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?

You absolutely can get cms without putting him on the birth certificate

Why would you allow a read beat automatic child rights.

can’t take the child on holiday now/

I saw another post recently alongside some personal experience where this was advised to a mother and then it was used as evidence of her trying to alienate the child from its father and backfired on her.

If you're totally sure the man won't pursue access to his child, it might have less risk attached. If he does pursue access, then you will look really bad.

"So someone who beats the mum should have parental rights"

Quite the dripfeed.

But he gets parental rights because he is the father and one of the child's parents. If the mother didn't think he was good father material age she should have used contraception.

The law allows him to have himself added to the birth certificate whatever you or the mother think of him.

Even father's denied custody etc by social services or the courts for safeguarding reasons can still be legally recognised as the father/ parent.

This is such nonsense. Most of my friends have different surnames to their kids and are never stopped when travelling. I've taken my son's friend away about 4 times during his childhood, we always had a letter from his mum but nobody ever asked us anything at all about him being with us.

Same with nieces and nephews. I took my 8 month old nephew to Spain with my family while his mum and dad drove their stuff there (they were moving). Nobody asked if he was mine or what I was doing with him.

You can. You just need to apply for a residence order which gives you permission to leave the jurisdiction. Simple.

Just figured out it's you who also believes her son shouldn't be told he has a dad or siblings, when again, both are factually and biologically true. You seem not to realise that lying about this rather than addressing in an age-appropriate, need-to-know way is going to do far more damage than them thinking they don't have a dad.

You can't deny biology, paternity or the law. Dads can absolutely get their names on the birth certificate and their paternity becomes legally recognised. Just because you don't think the kid should ever know, doesn't make it disappear.

Absolutely.

There are a lot of wide-eyed equalists on this thread.

He shouldn’t get parental rights until he’s proved he is going to be a parent

What we need is a change in the law. I think birth certificates being accurate and containing detail to the father is important from a genealogical perspective. In the same way I don't think you should be able to change your sex on your birth certificate, I feel leaving out a parent is equally misleading. I think women should be able to add the name of the father even if he doesn't agree, but if he's not at the appointment he is sent a letter asking to confirm that he accepts fatherhood. Until confirmed the birth certificate shows father x (unconfirmed). But importantly this doesn't confer any parental rights or responsibilities.

When registering the birth the mother is asked whether parental responsibility should be converted on the father. If the answer is no then it's up to the father to pursue this.

It sounds complicated but in reality it's a letter and a few extra tick boxes.

No, you're confusing a birth certificate with an adoption certificate - they are two different things.

I provide my adoption certificate when applying for DBS.

Of course there are horrendous cases where a child is conceived after a rape, and some men may well change dramatically in a very short space of time... but I'm astonished how many women there seem to be out there who willingly choose to have unprotected sex (or do use contraception, but know that no contraception is 100% certain) with a man whom they are presumably fully confident will be a great father for their children, and then within a matter of months, they not only come to doubt that he will be a half-decent dad, but indeed they are convinced it will be harmful if he has any say at all in the very basics of being a parent to his child.

It's not like, say, a divorce, where the man you loved and wanted to spend the rest of your life with 30 years ago has changed beyond all recognition over those decades (and even then, plenty of couples still manage to divorce amicably and/or remain on civil terms); this is all happening in 9 months... or even less when the woman is still some time off giving birth and is already making plans to omit her child's father from their child's birth certificate.

And it also works the other way, of course, where the man who was fully willing to be a father months previously now actually refuses to go along and register the birth of his child - assuming he knows of the child's existence, of course.

On your other thread you are talking about not telling your DC about their dad and other siblings

Fairly sure it's called a 'Live with' order now and having gone to Court there may be other issues addressed in the CAO

I dont understand the argument of he should be on the birth certificate as the child has a right to know who her Dad is. I know quite a few Mums who did not add the Fathers name to the birth certificate for various reasons but all the kids still know full well who their Dad is and have absolutely never seen their birth certificate or even know what one is. If he's a deadbeat or abusive and it doesnt feel right him having that responsibility do not add him but still inform the child who their biological family are

Personally I wouldn’t put him on the birth certificate.

All these people saying he has the right to be, he’s the father etc.

I had a baby in my early 20s with my first boyfriend. He was a nasty piece of work, very violent and abusive. Yes I chose to have the baby but I was young and vulnerable.

I put his name on the birth certificate and even gave the baby his surname. He has literally not seen the child since the child was 6 months old. The child is 20 now. He has never paid a single penny of maintenance. Never had any form of contact whatsoever.

I had to get my child’s name changed by deed poll, I was restricted as to where I could travel as would have needed the father’s permission. I couldn’t have moved abroad had I wanted to.

How can anyone say that the man is my child’s father? If I had my time over again I certainly would not have bothered putting him on the birth certificate.

Yes as long as he treats the child well, it isn't about the mum it's about the child and I say this as a mother who had to leave an abusive relationship with my child's father

I strongly disagree with that and feel it’s a very outdated concept.

Any man who beats a woman isn’t safe to be around a child. The law is also beginning to recognise this. The way a man treats the mother of his child says a lot about the type of man and father he will be. He doesn’t have to be in a loving relationship with her, but should treat her with respect me decency and that includes not being violent.

It has everything to do with the child. An abused women shouldn’t have to continue loving in fear because she has a child with her abuser.

Years ago the family courts used to have a contact at al costs policy, and the attitude that he abused to mum, not the child.

This put so many women and children in harms way and the courts have had to recognise that it was not safe.

That idea has been moved away from with abusers now having to prove that they are safe to have access to the children.

That’s all down to choices you made. Regardless of if he’s on the birth certificate or not he is still biologically his father and should a child want to know where they came from they have every right to that

Yes, it's very strange. People get quite confused about what a birth certificate is actually for. It's not and isn't intended to be a record of biological parentage, which is why the process doesn't include DNA testing. I understand people wanting to reform that, but while the system still is as it is, the argument that the father being on the birth certificate so the child knows who their parents are is completely idiotic.

I’m not sure whether you’ve ever been in that sort of situation yourself or not.

But unless you’ve got lived experience I don’t really think you can be the judge, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

I have lived through it and came through the other side, with my child.

I would never lie to a child of mine about their paternity, however having the father named on the birth certificate is another matter.

And in the case of the OP who isn’t keen on sharing the father’s details with the child? What happens then?

Then people can make arguments either for or against her decision, that don't involve misinterpreting the function of birth certificates.

Exactly.

I’ve seen multiple posts on this thread saying that the father should be ok the birth certificate because the child has the right to know here they came from.

That is very simplistic and as you rightly said, quite frankly idiotic.

Having the father on the birth certificate gives him parental responsibility. In reality this means that the father has rights over the child’s education, religion, their medical treatment, where they can travel to.

Putting a man’s name on a birth certificate does not stop a mother from hiding a child’s parentage, if that’s what she intends to do.

In theory, any man could end up on a birth certificate. It’s pretty meaningless in terms of biology and dna.