Not puttinf partbers name on birth certificate

[OpportunityKnocks]

I've read at least 3 threads in the last day where posters have told the OP not to put the fathers name on the birth certificate, despite the child being undeniably his.

It's actually appalling.

Why would you purposely do what you can to remove parental rights, which will affect the relationship that a father has with his child.

Yes, he can fight it through court, but why the hell would you do that to your child? You would be making it harder for him to have a relationship with his from the outset.

Not only that, but it really sets a tone for the next 18 years. I would be livid if my partner did that to me, regardless of the reasons. It's unforgivable.

Posters suggesting this are really giving no thought to the long term impact on the childs relationship with the father. Imagine of a father could do this to a mother?

I am indeed thinking of an earlier thread, where a very young, drug-abusing man is putting repeated pressure on a poster to abort his child. He wants to be free to indulge his drug habit.

Let's talk practicalities and imagine they both want his name on the BC, which may be the case. How many times do you suggest this mother with her newborn should struggle out in the winter's cold on public transport to the nearest registrar's office (further away than it used to be because of cuts due to austerity) and then go home without registering the birth because he didn't turn up as arranged? What when she reached the last legal date? Where are his 'rights' if he doesn't want them and is lying drugged somewhere?

Bertrand how do I live in an alternate universe? have you even read this thread?

cheesecake thought you were ignoring me?

nearly I think she should book the registrar (though its not his fault its cold or far away is it?) and tell him the time, and if he doesn't turn up then that's entirely on him and she should go ahead without him.

Though, to be fair I think a drug addict comes under someone who is probably a danger to the child, and then fair enough don't put them on the BC.

An alternative universe where people think all women are angels, all men are bastards, but where women frequently refuse to put fathers on birth certificates on a whim.

thought you were ignoring me?

I am. Do you you think all my comments are about you? you do flatter yourself.

lol that alternate universe is called MN!

All men are bastards on MN, keep up Bertrand.

cheesecake its clear that was aimed at me, but ok then. Childish.

DS’s father is on his BC. We were married at the time. XH is a violent abusive alcoholic who has abused both of us. He hasn’t even seen DS in two years and doesn’t pay maintenance, despite having more money than me. SS have said that DS isn’t to see his father, not that I would allow it anyway, yet still his DF is on the BC. If I were to prove myself an unfit mother the way DS’s father has I’d have him taken away and have PR removed, but because XH is a NRP he keeps PR no matter what.

DS wants to change his name. He can’t because his DF won’t allow it.

I have to get permission every time I take DS abroad on holiday, just in case I get questioned at passport control. This means I have to speak to XH, who I try to avoid because every time I come into contact with him he’s verbally abusive and he usually pulls a stupid stunt to get at me. Last time he called the council to say I was cohabiting while claiming as a single person which I most certainly am not. I get questions like ‘what are you taking him there for? why should I allow you to do that?’ It’s a bloody nightmare.

It seems to me that deadbeat NRPs can do what the hell they like, including neglect and emotional and physical abuse, things that would have SS removing the DC if they lived with them but they get to keep PR, regardless of the problems it causes for the responsible RP. If the RP displayed the same behaviour as the deadbeat NRP then PR would be taken away, but because the DC don’t live with the NRP they retain PR no matter how useless or downright awful a parent they are. DS’s father could turn up at school kicking out time and take him tomorrow and not return him and despite SS saying they shouldn’t have contact I’d have to go to court to get him back.

I absolutely do not blame women who won’t put deadbeat arseholes on the BC, it causes nothing but problems.

I agree OP. Too many mother's confused their feelings for their ex with their kids' feelings. Many men are crap partners but decent or good fathers.

Kids have a right to be legally the child of the two parents who created them regardless of the situation.

It's in the vast majority of cases a control thing.

My dad isnt on my birth certificate or my sisters , when they split up my mum moved us all miles away and made my dad go to court for access for me and my sister.

It took him 2 years but he did it and he got access for EOW. My mum not putting my dad on the birth certificate didnt stop my dad from wanting to raise and be in his daughters lives.

If they want to be part of their kids lives they will be, being on the birth certificate is neither here nor there,

Or your dad missed out on a relationship with you and your sisters for two years?

“Many men are crap partners but decent or good fathers.“
Are they? Are they really, though?

Being in a relationship that fails is not the same as being a crap partner.

