Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: "This outdated judgement of unmarried mothers must end"

204 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 22/03/2016 10:25

When a pregnant woman's partner dies and she is left to raise their baby, support, sympathy and space to recover are all anyone can and should give. Yet for some mothers in the midst of this grief, the state offers not help but hassle.

If a woman did not marry the father of her unborn child before he passed away, the registrar cannot put his name on the baby's birth certificate as a listed parent. It doesn't matter how long the baby's mother and father were together, or how clearly they were in a committed relationship.

Although this sounds like an antiquated scenario, it shows that the fight for equality still has many battles to take on today. Our laws are yet to catch up with how people live.

The rigidness of the registration process means registrars do not have any discretion. Instead, legislation around birth certificates, dating back to 1958, requires the high court to decide whether the mother of the baby is telling the truth about who the father is. This inevitably comes at great expense to families as they are forced to get legal representation. Furthermore, the widow has to go through the dehumanising task of getting DNA evidence to prove who her child's father is - because naturally, an unmarried mother cannot be trusted on her word alone.

This was the case for Joana, a resident of Walthamstow. Her partner died suddenly three weeks before the birth of their second child. She was forced through an arduous and lengthy process to prove that the same man who was father to her first child was also father to her second. The bill was £1,000 and came at a time when she was grieving.The costs for Joana and her family were far more than financial.

In contrast, Kate had a very different experience. Her partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer and died two weeks later. They decided to get married in the intensive care unit following his diagnosis. So, when their child was born a few months after his death, his name went on the birth certificate with no questions asked. Due to a 15 minute marriage ceremony which cost £27, Kate was also able to claim £2,000 bereavement benefit and an ongoing Widowed Parent's Allowance of £510 a month. Joana was denied both of these. Thankfully for both Joana and Kate, Widowed and Young was on hand to support in a way the state did not.

Some may try to dismiss this as a fuss over a piece of paper. I disagree.

Following the death of a father, it becomes even more important to remember and record their role in a family. It cannot be right that the state instead casts a disparaging glance. In our supposedly modern bureaucracy, the outdated judgement of the 'unmarried mother' seeps through - as though it is marriage that guarantees the parentage of a child. This is not only cruel but also inconsistent given that cohabiting couples are treated as equal to married couples when it comes to taxation. Indeed, it is only when a partner dies that the law apparently changes.

The prime minister once stated that his government would be remembered as the one that "finished the fight for real equality". No one can doubt there has been progress. Marriage equality has been signed into law and the Married Couple's Allowance has been extended to cohabiting couples. Yet issues like this show the battle for equality for all families is not yet won.

We need a simple change to the legislation on registrations of births, deaths and marriages. Registrars need to have the flexibility to use their own judgement to address such situations with dignity and sensitivity. It may be too late now for Joana - but it is not too late to end this slur on the unmarried and instead register ourselves as living in 2016. To sign Joana's petition please visit here.

OP posts:
AlleyCatandRastaMouse · 22/03/2016 16:43

Would it not make more sense that a parental responsibility document could be filled in by fathers at the first antenatal appointment. This could also allow the father to be next of kin for the baby if the mother is incapacitated for some reason following the birth.

AlleyCatandRastaMouse · 22/03/2016 16:45

I do think it is in the childrens interest that this be amended because if a father dies without a will I presume their are delays with probate for the child.

IPityThePontipines · 22/03/2016 16:45

Women often get caught up in relastionships with marriage being dangled as a carrot.

In relationships like this, marriage being dangled as a carrot is symptomatic of many other problems. Again there needs to be discussion about it and a societal shift towards condemning such carrot dangling behaviour.

Chlobee87 · 22/03/2016 16:48

"It's weird how there's so many comments about not judging people followed by really judgmental views."

It's not judgemental to voice an opinion, that's how issues are debated and legislation created in the first place.

