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 then fathers could get away with not paying maintenance just by refusing to attend the appointment.

An unmarried mother cannot add a father to the birth certificate @HorsePeopleAreStablePeople

And how would that work in practice do you suppose? A woman gives birth to a baby and from the time the cord is cut, until such time she proves herself sufficiently unshitty to have parental responsibility (proves to whom? And what form of proof would she give?) who will be responsible for her child? The midwife? The care system?
It would be awfully time consuming and expensive to implement wouldn't it? I'm not sure many people would think it worth it just so that men can be equal to women in this one thing. Especially when they have the advantage over women in pretty much everything else, so don't do too badly overall.

You seem to be objecting to something which you have made up a story about how it works, because it just doesn't work the way that you're suggesting it does.

Firstly there is no such thing as "parental rights". Only parental responsibility.

Secondly, not being on the birth certificate does not deny somebody parental responsibility. All he has to do is basically announce his parenthood to the local court and it is done. If the mother denies that he is the father or refuses to sign the document confirming it, he is allowed to apply directly to the court and a DNA test is one way this can be proven.

Thirdly, if you want the father to be named on the birth cert and you are not married to him then he has to come with you physically to the appointment. So it is hardly "not letting him" be on it. If you're not in a close relationship with the father then the default position is that it is unlikely he will be named on the birth cert, because of the difficulty in arranging the appointment.

Fourthly, not being named on the birth cert does not mean that the father is classed as unknown, and a birth certificate is not the only way that a child can get information about their birth and heritage.

Fifth, parental responsibility does not really grant many rights. It doesn't mean that the parent is entitled to have contact with their child, unless this is considered to be in the child's best interest. Although "all" parents with PR are supposed to be consulted in the event of major decisions, in practice this really only comes into play if the major decision is something like a name change which has to go through court. A parent (e.g. a mother) is allowed to make minor/everyday decisions without the input of the other parent.

(This is all taken from gov website).

Does giving up your body for 9 months not count as ‘earning’ anything?

What a naive and stupid thing to post.

My biggest regret in life was to put my child's father on the birth certificate. Mine & DD's life would have been so much easier & happier.

You do understand don’t you that there are reasons why not?

My DD’s father knew she existed but we weren’t married and thus he had to consent and be there to be on the certificate - he didn’t.

if he is absent during pregnancy why would the woman agree he can have an immediate parental right without committing to at least wanting him to show up and be consistent first!

what about women who have been attacked or later find out the father is married, drunk, liar etc easier to add them less easy to take them off

A father being named on the birth certificate means absolutely nothing in terms of medical records. My father is not on my birth certificate but even if he had been put on I'd still know nothing about that side of my genetic inheritance. Yeah it's not ideal, I could be genetically predisposed to anything and I am completely ignorant, but it's better than a man being forced back into our lives who is tied to so many horrible memories for everyone concerned.

If you hang around here long enough there will be a new post by a woman who is at the end of her tether because an abusive ex is using their shared child to control her. It is absolutely correct that every woman who has a child to a man with previous form for ANY type of abuse uses any and all tools at her disposal to try and prevent him from taking an interest in and gaining access to the child. Not putting him on the birth certificate is just one of those and it does deter some of these men so for me it's worth it.

In circumstances of rape or abuse then of course, it's absolutely different.

But I agree with the OP when it's rolled out on MN as a viable option for any old reason (and sometimes for no reason at all). A child has every right to know who their parents are, and have a complete and accurate record of their birth. Denying them that simply because the Mother & Fathers relationship has failed, or there never was one, is not in the best interests of the child.

Realistically, you have to be there to register the birth and go on the birth certificate. Most mothers are because they are doing all the work of caring for the baby. My one friend who doesn’t have her dd’s father on her birth certificate didn’t add him because he wasn’t there. He walked out when she was 3 months pregnant and while his parents see her, he’s never met his daughter. He pays CM, does not dispute she’s his child. Just didn’t want to know her. She’s 12 now. 🤷🏻‍♀️ You can’t make someone be a father.

It’s parental responsibility not rights.
All the father has to do is get off his backside, and apply to court to be added.

99.9% of women on MN who are advised not to invite the unmarried partner or ex partner to register the child are because the man is abusive.

"...sometimes no reason at all". Link to this thread, please.

Parents don’t have rights, they have responsibilities.

There is a legal process for unmarried men to follow if they want PR for their child.

Its an issue because someone has noticed one of the very very rare situations where the ease, wishes and convenience of men is not immediately apparent as the driving principle of a process. So shocking is this, that some people go into a tailspin at a glitch in the natural order, and select it as the equalities issues most in need of their attention. Because its not like there's any more urgent ones....

@5128gap

<applauds> Brava.

In most cases where a woman chooses to or is advised to leave a man off the BC he has already shown himself to be neglectful, unloving, unsupportive or uninterested. Or abusive.

Being on the BC does not, sadly, ensure that men show any responsibility or love but what it does do is hand an abusive man a means to control and impede the mother… who is doing all the parenting.

You can tell a child all about their Dad, photos, identity, they can even be in contact with their Dad without being on the BC.

If an abusive man wants to block you moving house, going abroad on holiday, choosing the most suitable school etc make him work for it by going to court. Don’t hand him a tool of cj from on a plate.

Am I wrong …. In UK, father has to be present at registry to be on birth certificate ? It’s not simply “naming” him.

If unmarried.

If a father is wanting to be an active part of a babies life it is wrong in my opinion to make them go to court, however if a father has left and isn't pulling their weight I wouldn't suggest that they are chased to put their name on the certificate

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?

Jeez, if the father wants to carry the bigger inside him for 9 months then push him or her out of his genitals, I might be more sympathetic to this argument. There’s hardly parity when a woman has just given birth, is there?!

My father refused to be on mine for this reason. Didn't want to have to pay CM.

The fundamental difference here is that babies literally grow inside and then come out from their mother's bodies... So a father can be absent in a way a mother simply can't.

For a mother to no longer have a relationship with her baby would involve a separation. A father can, from the moment of his ejaculation have nothing further to do with "his" baby. No relationship with his baby, no knowledge even. No separation is required for this, it's actually the default state of being - the father has to establish a relationship with his baby through his actions before and after birth.

It might not be fair, but it is literally our nature / biology.

It's got nothing to do with parental rights...it's about the child. Once on the birth certificate the father has legal parental responsibility. That's enough reason to leave them off it if they are a abusive/risk to the mother or child. It's not a permanent thing. They can be added at their request following a DNA test if they are interested in being in the child's life. Unfortunately, many aren't and consider it a lucky escape. I think it is so important to have this option.

I don't think it's wrong at all and in fact is a great idea if the father is abusive.

If men want the automatic right to have their name on their children's birth certificates they can assure this by being married to the mother of said children.

Lots of men don't want to do that, they want to fuck around and get mad when they find out.