Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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Guest post: "This outdated judgement of unmarried mothers must end"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:
NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 19:49

....except if you are married you can make a claim to a chunk of that estate (even if it is left to someone else)!

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 19:52

Having someone's name on a birth certificate still doesn't mean the child is automatically inheriting...

Inheritance is already separate from being on the birth certificate.

VikingVolva · 22/03/2016 19:54

"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?"

Yes (I think).

Because a child born to a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband, unless he (or if deceased, some other interested person, say as in your example, the other heir) takes steps to have the child repudiated.

It's all to do with the wording that marriage is 'for the procreation of children' so having sex is (normally) part of the deal. Whereas it's not an implication of cohabitation even with a joint mortgage (you could be flat mates)

VikingVolva · 22/03/2016 19:57

"Having someone's name on a birth certificate still doesn't mean the child is automatically inheriting...

Inheritance is already separate from being on the birth certificate."

A known child can challenge a will or claim under intestacy rules. If paternity is not legally established, then this can't happen. At least nowadays, it can be done rapidly and pretty cheaply via family match DNA testing.

99Flake · 22/03/2016 20:06

Much as we didn't feel we needed or wanted to, my partner and I had a civil partnership to ensure it was obvious who the legal parents were, before we had fertility treatment. In my view this sort of planning is part of being a responsible parent, but no-one should be forced to get married if they disagree with the institution. The solution here would be for expectant unmarried parents to be given the choice to sign a parental declaration, giving a subset of marriage rights in terms of parenting, to cover the period before the child is registered. It'll probably end up costing a similar amount to administer as a marriage, but that at least is fair to those who neither wish to get married or put themselves or their partner at risk of more misery, if the worst outcome becomes a reality.

LeaLeander · 22/03/2016 20:09

Totally agree with expatinscotland. There is little excuse, with multiple forms of contraception, the morning after pill and readily available abortion, to have an unplanned child. Zero excuse, really.

Any woman who stays in a relationship "with marriage being dangled as a carrot" or as expat puts it, sleepwalks into having kids by a man who refuses to marry her, to protect her and the children, is a fool. And has no one but herself to blame for the ramifications. As women we are always in 100 percent control of our reproduction. I've been sexually active for 35 years and no one yet has made me bear a child against my will. They don't "sometimes just happen."

I have no moral use for the construct of marriage and think that all governments should get out of the marriage business - let people do what they wish "spiritually" but all citizens be separate and equal legal and economic entities throughout their lives. But as long as marriage does exist, and confers desirable rights and protections, a woman who would bear children without availing herself of those protections is pretty dim.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 20:24

LeaLeander. Not necessarily - I have a friend whose GF has inherited quite a lot of money and she resolutely doesn't want to get married. They seem as stable and committed as anyone else I know, 3 DCs, bought a house together. But she doesn't want to get married so he can't avail himself of those protections were they to split up. You can't call her dim in all fairness - she's very switched on and has worked out that it simply isn't to her advantage.

I take the general point you make, though - I'd just say that people should be aware that marriage is different from cohabiting in the eyes of the law. Not making yourself aware of that is dim. Whether or not you choose to opt in or opt out is entirely up to the individual (and different people will take different decisions depending on their views/circumstances).

Lightbulbon · 22/03/2016 20:29

A marriage cert may be cheap but a divorce is bloody expensive!

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 20:53

"A known child can challenge a will or claim under intestacy rules."

Yes but where a will has been written with other heir/s than the wife that's never likely to go through with just a birth certificate unless they were all agreeing that the baby was the deceased man's.

So you're still talking court case and DNA tests for inheritance married or not.

So how does shifting that point to contesting inheritance for unmarried mothers rather than just putting the father on the birth certificate really affect inheritance rights?

Putting the father's name on the birth certificate isn't about replicating the rights of being married, but getting to do what he would have done if he hadn't died, surely?

Andcake · 22/03/2016 21:12

It's the reoccurring theme about the naivety people have around rights. The situation in the op is sad but the click bate title is a bit over dramatic.

I am unmarried and have a child with my partner but I did research the pros and cons. I don't believe in marriage and think women who dream of getting married are a bit sad but I do understand the legal protection it could offer me.

Marilynsbigsister · 22/03/2016 21:26

Natalie.. But don't you find that attitude abhorrent? Reverse it for a second.. The man has inherited a load of money and has had a child with his gf but chooses not to marry to protect his interests from 'her' - the mother of his child- getting her dabs on it. This is wrong on so many levels.

I can't get passed the fact that if you really really feel the level of commitment to another person to make a child with them, then you surely feel an equal commitment to the other parent to want to marry them.

Our way of life has changed when it comes to having children and not always for the better. Men are only too aware that there are many women out there who will agree to a baby without marriage. This is due to simple ignorance of the lack of legal protection that cohabiting offers, a belief that marriage doesn't matter a concerted dislike of marriage or the promise of marriage once baby has arrived.

In previous generations, men (normal working/middle class men) could not have children unless they came up with the marriage goods first. This social requirement has now been removed.

