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?

Friend who’s married had a sperm donor baby - her husband is on the birth certificate - should that be the case? He’s not legally her father, and has parental rights. The document is certified as correct. IE legally they have done nothing wrong. Yet he isn’t her father.

What do you make of that?

Women are simply complying with the system that has been set up (most likely by men.) They did not choose this system.

The system provides that men who are not married to the mothers of their child must turn up at the appointment for registration of the child or make a later application. If they are on good terms with the mother who believes that they will be an active parent, they will most likely be invited to the appointment. If they aren't, they are not prevented by the mother from being added to the birth certificate. They just have to do their own "wife work". If they are not interested enough to do their own admin, why would you possibly think they would be an active involved parent? I actually think it's a genius way of weeding out the deadbeat dads.

Biology. Them's the breaks.

You're coming across as incredibly naive.

She was claiming to be a single mother without any partner even though she was actually living with her partner. I’ve no idea what the benefits were as I don’t have children so don’t know what people get.

Yes so many women enjoy suffering at the hands of abusive men.

I do too @Icedlatteofdreams

Something like one in ten men is not their child’s father and doesn’t know it.

I agree that there are reasons for not wanting your child’s name on the birth certificate, but not doing so also opens up the ability for a woman to demand money from a man’ who isn’t the father. The number of women who don’t know who the father of their child is is significant enough for that.

Yeah, in the main I think it's wrong. It's a record for the child with all kinds of long term implications - and even for the child's own children one day.

There are situations where I think it's understandable from the mum's POV, and it is too bad there often isn't a better option. I've seen it advised lots of times though where I think it's completely unreasonable.

It's also not a very effective approach, if the father wants parental rights he can potentially demand dna testing anyway.

Personally, I don't think this is any different from adoption, and shouldn't be set up that way. The sperm donor is the biological father, who has chosen to give up the right to the child to someone else. People find that hard to look at but that isn't really a reason to fudge the documents.

If you thought he would harm her you would report him but continue to give him contact? You know this is a failure to safeguard your daughter right? Do better! SS give women this choice in order to check if they are capable of keeping their children safe.

The woman goes through pregnancy and child birth, so that is quite a lot of earning done by the woman. All the man has to do is show up to an appointment and give his name to the registrar. If he hasn’t managed that, it is relatively easy to get his name put on the certificate.

Both earning it equally would mean men having to go through a massive physical change for 9 months including sickness, tiredness, hormonal changes and various other unpleasant side effects. Finally it would end in hours of torture including for many, some cutting or tearing in their nether regions. I don’t think many men would go for that level of fairness.

This.

OP, It is a complete non-issue. Any man who wants to live up to his parenting responsibilities can be added and the legal process is there to do it. If a man can't be bothered with a little administration then he's certainly not going to be any use as a father. Definitely his problem!

The child knowing who their father is, I agree, important for the child to have that information. But that is between parent & child.

As for it being a 'matter of record, I'm in my 60s and the only time I have ever been asked the identity of my df was during my screening for govt security clearance. Putting 'unknown' would have been equally acceptable.

Other than that, it is no-one's business but mine. Or are you implying that there is some sort of shame in not knowing one's father? Because that would be bigoted and rather Victorian, and say more about you than about the legal process.

I am absolutely dumbfounded by your ignorance on this subject.

1. It is not a question of parental rights, but responsibilities
2. An unmarried man must be at the registrar office to be put on the birth certificate
3. If he misses the appointment he can request to be added later.
4. If he he takes a DNA test to prove he is the father he will be added to the birth certificate, it's an easy process.
5. Only a court can't prevent access. Even rapists get to see their children!

So why is it useful advice?
1.So many men do NOT bother to do the admin/go to court because they are not interested in being a father and are only interested in control

1. It buys the woman time when the baby is so tiny and she is vulnerable. It may take several months for the courts to decide. During their time a mother can care for her child without worrying about an abusive ex taking her baby
2. There are loads of other reasons OP.

Your thread is so shortsighted it is borderline dangerous. I think you should go away, educate yourself, read the replies and let them sink in.
I'm happy for you that you are in a happy relationship,that your husband loves his child.

