Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Baby names

Find baby name inspiration and advice on the Mumsnet Baby Names forum.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

laws re: surnames

42 replies

mybumpsaboy · 14/09/2008 12:22

hallo all, could I have a little advice please??

Myself and my ex are utterly finito & he's trying to get the custody case through court before my LO is even born

That aside, I'm wondering what to do about surnames...I will be naming him on the BC, so he's got PR. Does this mean that if I gave the baby my surname, he could insist it was changed to his??? I would double-barrell but it sounds utterly daft!!

Also, with the FIRST names...what happens about PR if we simply don't agree...can he force me to give the name he wants or can I call the baby what I want?

Nightmare!

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Liffey · 07/11/2008 22:46

Was this before or after you discovered your x's mtoher was writing about you to social services claiming you weren't fit to be a mother?

Do not put his name on the birth cert. You will hand over rights to him on a plate if you do that. You will make his case for residency much clearer, and easier to win.

IF you don't put his name on the birth cert, you protect yourself, but it won't PREVENT him from being a good father if that's what he wants to be and is responsible enough to be.

mickeylou · 08/11/2008 08:20

i would let him go on the birth certificate so he has PR. i think you have more than enough on your plate than to argue about something he will inevitably get. going behind his back serves only to make things worse between you and will give him the satifcation of "winning" when he gets a PR order from the court. when he gets PR (which he will unless its not in baby's best interests) he can then re register the birth.

re the surname i would insist on your surname but if he raises it in the court they will prob go for middle ground - ie a double barrell. to save the row i would go for the double barrell. his name first with yours last and then just dont use his in day to day life. almost like its a middle name.

hope that helps, just dont think you should be arguing for the sake of it, especially if someone wants you to appear unreasonable and uncooperative because it serves his purpose/ supports his application for residence.

take care. x

Liffey · 08/11/2008 16:15

he is looking for residency. He is laying the groundwork to prove at a later date that she is not coping.

Naming him on the birth cert speaks volumes to a judge. Don't do it. He can go to court to get his name put on the birth cert, but it will make his case longer and harder (if his ultimate goal is to win custody of the child on the grounds that your mental health isn't great or that you're not coping or not fit to be a mother).

Giving him PR would not be a good thing. It would strengthen his case for sure.

Do it if want to help HIS case not your own.

Liffey · 08/11/2008 16:15

he is looking for residency. He is laying the groundwork to prove at a later date that she is not coping.

Giving him PR would not be a good thing. It would strengthen his case for sure.

Do it if want to help HIS case not your own.

mickeylou · 08/11/2008 18:10

sorry, i dont think a father getting pr by agreement as opposed to by court order has anything to do with who ultimately has residence of the child. pr isnt something which will drag out a case or make its harder. unless there are major concerns about the father pr is pretty much a formality. its not something i would argue over unless you think he isnt fit to have it. i think your solicitor has advised you correctly on this one.

Liffey · 08/11/2008 19:00

Father2b... his mother sent a letter to social services claiming she was psychotic and unstable... all nonsense. the couple have split up and the 'father' and his mother ahav said they will fight for residency of the unborn child. Sounds to me like that letter was to lay the groundwork for later.

Liffey · 08/11/2008 19:02

ps mickeylou, it would definitely be a million times harder for a father NOT named on the bc to win any sort of residency battle.

AnarchyAunt · 08/11/2008 19:06

Father2b - why is your first post on MN dragging up an old thread, and suggesting that the poster is a junky ??

NCbirdy · 08/11/2008 19:16

If you are worried that he will cause trouble with the name then you can sidestep it. Register the child yourself (in hospital if you can some have registrars there) with the name you want (preferaly yours to avoid trouble in the long run).

Then, obtain the relevant forms etc to give PR (I htink you can download them), fill them out and give them to your soliciter to forward to your ex with a letter saying you will meet him at the court to have them validated at a time to suit you both. This way, he will have PR, you will not have tried to bypass his rights (so are showing yourself willing to a court) and you will end up with the name you wanted.

Will post more in a mo!

NCbirdy · 08/11/2008 19:23

Father2b, we can only give our thoughts on the situation given to us. If you are right then the courts and cafcas etc will see that the right thing is done.

NCbirdy · 08/11/2008 19:25

I think that, if you both go to the registrars office, you will still have final say on the name as you are the mother. I am sure they will not appreciate you having a row at the office though so you should try to resolve things first if you can.

mickeylou · 08/11/2008 19:54

Liffey, re "ps mickeylou, it would definitely be a million times harder for a father NOT named on the bc to win any sort of residency battle." can you tell me why?

i would have thought the court will make a decision according to what cafcass recommends is best for the little one and not by whats written on a birth certificate?? ive never known it to make a difference anyway.

good luck to you mybumpsaboy. i hope all this gets settled for you and your baby.

Liffey · 09/11/2008 18:14

Because before he'd have grounds to instigate a case for residency, he'd first of all have to prove paternity.

He'd have two cases to win basically. AND the fact that the mother had chosen not to name him on the birth cert would tell the judge the state of their relationship at the time of the baby's birth.

Obviously and especially since dec 2003, co-habiting fathers in a relationship with the mtoher have PR.

A father NO longer in a relationship with the mother, and NOT named on the birth cert wouldn't be assumed to be in a close relationship with the mother or a father to the child.

Legally, if not named on the birth cert, the mother is the only one with parental responsibility.

This can be challenged, but I think, if there is ALREADY talk of going to court win complete residency of an unborn child, then it would be astonishingly foolish to name the father on the birth cert. that really would be cycling uphill. In the circumstances revealed in other threads by the OP I would really advise against it.

NOT being named on the birth cert won't prevent him from being a good father and a good person, IF that's what he wants. The father's name can be added for a certain length of time. But it can NOT be removed.

Liffey · 09/11/2008 18:15

By co-habiting fathers I mean co-habiting fathers named on a birth cert would be regarded as having rights pretty much equal to a married father (if baby born post dec 03)

jellybeans · 09/11/2008 18:34

Before we married i registered DD in my surname as if we split I wanted DD to have the same name as me who she would be living with. We planned to marry, which we did, and then all had the same name. I would have hated having different names. Some dads take dads rights too far IMO. Custody of a fetus? More attention to them in hospitals?

NCbirdy · 09/11/2008 22:40

Liffey, your facts are not altogether complete there. I am not interested in arguing about it so I will just point this out, the mother is not denying the fathers identity, she is happy for him to be on the certificate it is only the name in question.

If they go to court and the mother does not deny paternity then he will not have 2 cases to win at all (and if she did it is just a paternity test which is quick easy and cheap). I have to say you seen to be taking the ball and running to the worst case scenario end of the pitch here.

mickeylou · 10/11/2008 08:46

This lady is not disputing paternity so has no reason not to record him as father on the birth certificate. if she chooses not to as a means of avoiding the surname row(which of course is entirely up to her)the court will give him PR. assuming he is not unfit he will get this as a matter of course. i have never seen magistrates or district judge hesitate to confer PR on a biological father.

if she were to question his paternity, his proving this is not a long drawn out process as you suggest. it would not make a residency application harder for him. if there is any question about paternity it will be dealt with by way of dna tests at the first directions hearing. providing he is the father the case will then move swiftly on.

Flip

1 2