A strange one… and that’s why I don’t know how to handle this?!

[wooldryxptto]

I have a an almost two year old with my ex. We were very happy, then during pregnancy he had some sort of mental breakdown. He didn’t see dd until just before her first birthday though he did pay his share financially. He has apologised, obviously means next to f all after what he did, but has been consistent with her ever since, really focuses on her care and teaches her things, buys her extras, sees her regularly. I had sort of written him off as any decent parent but actually so far he’s kept to his word.

Anyway, and I know this is a controversial topic on mumsnet and the usual thing is to leave a man like this off the birth certificate… but I actually want him on it. I strongly believe dd should have both parents names on it. I’m not concerned that he would want shared care of dd as he is very happy that she lives with me, but even if he did, I have the funds to face a legal battle if needed. I simply feel strongly she should have her parents both on it.

I mentioned this to him last night and to my surprise he said he wanted to ‘think about it.’ He said he knew it was right he should be on there but he needed to look into it first.

I feel like I honestly can’t be around him even with dd anymore, I have such little respect for him. He’s said he will let me know this week if he will fill the form in… but am I being dramatic to feel so disgusted by this? I guess I was just expecting him to want to be on it and that would be that… but it’s thrown me a bit. I feel angry that he would want to evade any sense of formal responsibility towards her. I know he will always have financial responsibility so it doesn’t really matter I suppose but it does bother me. Any thoughts?! I know it’s random but I despair really that after everything he can’t even do a normal thing like this without a drama

@wooldryxptto I’m sorry but that’s fucking awful with regards to the fact that you don’t know whether he actually had a mental breakdown or basically just panicked when he suddenly realized he might have to be responsible. There’s no blame on you! I just mean it’s terrible that you don’t know because he refuses to tell you; this is one of those situations where his “I’m sorry” doesn’t come close to cutting it. Maybe if you knew what happened, you’d know how to feel about putting him on the birth certificate.

There is a huge difference between sharing a child with someone who has genuine mental health difficulties and someone who will continue to go AWOL whenever they can’t handle the amount of responsibility required by a situation. And you DEFINITELY don’t want him on the birth certificate if the latter is the case, because it indicates that if your daughter gets sick (God forbid), he’ll just decide it’s too much and disappear again, which means he’s about the last person you want to share parental responsibility with and give partial control over health decisions for her.

YOU know he's her father. HE knows he is her father. SHE knows he's her father. Why do you need a piece of paper stating the same thing? What is the advantage? He is paying child maintenance. A DNA test would prove it, if necessary to get maintenance.

So what is driving this need to have the piece of paper?

His reluctance was probably due to the fact he isn't sure how long he will remain in her life. I mean if he meets someone, he can deny all knowledge of having a child if he thinks it best to pretend he doesn't have one. and he knows you'd just let it drop if it ended up him demanding dna tests and going to court and whatnot, so he'd be home free.
Hopefully he has no intention of doing another disappearing act out of her life, but I can't see many other reasons why he wouldn't want it down in black and white that he is her father. Other than the option to 'pretend' he isn't if her official existence became inconvenient for him.

He's liable for CMS payments regardless of whether his name is on the birth certificate, or not. Fortunately. He acknowledges in all other ways that he is the child's father, the only thing that will happen if the CMS are told that he thinks he might not be, is order him to pay for them to do a paternity test. Birth certificates do not fall under their remit.

Also, yes; they are a legal certificate. Which is precisely why an unmarried mother requires the child's father sat with her, to have his name on it. If he can't be arsed... or is unable to do so, then nope. They're not added. Case in point? Friend of mine's daughter had a baby by a man who, tragically, died during the pregnancy. They weren't married. She was told, that had they been (she was 16 at the time she gave birth), the dad's name could have been added, but because they weren't, and he was deceased and therefore unable to rock up to the registrar's office... her son has those spaces left blank. She and the baby's paternal grandparents petitioned the court to have his name added, and... gave up in the end because of the costs.

In America, yes; it is a legal requirement - but look at all the men going to prison for refusing to pay for a child that they know isn't theirs. Checks are seemingly not so stringent over the pond. They are here.

I hope that the OP manages to talk her ex into putting his name on their child's certificate. I really do - but it isn't the be-all and end-all of things and actually, if he does another flit, him not being on it is likely to stand in her/her child's favour. Court is costly. My son's father and I were still together and he got shirty about him being expected, by the courts, to pay to prove something that he has never doubted.

A married man can rock up and register a baby born to his wife, because of the fact that a wife and children still legally belong to the husband/father. Also, it is assumed that a bloke doesn't want to raise another man's progeny. However, when it comes to adding a father's name, the courts like to make sure that its not some stepfather, or who knows what, who will then cause chaos in wanting their name removed - for the child's sake - further down their line. That is why paternity tests and going before a judge happen.

I was born in 1972 to unmarried parents. My birthday certificate has a ---- where the father's name should be. What I'm confused about is my mother was able to give me his surname. This makes me wonder whether a mother can give her child any surname she wants. Of course I have no idea if she told the registrar it was actually my father's name.

what you should be concerned about is why she did that? she should have given you her name. She was your parent. you deserved her name.

I suppose it was because she hoped he'd marry her.

She has been no parent to me.

@umberelladay @BirthdayRainbow maybe she felt that was the traditional thing. That’s how I feel about it, although after what my ex did to me I will leave his surname off. I think putting the father’s surname on is actually a nice thing though.

