To think it's wrong to refuse to put a father on the birth certificate

[HorsePeopleAreStablePeople]

I often see people on here tell the OP to refuse to put the father on the birth certificate. AIBU to think it's fundamentally wrong to deny parental rights to a child's parent and it's wrong for a baby to have a blank space on their birth certificate where their father should be unless the father is unknown because it's their birth and heritage information?

I know that women often do it to make sure the father has no say over the child because they think they know best and want to make all the decisions but I just don't think it's fair to deny parental rights to fathers.

If a father could refuse rights to the mother there would be uproar and rightly so, so why isn't it the same when women deny fathers their rights?

Well its not about parental rights, because parents have a responsibility as set out in law rather than rights, although there is mention of rights but this isnt generally how it works on the ground

For me its about the right of the child to have correct identification and history and heritage and information about themselves.

It's not always because a mother just wants control, it can be to protect from abuse and a whole host of reasons. It's wrong if it's just for control but it's absolutely right that this is an option for women.

Agree.

Some fathers are very, very bad people and 100% should not be on the birth certificate. They are evil scum bags.

Mine wasn't on mine. He did utterly horrific things to me, sexually abused me and could have killed me (he is now dead). What good do you think could have come from having him on my birth certificate?

It's scary isn't it?

DS's dad isn't in the picture, we discussed it when I fell pregnant (essentially a ONS) and he didn't want anything to do with him, and I agreed to not pursue CM etc. But not once was this verified. I simply told a midwife on one occasion that he wouldn't be involved, never brought up again. Mentioned at the registry office I'd be the only parent on it, not challenged at all.

Nope, I don't think it's wrong tbh.

If he cares enough he will go to court to ensure his name is on there.

The amount of men who turn abusive during pregnancy and just after birth is shocking, and I wouldn't be encouraging anyone to automatically give rights over to a man like that so he can further control her using the child.

The down side is that some good fathers will take a bit longer to get parental rights, but I'm comfortable with that.

So if a woman is raped, and she knows the identity of who raped her, he should go on the birth certificate?

Please don’t judge other women for making decisions that are protecting themselves or their children from situations you have NO IDEA about.

I see both sides but I do ultimately think that it’s important we have the option to leave a dad’s name off in certain circumstances.

I do think there should probably be more robust checks for why the name is being left off though as I agree there are absolutely situations where women use it as a control thing and that isn’t fair.

It's a very simple process for a man to have himself added to their child's birth certificate.

I've never known a woman not add the father simply out of spite. If a woman has a reason for it it's normally a good one.

Men who are unmarried and who don't want to be on the certificate are protected by the fact women can't add them without their permission so I'm not going to cry over a few men who behave so shitty the mother resorts to leaving them to have themselves added through the court.

The fact so few men go through the court system to be added is very telling.

If a man wants to be added there is a process for that. If a woman was raped I don't see why she should be forced to name her rapist on the birth certificate.

He could have challenged you though, if he wanted. He could have gone to court and gone through the process to have himself added.

It wasn't the midwife's place to challenge you when she has no idea of the circumstances of why you'd said it was only you.

I get your point…but.

Most of the time it’s not about “refusing” it’s about not actively doing it. If parents aren’t married, then the father has to turn up to the appointment. I don’t think it’s the mother’s responsibility to ensure he is there.

Secondly, the mother cannot stand in the father’s way. If she registers the child without him, he can go to court to be recognised.

So to me it’s more: if the father can’t be bothered to take the steps necessary to have PR, should he really be entrusted with it?

That’s leaving out the fact that when this subject comes up it’s normally in circumstances of abusive or just plain awful men.

It also means a mum doesn't have to explain to a child their dad is a convicted murderer/child abuser/whatever nasty scum until the child is ready

If unmarried, the mum just can't put him on. He has to go to the register office himself.

no one is being denied their rights

Even if left off the BC it’s a simple process for a father who wants to go on the BC to do so. But doing so usually means being liable for CM so many don’t bother.

Women are very vulnerable at that time and if they feel the need to make themselves feel safer by keeping the dad at arms length for a while, I accept their decision.

Because its not usually a decision a woman takes lightly. Think about it. Why would a woman want to bring her child up without the financial and practical input of a decent co parent if it was a viable option? So when a woman chooses to forego this by not naming him, she will have her reasons, and these are almost always based on least harm to her child. Which should always be a guiding principle and priotised way ahead of being 'fair' to a man.

Good point. It's not the mum leaving him off it's him not being arsed/around to be added.

A lot of the time that people recommend doing it I think they are misguided, but many times there are very good reasons to leave fathers off the birth certificate, because lots of fathers are coercive and controlling and would misuse their parental responsibility to harm the child or the mother.

I think it makes perfect sense. If you want parental responsibility you should step up and persue it. Why in the game of god would you want to be beholden to someone who isn't even arsed to do that. Essentially it's entirely up to the man whether he wants to be on it or not.

As someone who has the (then shameful, early 60s) line in the father box on my birth certificate, I should agree (I did insist on naming him on my marriage certificate after explaining and it was accepted)

However, I have enough imagination to know why sometimes it is best for automatic paternal rights not to be given.

All the man has to do is take it to court and ask for a DNA test, seems reasonable to me.

There's clearly a lot about life you don't understand.

And what challenge do you think the registry office should have given you? Would you have preferred if the midwife brought it up at every appointment, essentially shaming you for having a baby out of wedlock? I thought we had left this sort of judgement behind in the 1950s.

Thank you to the people who gave civil and polite replies. My question to the people saying a lot of fathers are shitty people and this is a good reason to not be named on the birth certificate, what about the shitty mothers who automatically get parental rights? That's not fair? It should be automatic for both or need earning for both in my opinion so it is equal.