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?

Yep and it’s cos of people with attitudes like the pp:

All those “nasty ex wives” trying their very best to take kids away from “good loving fathers”, “just to be vindictive.”

10 o'clock news soon OP. Given what will be the lead story you may want to consider how appropriate starting this thread today was. Pretty bloody shameful.

When certain people talk about their “right” to see their child it makes me uncomfortable. When a mother stops the father from seeing them it’s for a good reason and the child’s right to well-being comes above the fathers “right” to play families

Except that putting the father on the BC gives him rights. No responsibility. He gains rights that can be really detrimental to mother and child where he dies not have their best interests at heart.

How do you balance this with the value of ‘your heritage is white male from the NE with a history of violent rape’ as adding value to a child’s life? For example?

My ex did a runner when i fell pregnant. Literally moved out of the area. I couldn't put him on the birth certificate so ds had the blank space.
A few yrs later my (now)dh wanted to adopt my ds and we had to try and find him to get his permission (told by the court) Just because thry are not on the birth certificate does not mean they do not have rights.

I am aware what time the news is. I am also aware that a girl was sadly killed by her father and step mother, who is actually a woman. Of course it is terrible. Child abuse perpetrated by any parent is abhorrent.

You've invented this narrative that I think child abuse is good or something which is just ridiculous. No one thinks that. Obviously.

There is nothing shameful in having what started of as a civil discussion about equality between parents. However your previous posts have been deleted because you just hurl insults and seem to be incapable of being civil.

I'm not having some woman shame me for not agreeing with her using the death of a child to make a point. Shame on you.

But if the man wanted to and wanted to be a decent partner and support the mother, they could go together or in the case of being away from the mother - it’s a simple form to fill in to be added and applied.

I would think that should be easy for him - no?

I was raped OP - I took the morning after pill after sustained assault, but a week later tested pregnant despite the morning after pill. I then had a termination - I chose this action but others after a rape choose to continue. Why the hell would I put a rapist’s name down? If I had continued I would have left it blank

No lovey, it didn't need correcting! If she is not willing to acknowledge a man as the father of his child then she shouldn't expect anything else from him.

I think the problem is the opposite, OP has quite a rose tinted view probably based on their privilege- their assurance that involving authorities and 'reporting' would easily sort things out is what stood out to me. Also that she genuinely thinks that packing off a daughter to a man who is a domestic abuser won't have any negative implications for the child as long as mum has left him!
Actually of course the dark side of society is full of drug and alcohol issues, social problems, severe mental health problems, violence and criminality. The threshold for 'authorities' to intervene is sky high. The majority of perpetrators of violence and abuse are men.
There are very few ways to try to protect your child from a father who psychologically and emotionally abuses them, I've seen cases where even sexual or physical abuse with children ending up in psychiatric care hasn't stopped Dad living in family home and having to be consulted about their care.

@HorsePeopleAreStablePeople This is up there with one of the most ignorant threads on Mumsnet. Quite simply, OP, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are clearly speaking from a position of privilege. You have not listened to any PPs. Its infuriating.

I want to know why on earth I should willingly put the person who raped me on my childs birth certificate, effectively giving him parental responsibility so I have to ask him for permission to go on holiday, so that he has a say over her schooling, where we live etc. So that he can have access despite being under investigation for 10 years of historic sexual abuse towards young girls. You haven't acknowledged the opposite problem, that this the ease with which he could apply to be added to the BC. This keeps me awake at night and fear of retaliation has meant I have not claimed maintenance, which is my child legal right. I want you to explain why you think this is acceptable.

What would happen if you didn't know who the father was?

The question was 'refusing to put his name on'', ie knowing who he was and not putting it down.. I was asked if I knew who the father was, or possible names, I'm not sure how far they would take it if given several names. Would they have stopped at that point or would they have asked for dna?
I could have lied but didn't want to jeopardise the adoption, then or st a later date. Thankfully he has never resurfaced!

You want to make it easier for abusers have access to children. The implications of what you want have been explained to you many times on this thread. You ignore them. When the implications are clear and you ignore then, that suggests you do not care about them, eg you think abusers SHOULD have access to children. Adding a name is a very easy process. If a man can read he can follow the gov uk website to do this. Just as a woman needs to find out what to do to register the birth. Do men really need babying more than that?