The problem is, that the OP infers that a woman's word should be enough to get a deceased man who can no longer consent named on her child's birth certificate ("because naturally, an unmarried mother cannot be trusted on her word alone"). This is where the issues lie. I don't think anybody would want to see a woman who had been in a committed relationship and sadly lost her partner being left on the breadline but there are further reaching consequences to this proposed legislation which need to be considered. The issue of benefits IS relevant, the OP actually used it as part of their argument and it is very much a part of the debate IMO. It's a lot more complex a situation than the OP would have you believe. It's not black and white, and it's not about discrimination against unmarried mothers. It's all the other issues that come with it which this proposal does not address.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 16:53

Sorry tabulahrasa - the OP actually uses the phrase "on her word alone". I'm simply pointing out the most absurd conclusion of that. You talk about "some sort of evidence" - well, what exactly? That's what the law asks is provided - in the form of DNA - but this is precisely what the OP is saying is so outrageous in the first place.

No judgement at all - if someone decides they don't want the father named then NOT being married gives you that option; if you were married then your husband is automatically named.

I don't get the problem - if you want the advantages that come with being married, get married. If you don't want the disadvantages (and there are many, particularly in tax terms if you're a better off couple), then don't. If you just don't want to do it, then don't....but then don't complain that some of the rights that you would have had if you had been married don't apply to you. Of course I feel sorry for anyone losing a partner - no more or less depending on her marital status!

twc1966 · 22/03/2016 17:02

Some very goods points raised, my late wife and I were adopting from China but the process had to stop when she was diagnosed with cancer in 2011. I came across this article as I follow WAY (widowedandyoung). I initially thought of course a Mother of a child (to be) would want the Fathers details on the birth certificate but then after reading the other messages, I can see the pitfalls of making it law and the potential ramifications to someone's estate. The easiest way would be for a prospective Father and Mother to write something up into a living will so that all parties wishes were followed. That way if they want to be on the birth certificate and also hand over their estate assets on their death they can do in an easier way and remove additional heartache that the living partner will already be facing.

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 17:05

The OP uses the phrase on her word alone because that's the basis for putting a married father's name on a birth certificate, not as a suggestion.

A DNA test and a court case seems like overkill when there could be other ways for most people - AlleyCat's suggestion could be workable for instance.

Why not just change that bit of legislation surrounding what's allowable for registering a birth if one parent is deceased, it doesn't have to affect any other rights if it's drafted just for that.

expatinscotland · 22/03/2016 17:06

'It just is not as simple as some posters are saying it is. Women often get caught up in relastionships with marriage being dangled as a carrot. How fantastic life would be if every relasionship was made by Walt Disney. '

It's as simple as you make it, regardless of sneery Walt Disney comments. I did not want to have children with a man to whom I wasn't married. So I used double contraception (of course, there will be comments, not all people can, blah blah blah. Well, I refused to have sex with a man who wouldn't use a condom, yes, even in relationships, whilst I used another form of contraception, because I didn't want to have a child with someone I wasn't married to). Walt Disney had nothing to do with our marriage, imagine that. We went to a registry office on a Tuesday afternoon. We chose to have rings, so the cost went up. But it was not expensive.

It involved talking to each other, not sleepwalking into a situation that I didn't want, about what we wanted together. When we both agreed we did not want children without being married, we went to the registry office as soon as possible to arrange a date.

People who 'get caught up' in such relationships are not doing so by force. It is a choice they have made. They choose to stay with someone when they want to be married for legal reasons, it's their lookout. I fail to see how it's the state's problem and concessions should be made when there is a perfectly valid, relatively inexpensive means to confer legal protection and, if not, you can see a solicitor (again, much greater expense).

Some people don't want to get married. Again, this is their lookout and it's their responsibility to rectify any legal discrepancies that may occur as the result of their choice.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 18:27

Ok - let's posit a different scenario. Take a fictional couple - Jane and Derek got married in 2012 and Jane is pregnant with their second child. Derek is killed in a car crash. When Jane and Derek got married, they both owned a flat. They live in Derek's flat with their first child and receive rental income from Jane's and had been planning to sell both flats to buy a bigger, 3 bedroom house to accommodate their expanding family. Jane's flat has increased in value by £50,000 since she bought it and now that Derek is dead and As a married couple, they can only have one principal private residence which is exempt from capital gains tax on its sale. As a result, Jane faces a significant CGT bill (of c.£39k) on the sale of her flat. She could really do with that £39,000 now that she is widowed with a second baby on the way and thinks it is disgraceful that she is financially penalised for being married to the father of her child as, were they not married, the tax authorities would accept that Derek and Jane each had their own principal private residence and the CGT liability would not apply.

