Don’t put him on the birth certificate

[helpmeplease12345671]

I’m part of a single parent what’s app group and saw a soon to be mum was stating she was going to meet her ex as he wants to co parent. He was absent for a number of months but wants to play a part.

we know that guy is most likely not going to be involved in the life of that child long term etc.

Aibu for agreeing the birth certificate should keep him off it?

It doesn't say father unknown because that's not necessarily true - it's just left blank. I knew who my daughter's father was but legally I couldn't name him without his consent.

Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities.
It's the kid who has rights, so yes, of course the father should attend the registering the birth so the child's document is correct.

Sperm donation is not the same thing as choosing to have a kid with a deadbeat loser. Your threads are a bit confusing with the wrong terms used.

Why does having his surname cause difficulties for 18 years, it’s just a name?

Its not your decision.
You register the birth. If you arent married, you cant put him on it.

He has to actively ask to go on there. If necessary, with a DnA test if yiu decide to deny hes the father.

But if he proves hes the father... he goes on there.

This is the issue. Regardless of anyone's opinion, the only one who gets to decide is him.

Its not actually up to the mother to put him on there, if he wont attend the appointment then without going to court, his name will not be on there.

Thats it.

As others have mentioned, you can’t just put the fathers name on the birth certificate. He would need to attend registry office and register the baby along with the mother.

if he can’t / won’t do that, then there’s no choice but to leave the father’s name blank- it doesn’t say ‘father unknown’ .

my son’s father didn’t want to be involved. He didn’t respond after I had the baby & didn’t come to the registry office and is therefore not mentioned on birth certificate.

my son’s 15 years old now and has never
met or spoken to his biological father.

Other than registering for his first passport, I don’t think my sons ever looked at his birth certificate so, for us, it’s really a non issue.

Good luck to your friend - the best thing you can do is support her / her decision - whatever that may be.

Imagine this.....

Baby gets his surname as he is "definitely" going to be involved after the birth. Except he isnt. Then when she tries to go abroad, because her and her child have different surnames, she has to prove that she was allowed to take him. But the father is no contact, she has no idea where he is. Thats just the first one I can think of, I am sure that there are others.

He buggered off, he has no right to demand the child is given his name.

His relationship with her and his relationship with the child are TWO separate relationships.

It would be quite nasty of her to stop her child having a relationship with their dad just because it didn’t work out between her and him. I always think ‘grow-the-hell-up!’ when I hear children being used as weapons in order to hurt the other parent.

The fathers name on the birth certificate gives parental RESPONSIBILITY, not parental rights. It's not just about the father, it's about the child's rights to know who their father is.

This is incorrect. He can get himself added to the birth certificate relatively easily.

Unless you were properly together you wouldn’t give the child his name anyway.

I’ve taken my nephew on holiday before and we have different surnames. No questions asked.

However, that same nephew did move to another country but couldn’t become a citizen there as he would need both parents signatures as his dad was stupidly added to the birth certificate and the kid has never even met him. He didn’t have his dad’s surname though.

That’s why I said “if it’s possible”.

Well looked at from the other way , she is the mother but she started off by making a poor choice for the father of her child, and you are suggesting she follow this up by denying the child a father on their birth certificate, for her convenience- there are 3 people involved not just one, your suggestion is outrageously selfish.

A birth certificate isnt a moral judgement, its a record of the facts. Its the child's document and as such should inform the child of the details of their birth and heritage.

I strongly feel you shouldn't. If he wants to play an active role then he can prove it.
As you say being on the birth certificate gives you parental rights, in which some men will abuse. They can stop you doing things, and I don't think it is right they need permission from a father who is not around. Let him fight it in court if it is that important to him. This doesn't stop the child knowing who their father is, but I think it protects you from being controlled. I was even advised by midwives not to do it.

Dint put him on the birth certificate , he'd have to attend the registry office with you if he wants to go on it. And why shouldn't a decent women have her child with her name .

He can’t be on it if they’re not married unless he goes with her. If he’s a deadbeat he won’t be around and it’s not an issue.

as someone who is a lone parent to my eldest, however, I am eternally grateful his abusive dad isn’t on the birth certificate. My advice would be not to put him on it but to be aware that he could get his name added for a few hundred pounds and a DNA test.

Nothing to do with the child’s name. All to do with having parental
responsibilities.

They have the right to know who their genetic parents are

It’s nothing really to do with the child “ being entitled to know who their father is” because if he doesn’t attend the registry office it can’t be added without him. If it was about the child’s rights the name would be added regardless. It also doesn’t interfere in any way with the child knowing who their father actually is… I didn’t need to see my birth certificate to know that.

I mean she can't refuse to add him and then go after him for CMS. There's a lot of messages about the father blocking schools and holidays etc. But if he's absent how on earth would he know/ how much will he actually interfere?
I think if it's a fact it should be stated as that. Quite sad for the child to grow up with "father unknown" on their birth certificate. I'm a single mum and in no way supportive of shit dads believe me x

It isn't a 'fight' in court to be added to be granted PR. It's a straightforward application, a couple of hundred quid and potentially a DNA test if there's any doubt over parentage. As others have said, it's a factual issue not a moral one.

When I say "fight" I mean you have to go through the process of applying to the courts and yes possibly a DNA test. It's more timely than just going down the registry office. Some men won't even bother with this.

Unless the baby is already here and has been here for some time, he hasn’t done anything wrong. He is reaching out wanting to coparent.

You added a drip feed that he was abusive, that would change things morally, but without proof it doesn’t change things legally.

She can leave him off the birth certificate, but getting himself added is a simple process. She can use it as a test to prove his commitment, but it will create an adversarial relationship.

She can. Being on the birth certificate is completely irrelevant to CMS. If that wasn’t the case many more men would just avoid being on the birth cert and then dodge maintenance.

CMS will still go after payment regardless of the birth cert and if the father denies paternity then a DNA would have to be done.

Birth certs don’t say “father unknown” on them. They just have nothing in that box. That’s been the way for many years.