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?

@MulticolourTinselOnThetree

Your DC could change their name when they turn 16.

Thanks for all the discussion.
I see I've overlooked a lot of scenarios, bit of a blanket OP blinded by the recent threads I'd read.

Tbf, it was a few threads I read where there was no abuse happening that triggered my OP. The recommendation was from posters to not put the dp on the bc to essentially try and control the DP themselves and have total control over the child rather than for the childs best interests. It was all about making the father work to prove they should be a father. Which isn't actually fair and puts an unnecessary strain on a father-child relationship rather than facilitating it. The stance I saw was 'the father should have to fight for access'.

But yes, too blankey an approach.

Although, the system sounds like it needs a bloody good overhaul

@WWlOOlWW

The oldest DC has decided not to at this point, as this is as much their surname now, it's the name on their GCSE certificates and doesn't want the hassle right now. Hasn't ruled it out for a later date, though.

Youngest may choose to do so but is currently under 16 and their father would not give permission. Also, as PR extends until the age of 18, a name change couldn't be done without their father's permission until then, anyway.

OP, there doesn't have to be any overt abuse to be cautious about putting a father onto the BC. Past behaviour can be a good indicator for future behaviour, and I'd want to be sure he'd be a good dad before putting a man on the BC these days, while it's still tied to PR.

Depends. If the father is an actual danger or a nasty person, if he's named on the BC and takes the child and runs the police won't be quick to act, it isn't kidnapping if they're named on the BC. But that's quite rare, and if everything is fine they just don't like the father then it's not a decent thing to do.

@OpportunityKnocks - so how would you like to overhaul the system?

I've just seen yet another example of this - someone saying during an argument with a current partner that they'd threatened to kick them out and they wouldn't see the baby once it was born. Partner then points out that he will still want contact with the baby and would go to court if necessary- Cue hundreds of comments of don't put dad on birth certificate. Absolutely nothing to suggest this man is abusive or any risk to the baby in any way. Just a man pointing out that if they were to split he'd still want to be involved in the child's life. This is all too common, and I think, what the OP was referring to.

@happycamper11 yes. This is exactly the sort of thing I meant

Could you link to the thread? I can’t find it.

If our systems and society even came close to adequately protecting women and children from violence and abuse this would be a non-issue.

Given the really poor understanding of many people as to the dynamics of abuse and what an abusive situation would look like to an outsider, that is very difficult to address and also means I take it with a pinch of salt when a third party confidently claims there is no abuse in a situation.

Especially on MN, where you frequently see posters who simply don't recognise abuse when it's being described to them and will be adamant there is no abuse occurring. Occasionally that's malicious but mostly it's just a reflection of cultural bias about what abuse must look like and never having been properly taught about it.

I also think reading through this thread that several posters grossly underestimate just how common violence, abuse and rape are. You probably know or interact with multiple rape survivors in your daily life, for instance, but it's unlikely you know who they are. And they should never be forced to disclose to anyone.

Trying to force women to try and somehow prove the terrible things that have been done to them just to have half a hope of protecting themselves from further damage or revictimisation is wrong. Our society already puts them in a position where they repeatedly pay the price for their perpetrator's actions while the perpetrator is totally unburdened by any form of consequence.

I think it depends on the situation. The mother should have more rights than the father. Next time a man spends nine months carrying a pregnancy and squeezing it out through his penis, he can make the choice.