Would Stella Creasy be getting up a petition about this? I think not. And it's much the same point - the fictional Jane and Derek have chosen to get married and therefore the law applies to them, even in a sad situation where it isn't in their favour.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 18:33

Sorry - nappy brain - obviously Jane pays the tax on the £39k, not the whole £39k! But the point still stands!

Thurlow · 22/03/2016 18:39

Blimey. This has to be one of the most judgmental threads I've read on MN for a long time Hmm

We all know from being on here how many women get caught in relationships where marriage is dangled like a carrot. We all know from being on here how unplanned pregnancies do occur.

But no. She should either put her foot down and insist her marries or, or... what, it's her fault for not using double contraception? What, should she go off and have a termination if she does have an unplanned pregnancy?

The change in relationships between couples in the 21st century seems the one thing that a huge swathe of MN is insistent on not recognising. Silly hetrosexual couples asking if civil partnerships can apply to them, a change in the law which requires pretty much nothing but a tiny tweaking of the wording. Silly people who ask for cohabitation agreements to be considered fully legal, and not left to the interpretation of the courts.

Why the stick in the mud attitude of so many posters towards even discussing the fact that relationships have been slowly changing over the decades? Society changes all the time. But lets not even consider that one of the changes for many people, women in particular, over the recent few decades has been a consideration that marriage in its current format is not something they want to embrace for historical or feminist reasons. Let's not even just talk about it.

Once marriage had to be a religious ceremony. Then society changed, and it became possible to have a non-religious ceremony. Because people change, and society changes.

Fwiw, I think that the OP has an excellent point and it is a shockingly outdated state of affairs. Though the introduction of a DNA test should arguably be quite simple.

Nibledbyducks · 22/03/2016 18:44

Widowed parent's allowance is the thing that I hate. It's meant to ease the financial burden if having children when a patent dies, when my ex husband died there was nothing to ease the financial burden of losing maintenance for my children, why should a benefit payed with children in mind rely on their parent's marital status?

Oly5 · 22/03/2016 18:46

Why shouldn't I have the same rights as somebody who is married??? It's ridiculous in this day and age. I am in a very committed relationship with two dcs.. We just don't think we need to be married. I find it an outdated concept.
We should have the same rights as everyone else, there's no justification for anything else.

expatinscotland · 22/03/2016 18:49

'But no. She should either put her foot down and insist her marries or, or... what, it's her fault for not using double contraception? What, should she go off and have a termination if she does have an unplanned pregnancy?'

Well, no, but if the father dies before the baby is born, the result is that there needs to be a DNA test before he can be put on the birth certificate. It's not like asking someone to pay £50,000. But that if he dies before the baby is born, then there needs to a DNA test to establish paternity, that's the consequence.

Not all women, or men, want to marry.

It's entirely one's lookout if they chose to stay and/or procreate with someone in an unmarried relationship when he/she wants to be married.

I fail to see why the state has to legislate for consequence of such decisions.

DaphneWhitethigh · 22/03/2016 18:51

How should the law decide how committed you are though Oly? Do flat mates who got drunk and shagged once count? Or people who lived in different houses but were a couple for twenty years? What about people who are outwardly living the same lives as you but feel very strongly that they don't want to be treated as a single legal entity?

That is a genuine question btw. It is entirely possible and probably desirable to introduce cohabittees' rights under law but there are big decisions to be made about who should be covered, and whether it should be opt in or opt out.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 18:52

Why shouldn't I have the same rights as somebody who is married???

Because it exists as a legal construct and you've decided you don't want to opt in to it. It's no judgement on the level of commitment in your relationship.

expatinscotland · 22/03/2016 18:53

'We should have the same rights as everyone else, there's no justification for anything else.'