@HorsePeopleAreStablePeople - you’re ignoring/brushing off the very good reasons why a mother might not want the father to be on the birth certificate. Your response on the Sara Sharif case is truly callous and shocking. It’s irrelevant that there was a woman involved. The father has admitted he beat his own daughter to death. And you want all men to be on the birth certificate?

The woman has parental responsibility because it is her body that does the long, hard and sometimes dangerous work of pregnancy and labour.

You are far too casual about this and don’t seem to really know how things work. If you knew how awards of custody actually work (and you don’t seem to), it takes a hell of a lot for a court to refuse access to a child. Abusive men are regularly given access to their children.

Removing parental responsibility once it exists time-consuming, expensive and extremely difficult. An abusive father can do dreadful harm by the time that process is complete.

Start following some of the threads on here by women who are forced to co-parent with extremely abusive men; women whose children are distraught when they have to visit.

In some cases, these women were married to their abuser when they had the child so he automatically has parental responsibility but if that doesn’t apply and your relationship has broken down before the baby is born, there may be very good reasons for not giving a man the responsibilities and rights that come with being on the BC. And if he cares that much, he can apply to be added.

You’re weighing up competing priorities here. Surely you can see that keeping the child and mother safe prevails over everything else.

This child is dead because the courts removed her from her mother’s care and put her in the hands of an abusive man.

This is happening far too much in the family courts these days, because of attitudes like the one you have bought into and are propagating on this thread. This misogynistic idea that scorned women are trying to keep children away from good, loving fathers ; that men are somehow disadvantaged compared to women when it comes to raising children (they are not); that men’s “rights” should be centred in childcare arrangements instead of the best interests of children- as things had previously been .

All of this is a nonsense; pure misogyny and it is profoundly dangerous. So yes, many PPs are rightly angered by your thread.

And this:

“All of this is a nonsense; pure misogyny and it is profoundly dangerous. So yes, many PPs are rightly angered by your thread.”

You’re expounding a position that has the potential to be dangerous, even lethally so, to children and mothers and then wondering why posters who know more than you about this are getting angry and upset. It’s extraordinary.

I did wonder when you used the term 'cantankerous women' if you were actually a man.

But the phrase
I'm not having some woman shame me screams MRA.

And if he doesn't want to be on the bc? Doesn't turn up to the appointment?

The support is for the child not the mother. How would she be claiming financial support without "acknowledging" who the father is?

Stop being so logical, it won't be welcomed.

Exactly, @HorsePeopleAreStablePeople .

You invoke ‘equality’ between men and women as parents.

Mothers here invoke the huge inequality between mothers and fathers: the inequality of an abused woman who takes all parenting responsibility for her children being forced to share contact and access with a man who was physically, sexually and emotionally abusive to her.

Parenting, starting with the biological imperative of motherhood , leads almost instantly to a range of inequalities.

Forcing women to give parental rights to a man who meets no responsibilities simply exacerbates that inequality.

Parenting, starting with the biological imperative of motherhood , leads almost instantly to a range of inequalities.
Forcing women to give parental rights to a man who meets no responsibilities simply exacerbates that inequality.

This

It’s just legal paperwork. The legal concept of who a child’s father is doesn’t necessarily align with the biological reality. E.g if you get pregnant by some random man while married, then your husband is added as the father on the birth certificate, as default. It is about who has legal and financial responsibility towards the child.

Not putting someone on the birth certificate doesn’t necessarily mean you will hide who the biological father is from your child. At the end of the day, this is an important safeguard - it stops some random guy who may only have contributed some sperm, from having control and access to a mother and her baby, despite having zero interest in their welfare (men who genuinely want a relationship/want to care can get a court order). People get their knickers in a twist about it because it is one small area where women have decision making power. In reality it is not an issue - I believe this legal quirk does more good (protecting children from uninterested or abusive ‘fathers’ and letting women and children get on with their lives in peace), rather than harm (as any man who gives a flying fuck can easily resolve the issue).

What would forcing women to add the biological father look like in practice? How would this happen, for instance, if a woman had had a one night stand with a man whose name she did not know? If the child was the result of an affair? In cases of rape and incest? What would be the result of refusal - putting new mums in prison? Fining them? Giving them a criminal record? Is this in the public interest?