No, absolutely just to get him to marry her. I'm just surprised she could give me a name completely different from hers and with no dad on.

@BirthdayRainbow did he marry her?

My ex and I broke up when I was pregnant too and it was clear he was going to be useless.

I did put him on the birth certificate because I felt it was the right thing to do but I have questioned it since, many times! I absolutely gave her my surname though, it was never a consideration to include his.

He's her father, and it was right for the documentation to reflect that, but being family is very different.

Ps. I'm sure it's been covered by now but I haven't read all the comments.

To register the birth
For married couples - you can do this solo
For unmarried couples - both people need to be present. You cannot register a man you're not married to, as the father of your baby, without him being there to register it with you.

No. They weren't even together for long really.

That's the thing, though. Nothing about this relationship with him has been traditional in any way.

There isn't going to be any happy families with this guy.

When I registered my children, I cited their surname as my middle name (which was my mother's maiden name) hyphenated with my paternal last name. No one batted an eyelid. In 1996 and 2004. I know, from a registrar friend that if I, an unwed mother, Smith, had gone in there to register a baby by Bloggs, their surname, legally could well end up Bucket. No one would be able to stop me. The only thing is that I, Smith, would be on the birth certificate, but unless Bloggs' arse was sat there, too... his wouldn't be.

Giving you the same surname as your father may not necessarily have been to manipulate him into marriage. It may well, especially during the 70s (I'm from that decade, too) have been to try to shame him into supporting you as you grew. My own mother (born 1950s) was born to a single woman whose mother bullied her into giving 'the baby' (ie my mother) "their" family name. In later years, my grandmother said that my mother would have had the surname of the man who got her pregnant - so that he'd cough up maintenance. My biological grandfather, who was on the periphery of our lives until '99 when he died, was married with 3 kids by the time their affair took place. And he stayed married to the same woman until he died... but because my mother didn't have his surname, he didn't pay towards her. My grandmother didn't have the fight to take it to court -or to stand up to her mother, in turn, and state that my mother needed some proof that she was this man's baby. However, I do know that even then, Miss Jones could have registered her baby as Baby Bloggs...

Thing is, even when we hyphenate mother and father's surnames together... we're creating new family names, aren't we...?

No if was to get him to marry her. It certainly wasn't because she thought he'd support me.

Maybe he got spooked when you told him you were pregnant - some men are like that. Were you actually trying for a baby or did it just happen? Maybe it's not what he wanted but couldn't bring himself to say so - there's lots of reasons why he might just disappear but only you know the circumstances of your relationship.

Maybe he doesn't want to explain the why's of anything - but why turn back up on the scene when he'd already walked away? Having said that, nobody owes anyone an explanation and you can't force people to tell you what they don't want to share - it would just be nice to know what happened so you could try to understand. I'd just be careful how involved you get with him x

So when I was MASSIVELY freaked out finding out I was unexpectedly becoming a mother to my fifth child, it would have been ok for me to walk away?

Nice to learn that now!

Oh wait......

If you're not married you need the father to sign - otherwise you could put King Charles on there if you felt like it.

So your ex has behaved reasonably for about a year after walking out on you when you were pregnant and going AWOL for a year before that. I would want a lot more time to decide whether I wanted him on the birth certificate.

My husband does a lot of work with people who often make unexpected discoveries about their family history. It is not unusual for people to find out that their biological father is not the man who raised them. He always tells them that for all practical purposes the man who raised them and whom they always thought was their biological father is their "dad".

I don't think your ex is your child's dad in those terms so I wouldn't be super keen on giving him parental rights. What if he has another breakdown and picks up the child and goes who knows where with her? It won't be kidnapping will it? I simply wouldn't give him that level of power without seeing a few more years of reasonable behaviour to your daughter.

If a father freaks out and leaves then feels well enough to come back and support his child, then he should. But he has to be 100% sure he will stick around for the duration.

Regarding the birth certificate issue:- just as an aside if you are married either one of you can register the birth without the other one there and you both go on the birth certificate.
(If you are not, only the mother can register the birth and the man can’t be on the birth certificate if he’s not present. As lots of people have already said).

This 💯

I think the bigger picture here is, if you put him on the birth certificate he will have PR, there are 2 sides to that. 1. If your child has unsupervised/overnight stays and something like a medical emergency happens (and you are not available) he will be able to deal with it from a consent perspective, such as medical procedures, he will also have a voice in things such as which school your child goes to and any other important decisions, as well as the financial responsibility that you say he is covering anyway, but if he didnt pay you would be able to persue it.
The other side is. If you don't put it on there, he will not automatically have these rights, and nor will you. So for instance...if he decided to stop paying, you would likely need to go through the court process of dna tests to be able to claim child maintenance. If the relationship became strained, he disappeared again, came back and was an unstable influence for your child you could refuse contact and he would have no rights , unless he fought it through the courts
Unfortunatly I suspect all of the above is what he is considering. Which isnt what a genuine caring parent would normally do. It would be a no brainer, of course you would want that official confirmation they are your child.
I would be very cautious what you wish for, and I do understand totally your reasoning for wanting it. But it doesn't sound like he is on the same page as you. X

My kids father and I aren’t married and he’s on the kids’ birth certificates

Presumably, then, if you're in the UK, your child's father bothered to turn up to register them... because legally, that's the only reason as to how he could be.

My comment was a bit pointless