Of course there is! It can very unfairly financially penalise those who want a live-in or committed relationship without the legal ramifications of marriage. Plenty of people do, particularly those who may have complicated finances and/or children from previous relationships, are in committed relationships with others but married to someone else, all kinds of reasons.

Tessabelle74 · 22/03/2016 18:56

You can't put the father on the birth certificate unless you're married to protect the man from erroneous claims, how is it equality to take away that protection for men? As pp's have said, any woman could then name any man she wanted as the father who would then be liable for child support etc, why should HE have to prove he ISN'T the father?

AlleyCatandRastaMouse · 22/03/2016 18:58

I guess Tessa the point is you could put a mechanism in place before birth to ensure their is no erroneous paternity claims though. It does not have to be after the birth. This would be an improvement.

Tessabelle74 · 22/03/2016 18:59

My comment should have said you can't put the father on without him present unless you're married

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 19:06

*How should the law decide how committed you are though Oly? Do flat mates who got drunk and shagged once count? Or people who lived in different houses but were a couple for twenty years? What about people who are outwardly living the same lives as you but feel very strongly that they don't want to be treated as a single legal entity?

That is a genuine question btw. It is entirely possible and probably desirable to introduce cohabittees' rights under law but there are big decisions to be made about who should be covered, and whether it should be opt in or opt out.*

DaphneWhitethigh is bang on. And this goes back to the original point - if you have got married and due leaving a pregnant wife, in law you have already affirmed your paternity (and presumably you would have to disprove this by DNA if you thought the child wasn't yours, in reverse). That's why the unmarried father has to go to register the birth - so be can make the affirmation then. The situation to which the OP refers came about because he hadn't affirmed via marriage and wasn't alive to do so. Of course you can get into a convoluted argument that you could put in some other legal agreement when your partner was pregnant to affirm your paternity in the event of her death, but is very much doubt that anyone would think to do so, so you'd probably be back in the situation we are discussing (and with the same requirement for the DNA test). Again - I just don't see why anyone is seeing moral judgement in any of this. I see it as being as simple as needing the consent of both parties to the recognition of a relationship or the parentage of a child.

Alanna1 · 22/03/2016 19:10

I think Stella's post is a bit confused. There were articles about this, and in those it said that it isn't that the father's name couldn't go on the birth certificate, it is that because he was dead she had to prove the child's baby was his to a Judge so that an Order could be made. There are all sorts of consequences to being named as the father, including importantly that the child has a claim to the father's estate. Apparently what the Judge asked for to make the order was (1) a statement about their relationship (2) evidence of cohabitation ie bills and (3) DNA evidence. I'm not sure that strictly you need (1) and (2) if you had (3). But none of that strikes me as unfair in what must be a very rare case. I think perhaps it ought to be enough for a Registrar to be given the same evidence, but it feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut for the very small number of cases that might require this.

janeycam27 · 22/03/2016 19:22

It should certainly be updated to reflect modern families. If you hold the original death certificate then that should be just as good evidence as holding a marriage certificate. And as an aside there is no more of a guarantee that a married man is the father of a child as there is of an unmarried man.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 19:28

And as an aside there is no more of a guarantee that a married man is the father of a child as there is of an unmarried man

Of course not - but when you choose to marry (as a man) you accept that your wife will be able - unilaterally - to put your name on the birth certificate of any children to whom she gives birth. If you aren't comfortable with that, then you don't have to get married!

As an aside, my DH and I were talking about this the other day after we'd read the article in the Guardian (purely hypothetically - he is my DC's dad and fully accepts that he is). I said if, as a married man you doubted your paternity then you would presumably have to do the reverse - ie provide DNA evidence that you weren't the father and apply to be removed. Does anyone know? It would be legally consistent at least.

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 19:41

"There are all sorts of consequences to being named as the father, including importantly that the child has a claim to the father's estate."

Well yes and no...or is it actually the case that you can be married to a man, who has left his estate to someone else, dies, you then give birth, say he is the father and that birth certificate alone is enough to get the baby an inheritance? No court case, no DNA tests even if the person named in the will thinks it could be someone else's baby...nothing?

Swipe left for the next trending thread