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?

I think it can be quite stigmatising for the child not to have the father recorded on the birth certificate.

I've always been surprised to see this recommended on MN. I'm also sure the father still has responsibility (for CSM) should the mother submit a claim regardless of being on the birth cert. If the bio father accepts paternity he will be expected to pay and if a DNA test is needed he will be pursued legally. Years ago I used to interview benefit recipients who didn't want to chase for maintenance as they thought this would give the bio father some right of access (it didn't). Often they had chosen not to put the bio father on the birth cert (sometimes for very good reasons) or he had refused to do it. Bloody nightmare.

I'm pretty sure the bio father has parental rights should they wish to pursue them - though this may have to be via courts and vary across England & Wales law vs. Scots law and depend on what's deemed best for the child by the court - suppose it will depend if they have formed any relationship with child.

Would be interesting to look up the legal position and to see if it's ever changed over the years.

It's not about the mother and having to name her rapist. It's about the child's right to know who their father is and have it as part of their legal records because whatever kind of scumbag a father is, knowing where you come from, family history and heritage is important even if only from a medical record point of view.

I tell people to register the baby alone when the ex is abusive and likely to bully the mum into a name that she doesn’t want. (The abusers seem to always want their surname)

I say it for the sake of the safety of mum, baby and registrar at the appointment - not because I think that dad should have his rights prevented. I don’t think that being on the birth certificate is a father’s right- I would argue that it’s more of the child’s right tbh. If dad is the type to kick off at the appointment then he shouldn’t be there - especially if he’s not paying child maintenance or hasn’t been involved during pregnancy if needed (eg helping with older kids that the couple have )

Men are perfectly capable of getting their name to the birth certificate, they just have to put a little effort in. Men having to do a little admin work is really not the end of the world.

Can can know all that without him being on the bc

The problem with this is that putting the man on the BC gives him joint parental rights. This can cause all kinds of problems. It could mean he can get a passport and stop the mum getting one, for example.

As a pp has said, with rights come responsibilities.

This. Very, very little effort. So why is it an issue?

Getting added to a birth certificate later is not a difficult process thanks to DNA. You should be more angry about the NRP not paying child maintenance rather than this issue

How is having a father's name on a birth certificate going to help with medical records? I'm also sure that if a child needs to know about their father the mother is in a pretty good position to tell them.

Birth certificates don't say father: John Smith, blonde hair, quite tall, average intelligence with family history of early onset dementia.

You also realise OP that if the father doesn't turn up to the registration he is not allowed to be added even if the mother wants it?

Because when you have a controlling, coercive gas lighting, petty fucking abusive arsehole in your life that will go out of their way to make the rest of your life a misery, and then because of baby and being on birth certificate, will always wheedle their way into your life and continue that way and also decides to threaten you, intimate you and use the baby/child as a pawn in their mind fucking games, for years and years. Threatening to remove the child, refusing to give them back, demanding you do this, that, the other, otherwise you'll never see your child again, they hit and abuse your child, but still continue to have access and gloat in your face about how you are a fucking useless mother and you can do nothing to stop them... etc etc etc.

You might think twice about putting them in the BC

No i dont agree. The vast majority of women who leave a child of their birth certificate do so for good reasons. You can still tell a child who their father is without having to tangle yourself legally with him.

If the man is named then a rapist or abuser can dictate all sorts of terms from location to access. When abuse in relationships is equally distributed between the sexes and both sexes injure, kill and rape similar quantities of victims then it might be worth revising but until then it offers a modicum of protection.

Nah, one's very obviously the parent because the child has left her body. The other one is up for debate, whether it's because he doesn't want anything official to make him responsible for maintenance, is convinced that because she's left him that she's been sleeping around or because he's an abusive prick who would put her at risk, put the child at risk or just enjoy the feeling of controlling her for the next eighteen years.

None of that requires the father to be on the birth certificate.

The reality of a birth certificate in the modern day is that its primary function is as the document which grants Parental Responsibility. Some parents exercise this responsibly, some irresponsibly, some use it to abuse. Mothers and fathers are different. The birth mother just has to be on there, unless she dumps the baby at birth, the father has a different relationship.

There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, the legal reason why an unmarried father isn't named on the birth certificate if he doesn't attend the appointment is to protect him. Otherwise a woman could name literally any man as the father of her baby, without his knowledge, and he'd have parental responsibility. If he believes he is the father of the baby and he wants parental responsibility, he can get himself added on later.

The mother, on the other hand, is known to be the mother because the hospital notes will confirm that she is the one who gave birth to the baby, and short of giving her baby up for adoption, she doesn't actually get to choose whether she has parental responsibility or not. (But then I suppose the father doesn't get to choose whether she keeps the baby or not, so it's swings and roundabouts there.)

Secondly, if a father has parental responsibility, the mother is greatly restricted in what she can do. She can't move away from where she is living unless her baby's father consents. So if she has moved to be near him, they break up, she has no right to any of her assets or any support from him at all other than meagre child support, but he's on the birth certificate, he can stop her from moving back in with her mum 100 miles away, or moving back to her home town where her family can help with childcare. He can refuse consent to the child receiving recommended vaccinations. He can refuse to let her take the child on holiday. If the mother is from another country and her family live in her home country, he can essentially stop her from taking her child to visit their family. Why should an essentially absent parent have that kind of power?

When you're the one left literally holding the baby, you need to be able to do what works for you and not be dictated to by your child's Disney dad.

I agree. A child should know who their biological parents are, both of them.

This.

And if men are kind, committed, involved, safe and present, no one suggests not putting them on there.

Once men put in the effort to be those things, and judge and exclude men who don't, maybe we'll all have enough energy to defend men's rights.

Interesting how women are being blamed for men not being on the BC.

In RL I’ve seen many cases where ‘dad’ simply didn’t turn up…

So you think a child abuser should have parental responsibility? There are abusive men everywhere. A birth certificate is more than a Dad's name on a piece of paper. It gives the man a right to take the child and the police would not get involved until court have decided the child should be returned to the mother. It is easy to get your name added and be given parental rights, by going to court. If a man cannot be bothered to do that then why not?

Many men don't see that rights come with responsibilities.

Unmarried parents need to both be present when registering the baby in order for both names to be put on the birth certificate. If he isn't at the appointment he can't be added to the birth certificate

The mother earns it by being pregnant, giving birth and turning up to the registration appointment.

The father earns it by having sex, and turning up to the registration appointment. Or having sex, and applying for declaration of parentage.

They can’t be equal, because only one parent gets pregnant…

That's not fair?

Mothers have to go through the life-threatening process of pregnancy and birth. THAT'S not fair. Biology isn't.

And lest we forget; you're your mother's baby, you're your father's maybe. Biology again.

I think that when posters advise doing it they seem to imply that not putting the father on the bc means he can never be involved when if a man wants to be, and this could equally be because of control, he can just go to court.

I do think though that a woman should only be able to claim maintenance if the father is on the bc.

Fundamentally this is not how birth certificates work in this country. The father needs to be there to be on the birth certificate unless you are married, so it's much more of an option in system than you seem to understand it as.

Also, what does who is on your birth certificate have to do with your family or heritage? It's very easy to tell a child who their father is without them being on the birth certificate. Just like you know your extended family by other means.