Issues surrounding re-registering my daughters birth

[pablo1988]

hi all,

need some impartial opinions -

• due to a relationship breakdown, my daughter was registered without me knowing. I was not named on her birth certificate, nor do I have PR at this time. My daughter also does not have my surname, instead carries my partners married name (same surname as her other kids). Because of this, I sought legal advice to obtain PR and get our daughters birth re-registered to include my details as her father and give her my name as well as my partners (I feel this is important for our daughters identity).
• me and my partner recently began to resume our relationship, despite our issues (too many to mention!) above all, I love her, and I saw a future with her.
• with the relationship starting off again and being in a good place, I wanted to address the issue of my daughter’s birth certificate, and booked an appointment to address this. I had told her several times that I wanted this addressed ASAP, BUT she took issue with my actions, saying I was going behind her back. Because of our original breakdown, she stated she was worried what I would do being named on her certificate, like I had other motives or try to take our daughter away from her. I had said that I would seek to have my daughter half the time, at the time of the breakdown.
• because I thought we were moving forward and working towards our future together, I feel that going through court to obtain PR and re-register her birth and give her my name is not necessary, however, she does not feel the same, stating that in both cases, I will be named on our daughters certificate, and just wants to do things the right way (though, to this day, I don’t know what that means!)
• because of her insistence of doing this through court, I do not see a way forward for us as a couple - I don’t feel like partners should make each other go to court for something that would take an hour down the registry office, together. I saw it as a way we could get one of our issues. Sorted and out of the way. She feels that the relationship could and should still continue even going through the court process, but that doesn’t make sense to me at all - I feel I’m having to fight my partner to obtain PR and be named on her birth certificate as her father. Safe to say that I will go to court to get this issue resolved, but I do not see how me and my partner can move forward if that is the case.

am I crazy, or is there logic to her reasoning? I feel pretty strongly that I shouldn’t have to go to court, but I wanted impartial opinions, if anyone would grace me with their thoughts.

thanks in advance :)

Please tell me where I said she had to take and keep his name?

Once his, always his, isn’t that the case? That's exactly my point, it's not 'his'. It is now also hers. So she can use it until she decides to change it, if ever, and give it to any future children she wishes. (Although i do agree that the Father should have a say in that.) Heck she could even remarry and her new husband take her name! Radical.

Oh that's right, I didn't. She chose to.
Saying its no longer her name is the patriarchy. She's no longer his wife so can't have the name? Yea fuck that.

How about couples are allowed to chose who, if anyone changes their name when they marry. And if they divorce the person (if any) who changed their name decides if they change it back or not.

@WeDontNeedToTalkAboutJamie
Oh, so her “choice” just coincidentally happens to correspond exactly with 18th c. antiquated hyper patriarchal practices regarding by blows but according to you it’s modern and feminist. I’m sorry, but I cannot suspend disbelief.

@Onnabugeisha and @WeDontNeedToTalkAboutJamie this is Dadsnet, not the feminism board.

I've agreed that the choice is rooted in patriarchy.
I also haven't claimed its "modern and feminist" but without a time machine so she can go back, not change her name upon marriage and give her DC her original name there's not a lot she can do.

And as that name presumably came from her Father then that's the patriarchy too according to some.

Seems women can't win. Nothing new there I guess!

True.

But if people are going to claim that the woman's surname isn't hers purely because it's not the one she was born with then that needs refuting. Because it's her name. It's what she's called. That makes it hers.

I didn't put my dd's father on her cert. but I always acknowledged him as her father and never refused to let him spend time with her. I think one of you has to trust the other. Keep the using for parental rights for when you find she is denying you access to your daughter

Nope, it’s the surname of her ex husband. It’s not her name.

What do you mean “not a lot she can do”?! There’s no law that requires a mother to have the same surname as her child(ren).

No, but practically having the same name does make some things a bit easier. Travel for example.

It’s not that hard, my DC have a mix of my surname and my husbands surname. Would be a petty reason to refuse to consider a surname other than your ex-husbands.

Certainly it is no excuse whatsoever to deny a father parental responsibility by not putting him on the BC, because he should be on there no matter the child’s surname.

Well no there's not a law. But the children are named already so she can't change the name of the older dc from the patriarchal line unless she had a time machine. Which was my point.

And I haven't denied he should be on the BC. He absolutely should be. The babies name needs discussion if he isn't happy. But ( in a totally non patriarchal) the mother gets the final say. Unless there's a court order.

Why would she change the surnames of the older children? They’re from her marriage to her ex. The issue is the mother is saying to OP yes you should be on the BC for our child, that she completely agrees but is making him go through the courts to do this. That’s a disconnect.

The only disagreement is the surname, and I think it’s a joint decision and frankly it’s odd to give a child the surname of an ex. Talking about ease of travel, that ex could by having the same surname internationally kidnap that child quite easily even though they are no relation at all. I would not be comfortable with this at all.

Because her taking "his" name and giving those children "his" name is the patriarchy which is never allowed or something.

That name is now hers. And as such she gave it to her new child. Not sure it would be my choice either, but then I've never had the same name as my dc. Currently we have 3 names between 3 of us (and they have the same dad) so I don't actually see the importance of sharing a name.

But the ex in this situation clearly did. So gave the baby her name.

Your only meant to use the court system to seek help when all other avenues have been exhausted and the relationships have broken down entirely that your problems cannot be solved. A court would query this. She is being very unreasonable and I too would be reconsidering the relationship going forward.

Your name is nothing to do with your daughters identity. HTH.

I didn’t say his name shouldn’t be on the birth certificate. In my first post I said he should push for that. He definitely should be recognised as the child’s father.

Travel is difficult if the other parent decides to make it difficult and doesn’t give permission for them to travel… that’s why I said having the same name is easier. They are unlikely to question it in the airport with the same surname.

Ever a truer word said !!

I find the responses in this thread very strange.

I think it is wrong the mother gave her a child the surname of her ex-husband.
This is wrong on so many levels.

In most cases it makes sense for children to have the same name as the parent who is their primary carer imo.

Oops, just resurrected zombie thread 😊.