I was raped. The biological father of my child has been investigated for 10y years of sexual abuse. Why the hell would I invite him into my daughter's life? Give him responsibilities voluntarily, to choose her secondary school,stop using from going on holiday? I don't sleep at night worrying that one day he will ask to be added to the birth certificate. (So far he has shown no interest, hasn't even acknowledged the birth). I am to scared to claim maintenance (which is my daughter's right) because this could trigger him to seek parental responsibilities to avoid financially supporting my DD.

@HorsePeopleAreStablePeople tell me you think I should have put my rapist on the birth certificate. I dare you.

OP, because many men just can't be bothered to fill in a form, and their laziness & indifference is an extraordinarily accurate indicator of what kind of parent they will be.

If the man is too lazy to apply to the court, he isn't added to the birth certificate.

Not being on the birth certificate means he can't at a later date, mess the mum around over schools, residency, overseas travel, access rights etc.

But in law if unmarried both parents need to be present to be included on the birth certificate. He wasn't there. You weren't married. Even if he wanted to be added to the birth certificate the registrar could not have done it. The father would have had to be there (or apply to court after) so no challenge was required.

It was all agreed between you in your case, but could you imagine if the relationship was abusive, or you had been raped, and in a vulnerable place after the birth, being questioned by the registrar as to why the father wasn't there? Horrific.

But if the father isn't at the registrar and the parents are unmarried how can he be named? Think of it the other way - you cannot just name someone as the father without their express permission - and that's given in two ways - by showing up at the registrar or by applying to the court.

Its not like it's only possible on the day the birth is registered. If the father wants to be added they can easily be added.

Yes. People say it because many on here post about shitty boyfriends and this is a sure fire way to protect mum and baby, as 90% of the time the dad won’t go to put himself on the BC

Its always good to research before forming opinions on topics you clearly have no idea about

This post is embarrassing for you

If you're not married you can't put someone on a birth certificate. They have to attend to sign the registry. Paternity is assumed in marriage. A nonsense thread

It's not a record for the child. People just like the idea that it is. It's a legal document that confers parental responsibility. It doesn't necessarily record biological fatherhood because that isn't actually what it's for.

I think this is probably the case most of the time.

My son's father isn't named. He cheated on me while I was pregnant (we were engaged) and I moved at 30 weeks back to my home town around 250 miles away.

He said he wanted to he on the BC. So I made enquiries and got a form that he could have signed and witnessed by a solicitor confirming that he was the father to take with me to the registration and sent it to him. He never returned it.

I made it clear to.him that the door would never be closed but that I wouldn't be chasing him. If he wanted a relationship with his son, he would need to make the effort but that I'd never stand in his way. After all, I had a baby to look after.

My son is 26 and he's never met his father. I haven't heard anything from him since my son was 6 days old.

I would challenge anyone to say I did anything wrong.

OP your post is breath taking levels of naivety.

It's a record for the child with all kinds of long term implications - and even for the child's own children one day.

What are those implications?

I ask because my son is 26 and has had to submit his BC so far for a DBS, a passport, a driving licence and to prove his right to work in the UK. His father not being named hasn't even been mentioned/questioned.

So I'm genuinely curious as to what these mulitgenerational implications are.

If the father is not on the BC, he is just discounted.

I think what many people seem to be missing here is that if you put your newborn baby's father on the birth certificate, he can:

1. Stop you from moving away if your whole support network is somewhere else, even though he isn't actually providing any practical or financial support.
2. Refuse to return your baby after unsupervised contact.

And there is NOTHING you can do about it.

If you think there is even the smallest risk of him doing either of those things, the sensible course of action is to register your baby without his name on the birth certificate.

That way, you have time to sort yourself with a place to live in the part of the country that suits you, and if he subsequently applies to be added to the birth certificate you can get a court order setting out contact arrangements, he will have to do the legwork travelling to see your baby, and if he refuses to return them after contact you can go straight to the police, whereas without a court order he can just keep your potentially breastfed baby for weeks or even months until you can get a court hearing.

It's not fudging documents.

IVF through donor sperm, makes the non-donor the legal father that goes on BC. Perfectly legal.

Yes, there's no fudging here. The birth certificate often records a different legal father to the biological one, and that's because it's what the system is intended to do. It doesn't function as a record of biological parentage.