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?

Not being in their child's life isnt great but every child deserves to know who their biologically parents are its not for anyone to take that away from them

Ops are allowed to debate their point. Just because someone asks an opinion doesn’t mean they have to agree or take the opinion.

41% of people said yanbu and lots of people have given their opinion and personal experience.

Also, parents don’t automatically have ‘rights’ just because they were there at the conception. You can soon lose your parental rights depending on how crap you are.

As lots of people have pointed out. Not naming the father on the B/C doesn’t mean not telling the child who their father is.

The actual B/C makes little difference.

Ah thanks, all is OK though. He sorted himself out and was around until a couple of years ago when I yeeted him out of the door for cheating. Knowing you can't just put a randomer on a birth certificate knocks a huge hole in many novel and film plots though.

He can put that right later though?

Choose better then. I am unmarried been with my partner for almost 12 years. It didn’t even cross my mind to not give our kids his last name.

That’s sad for you son. By your replies, I’m not surprised you chose this for him.

.

The reason your comparison doesn't work is that children and houses are not the same type of thing.

Houses are property we have rights over (when we own it or have other legal relationships to it like occupancy).

Children are dependants we have responsibilities towards (when we are their parents). The law says parents do not have rights in respect of their children, only responsibilities.

So, the only good reason to facilitate the father putting himself on the birth certificate would be if it were in the best interests of the child. For example if he was going to be a good and loving father and contribute financially to the child.

If he isn't likely to do those things, are it's too early to say, the best interests of the child would indicate that giving this man a blocking veto role in the child's life is not beneficial.

The law should be able to distinguish these things - it should be able to say "that person is the father but he's not involved or caring and therefore his permission isn't needed by the mother to do x,y,z" but sadly the law has become so scared of being honest about the fact that mothers do the lion's share of parenting that its strong presumption will always be 50-50 distribution of control between the parents (but not work or love). In practice giving the father a lot of control over the mother for the rest of the child's life.

The child has a right to know who his father is.

That is a separate issue.

There is no evidence that mother is going to be good and loving yet either. Some would argue that attempting to exclude or reduce father’s role is evidence that she will not be, but she should be given the chance. .

You are aware that he can go to court to get PR?

And she will not need his permission to parent. She can consent to medical treatment , enroll in schools etc without his consent. He can of course object and make an application to the court, but this is the case anyway. He’d just add it to his PR application.

What other things could he veto, that she would actively need his consent for, before she could proceed?

Not really. The bc would give him rights.

Going off what OP has stated regarding the father I 100% would not include him when registering the child's birth. I would be of the mind that if he was that bothered he could jump through the hoops necessary to add him afterwards.
My general opinion is that any parent who is deserving of the title should have the right to spend time with their child and be legally acknowledged as their parent.

I agree with you - gives him a chance to prove himself as a dad. If he’s a good dad then he can get himself added x

If she wants child support, he has to be on the birth certificate, if he isn't on it, he can claim the child isn't his and he doesn't have to pay.

I hope you remember those rather lovely words if your partner ever turns around and does anything particularly nasty to you. It is all too often that some individuals who cannot accept the fact that their picture-perfect life could easily blow up at any point tend to like to place judgement on all women. Yes, there are some women who should indeed choose better however men are pretty good at hiding their true colours until it is too late. I wonder if you would utter "choose better then" to a woman who had been violently assaulted/abused on a regular basis/controlled/partner having a secret affair/and so on and on. I am very curious if you would utter those words to a close female in your life if they happened to reveal that something terrible had happened and now they were being essentially punished and controlled via the child/ren. It is all too common that many men decide to use the child/ren as a way to control the mother. There are many reports available online about this. Some of the fathers doing so could very well appear to be such a good catch on paper but the reality could not be different. Try and be nicer towards others

The thing is, just because you found out too late that you chose badly, it doesn't mean the child has less right to have a connection with their father or that you can try and alienate the child from their father because you made a mistake.

Yes and now judges are seeing reluctance to add a father to the BC as indicative of parental alienation. So you leave him off, he takes you to court, and then gets more access to the child than you do because you're seen as toxic and controlling for your earlier actions.

You'll be the one ending up trying to see your kid EoW.

The best (and only sensible) advise anyone should be giving her is to consult with a family law solicitor before making the decision.

All these opinions from a WhatsApp group of single mums and then extensive mumsnet commentary is likely to be heavily biased, and probably not entirely factual.

So yeah, anything beyond "you should really seek legal advice before making a decision" is being unreasonable.

Oh goodness... plenty of examples given and you are jumping straight to accusations of a mother using parental alienation tactics. Also, for clarification, I did not once claim this applied to myself. It is rather sad that instead of wanting to ensure mothers are not victimised using their children and targeted for years on end that you are hopping on the alienation bandwagon. It is quite clear that you are yet another one who fails to understand that this subject matter is really rather complicated. Always sad when someone is trying to blame mothers for wanting to ensure they do not have various issues for their child and themselves for the next eighteen years. How dare she? Also, there was nothing whatsoever at all said by myself about a father not seeing the child...

Ostracising your child from their paternal family isnt a solution

It is really quite a straightforward process for a father's name to later be added to the birth certificate. One may wonder why exactly you are seemingly attempting to deploy scare tactics on here regarding this subject matter. The ridiculous nonsense about every other weekend is truly one of those examples that shows this is a triggering issue for the poster. No, it is not viewed as parental alienation for the father's name to not be on the birth certificate. If that were the case, then various organisations would not advise mothers to leave the father's name from the birth certificate. Absolute nonsense.

Emm, did you even bother reading the end of my post? I clearly stated that I had not said anything in my previous post about a father not seeing the child. Either you have got a bit muddled or you are attempting to put words into my mouth. Did you know that there are even plenty of women who are in happy relationships yet the child/ren has the mother's surname. I know, mind-blowing isn't it? Don't be trying to twist anything I have said in your attempts to avoid certain points I have made.

Yes if you intentionally prevent a father from being named on the BC, then it goes against you. You've literally used your power to stop a parent and child having a legal connection. The thing that saves a lot of women who do this is that the man can't or won't go through the courts. If he does, you're fucked.