Or your dad missed out on a relationship with you and your sisters for two years?

Yes he did. But him not being on the birth certificate would of still not had any relevance. If he was on the BC my mum would of still moved us all away, would of still made him go to court for us, it would of all still been the same

But him not being on the BC didnt stop him from wanting to see us or be part of our lives,

Not putting the dad on the BC will not damage the relationship. If your genuinelly bothered about your child you just want to be part of their livess dont you, birth certificate or not

My DB is living with his partner who has a 10 year old son by a previous relationship and they have been together since the boy was a few months old. The father has never been involved with the child but is on the BC.

He has refused to let my DB adopt him and if anything was to happen to DSIL, custody would automatically revert to the boy's father. DB would have no rights whatsoever, even though he has been the child's father for almost all of his life.

If a single mother with children from different fathers dies, her children are all returned to whoever is on the BC, separating the children from their siblings at a time when they most need each other.

Families in the 21st century are complicated and like many things BC are not fit for purpose. Obviously, there will be some mothers who leave the father off the BC for reasons of control and spite, but the vast majority will be for very different and valid reasons.

And if they are not on the BC, it doesn't prevent the children from being informed about who their father is.

BTW, the law as it is currently framed is there to protect men.

The (misogynist) assumption is that unmarried women would put any poor sap on the birth certificate just to get child maintenance, so the law is set up so that a single mother cannot register the birth with both parents unless the man goes with her to the registrar's.

If a man is left off the birth certificate wilfully when he was prepared to go and register the birth, but wasn't told that his ex was going to the registry office, he has legal redress - he can apply through the courts for parental responsibility.

I repeat - usually when the advice is given on here to leave a man off the birth certificate, it is overwhelmingly likely that this is because the man has spent most of the pregnancy being abusive in some way - either physically, financially or psychologically. And generally speaking a child is better off without such a father. It is not the case that having a father, any father, in one's life is better than none. Clearly a nice, involved, decent father is better than none. But better no father at all than an abusive one.

And that makes it OK, happycamper?? Is that what you’re saying??

No not at all, what I'm saying is that the comparisons to the 2 situations aren't relevant.

When my first child was born, her father’s name was on the birth certificate but he still had to apply for parental responsibility. It only changed to be automatic at the beginning of 2000s.

Well I had children to a man that was controlling and emotionally abusive. I didn't live with him but he would come round regularly to see me but wouldn't really bother with his DDs. He wasn't on their birth certificate. He also had some mental health issues I suspect.
Now I'm married and have children with my husband and my ex has not seen his kids for almost 4 years. I can imagine if he was on their birth certificate he'd have licence to make mine and their lives hell. So it's not always clear cut.

the thing is, not putting a man on the BC doesn't solve anything, if they're an utter bastard, they could get PR through court anyway and continue to make your life hell?

Obv if they cba, they wont, which is good for the mother and the kids, but if they're hell bent on ruining your life, not putting them on the BC doesn't actually stop them anyway does it?

I think there should be a better system in where decent parents do have rights, and awful abusive controlling ones don't - but I am not sure in practice how that would be done.

But automatically putting him on their birth certificates is just making it a whole lot easier for him. Handing them to him on a plate. If he wants to see them so much he can go to court and do everything in his power, but he won't, because it would be too much effort for him.

crystal I do understand that, and in your situation I think you did the right thing, absolutely. And yes, he couldn't be arsed because it was too much effort. I am just saying that some men will make the effort just so they can continue to control, be spiteful, get back at their ex via the kids etc , and there is nothing in place to stop them.. which I think there should be.

And the thing is, the women get a lot of flak for this, but I'd say in most cases, it's not decent guys who just want to see their kids. Its deadbeat dads who aren't good fathers, whether a bad influence or who can't be bothered who make up the majority. Then they stop bringing up their children singlehandedly without much support. The mothers are making a sensible decision in bad circumstances in the best interests of their child.

Should say they are bringing up the child singlehandedly.

My grandaughter's father offered her mother £50 a week for a year if she signed a legal document stating she would never name him as her child's father. Needless to say he is not on the birth certificate, has never seen his daughter or enquired about her well being.

“ the thing is, not putting a man on the BC doesn't solve anything, if they're an utter bastard, they could get PR through court anyway and continue to make your life hell?”
Of course. But it delays things. And some just won’t bother.