hint she did it to protect the child. But evidence she did it out of spite. This is all on her.

I find it quite appalling, that people are still trying see if they can place the blame at the exs door. Got o be the mans fault.

Why do people seem to believe that if a woman does something agile, it must be a mans fault?

I am sure some women, dont see women as people with their own personalities. They think all women must only do things because a man made them. You cant think much of women, in general.

malificent7 · 19/09/2019 06:23

I would have fined them heavily and made them do community service.

inboxmayhem · 19/09/2019 06:25

It’s never okay to register someone who isn’t the father as the father. If necessary it should be left blank.

The above.

How did she do it thou? She must've either been married to the man she named or taken him with her.

You can't name any man on the BC without him being present unless you are married. You have take BC with you.

So why wasn't the man too prosecuted if this was the case?

Aridane · 19/09/2019 06:26

Being a feminist, does not mean that you agree with everything what women do or apply the 'well would it be a crime if they were raped' argument to everything

Exactly

Tilltheendoftheline · 19/09/2019 06:28

How did she do it thou? She must've either been married to the man she named or taken him with her.

She took him AND he was prosecuted and is in prison.