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?

How would you feel if your child's father was abusive, took your child without your consent and refused to give him/her back? And you could do nothing about it but wait for it to go through the courts and hope they are returned to you?

It’s about the child’s right to be safe. The recent post where a mum was advised to leave him off the birth certificate was he was a druggie for years on hard drugs and never managed to get clean. I would prioritise my child’s wellbeing and safety, as a tiny baby that’s all that matters. They may well have some emotional challenges later in life because they don’t know their dad, but two things: thats not because he wasn’t on the birth certificate as once clean he could have chased that in court and would have been put on it, that’s because he didn’t try, and 2: the child was kept safe and loved so they could grow up to feel emotions about their dad. Thats a gift and the alternative is far worse.

Put the child first, that’s the most important thing.

That's exactly what you are arguing for
As plenty of posters have pointed out your logic will cause harm to plenty of vulnerable women and men already have plenty of levers to pull to harm women. They don't need helping with more quite frankly

Don't you think that it is childish to have such a strong opinion on things without caring about the ramifications, when they affect a child's safety?

you are suggesting men be looked after at the expense of babies.

You don't need to be 'good enough' to pay for a child you father. You are obliged to pay for them, and whether your're good, bad or indifferent it's your responsibility under the law, and the law doesn't discriminate between good and bad men when calling in their dues. This is an entirely different matter to being 'good enough' to adequately parent that child.

Not at all. I am suggesting a woman shouldn't unilaterally decide a father can't have parental rights. If a man is a danger to his child his rights should be revoked by the authorities, as is the case for mothers too.

a dna test should be mandatory as part of the application if he is not on the bc, and if he is proven to be the father he should e put on the bc.

Your putting way to much faith in the 'authorities'

This is an absurd suggestion

You do understand that there are abusive men everywhere that do not have a criminal record? Do you know how low the threshold is for a man WITH a criminal record to gain access to a child?

Can I fix it further:

If a man's name is not on the birth certificate by her both parents choice, can she still milk him for support? is the baby still entitled to financial support?

It’s by his own choice too, remember @JudgeJ, unless you’re going to be another one pretending there isn’t an easy process for men already in place so they can add their name to the BC.

Does the child deserve to be abused or neglected? Does the child deserve to be taken by their dad only because it hurts their mum? You are ignoring the fact that a determined dad goes to court and gets added, often in the case of abusive men this earns the mum a few months of safety and knowing they can protect their child and care for them 100% through the youngest and most vulnerable period (don’t get me wrong, all childhood is vulnerable, but any protection you can get makes a difference and tiny newborns are very fragile)

You seem to be entirely centering men in your weak argument op, completely ignoring the very real reasons why vulnerable pregnant or just post birth women do not facilitate making the fathers of their children lives easier whilst leaving themselves and their newborns open to more instances of harm.

You seem to ignore the fact that men often only start campaigns of abuse when they impregnant a woman.

You are worrying about the wrong thing here.

By rights ordained by biology you not only take on ALL risks of pregnancy and birth alone but you also would not ever be kept from being named on your child's birth certificate ( if you are a woman ).

If you are the father and are unmarried then you can have the same process by doing some paperwork and a potential DNA test at no extra risk and for reassurance the child is actually yours.

That is already the process, if the man states he is not that Dad. Edited: Sorry to claim CMS, not to be added to the BC and given PR.

The naïveté in this sentence 🙄🙄

You only have to read the papers and threads on here
A poor woman recently had to go to court to get parental responsibility removed from a man convicted of raping her.
The courts still initially wanted to allow a man who had raped the mother of his child to see and spend time with that child
But yeah it's the men that need helping and protecting..

It is the process and it is absurd. Its the reason I haven't been able to claim CMS. Because, to avoid paying maintenance he would request a DNA test to be added seeking 50:50. As long as I don't seek maintenance, he has no interest in being on BC. It's a crazy system, he still has control over me.

You have no idea how the court system works do you?
Abusive men are given access all the time.

You kind of are though.

You talk endlessly about rights. But not responsibility.

what about the shitty mothers who automatically get parental rights? That's not fair? It should be automatic for both

What Mothers automatically get, is responsibility.

Which is what Father's frequently dodge.

Do a new post about 'parental responsibility'. That would be much more thoughtful than that's not fair.

If a convicted rapist can keep parental
responsibility I doubt the courts would be all that interested in sorting out your common or garden controlling wanker OP

Well you already know she can’t unilaterally decide that, so what exactly do you mean?

If a man is a danger to his child his rights should be revoked by the authorities, as is the case for mothers too.

No.

Firstly, men use the baby to have power over the mum. That means that a man who is a danger to the mother shouldn't have the means to control her. Not solely the child.

Secondly, have a little Google of the conviction rate for rape. Just to pick one crime men get away with 99 times out of a hundred. Think about how likely a conviction is for a man in a relationship with his victim. It is almost impossible to get a conviction. A woman has to ask her rapist's permission to take her child on holiday because he's on the BC? Fuck that.

Third, VAWG is not taken remotely seriously. Risk management should be at a very very different level to criminal conviction. For example, if you want to convict a man of CSA, you need to reach 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Would you let someone who is 'probably' a CS offender babysit? Just because he didn't reach the level of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? I don't think you would.

The reality is that men who are a risk to women and children get away with it all the time. And this is one small thing women can suggest to other women to protect them. And you, a woman, can only think of the man in all this. Talk about internalised misogyny.

Not at all. I am suggesting a woman shouldn't unilaterally decide a father can't have parental rights. If a man is a danger to his child his rights should be revoked by the authorities, as is the case for mothers too.

She can't. It's nigh on impossible to block a man being added to the cert if he goes through the process.

She can decide that he has to make an appointment, and sort out the process for adding him off his own back... But she can't stop him having parental rights if he gets off his backside and sorts it (which most guys not on the birth certificate don't bother doing).

Approved further fixing @Naunet