Women have also not helped themselves. There are so many 'accidents' out there that it is simply unbelievable. Contraceptive choices are better, more easily accessible and reliable than ever before. Couple that together with the huge choices that can be made once a genuine accident has happened.. MAP, non surgical termination.. Yet unplanned pregnancy is higher than ever.
Someone is fibbing ! It's the great unspoken taboo. Women get pregnant on purpose, against their partners wishes. (Yes, yes stop screaming he is jointly responsible, I know all that but it still doesn't excuse the woman who 'forgets' her pill or doesn't have her implant replaced despite assuring her partner to the contrary - it happens. A lot !) Many women decide they want a child without really thinking through if this man is a suitable father for my child. The fear of 'how will I support this child' has been removed. - in essence a great thing but practically removing another layer of consideration, responsibility and consequence.

We have all seen the horrendous threads in 'relationships ' often starting with 'I am pregnant and my partner has been ea for ages but this has really started to worry me'... The question needs asking. Where is the education to teach vulnerable women that they are worth more.. Where is the 'relationship education that should be running along side sex education in schools and given equal importance?

The belief that having the baby of someone you have known five minutes, who has shown no commitment to your relationship, will suddenly decide to be father of the year - not to mention want to get married- it beyond ridiculous.

Marriage is a stop check. By the time you know one another well enough to want to marry each other and the feeling is mutual then you are probably nearly on the way to knowing each other well enough to have a baby.

If you want the protection of marriage. Get married. It cost £125. If you don't get married then at least appraise yourself of your rights and understand how few you have. You owe your unborn child that much at least.

I will not be signing a petition. I would not want a casual girlfriend of my dead son (God forbid) claiming him as the father just on a say so. DNA costs £300 these days. (Sometimes less) it involves a cotton bud sweep around your (fathers close relative) cheek if he has died and from dad himself if still alive. Neither of which can be described as invasive or intrusive considering the importance attributed. - still cheaper and easier to marry !.

NewLife4Me · 22/03/2016 21:40

But surely a lot of this is down to choice. You are protected a lot more if you are married.
If you choose not to want the protection through marriage you can't moan when you aren't granted the same.

If you want an apple you don't moan it's not a banana, you get a banana instead Grin

Obviously in the case of sudden bereavement it is harsh and I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, there should be more help and support and a change in policy, not sure what would work.
People do lie on birth certificates btw, official records too.
I know because my birth certificates and accompanying paperwork are mostly lies.
If DNA testing is the only way to prove a person is the parent then it should be used.

Yes, every child deserves to have their father's name on the birth certificate but they sure as hell want it to be the right bloody name. Angry

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 21:40

" I would not want a casual girlfriend of my dead son (God forbid) claiming him as the father just on a say so."

But why would she have his death certificate? Or why would he have attended the midwife's appointment where he was logged as the father...or whatever system they could put in place if she was a casual girlfriend and he didn't want to be on the birth certificate and how are things like that just her say so?...

Why the jump from partner?

expatinscotland · 22/03/2016 21:43

Why does the state need to put another 'system' in place? There already is one. You get married or, in this probably fairly rare case, you have a DNA test.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 21:48

Marilynsbigsister I'm not sure I'd call it abhorrent, although I would say it's a bit clinical and not quite in the spirit of sharing which I value in a relationship myself. What I was saying, though, is that she certainly isn't to be called dim for making that choice. I suppose the reverse situation you posit is the more common one (at least if you're talking earnings rather than inheritance) as it is more often the woman who stays at home or goes part time, which has a knock on effect on her career and earning potential. On that basis, it usually is the woman who "needs" or wants, if you prefer) the financial protection that marriage offers as it means that the father of their child is obliged to ensure that her financial needs are looked after as well as those of the children. So - say in your situation a man inherits money, but he is the SAHP and his GF continues to work full time as she did before, then I don't think I'd feel any differently about it.

I definitely agree with you that education is the key, though. It is astonishing how many people think that there is such a concept as "common law wife", for example. Possibly something for the PSHE curriculum in schools?

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 21:55

Why does the state need to put another 'system' in place? There already is one. You get married or, in this probably fairly rare case, you have a DNA test.

I agree. As I said, I feel sorry for the lady who lost her partner and I can understand her wish to have him named on her child's birth certificate (although, in fact, that is just another piece of paper which says nothing about the commitment they had to each other or that he had to that unborn child, just as a marriage certificate doesn't). If she wants to do that, then she can if she jumps through a few legal hoops (as she hasn't already jumped through the legal hoop called marriage). I don't see why that's humiliating or why people infer some sort of adverse moral judgement from society.

Marilynsbigsister · 22/03/2016 21:57

Tabulahrasa , not sur I understand your question. My example about not wanting a dead (son) named on a child's birth certificate was in response to the OP, who decried the unnecessary complicated system in place to name a father on a birth certificate if child is born after unmarried partners death. The OP suggested that the mother should simply be able to state their partner is the father as fact. I believe that it should be only through marriage or DNA. Sorry, but too many people lie about these things as previous posters have already mentioned.

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 21:59

"Why does the state need to put another 'system' in place? There already is one. You get married or, in this probably fairly rare case, you have a DNA test."

Why not? It would be cheaper and easier for everyone (because you're not using court time for every case) it wouldn't by itself have any impact on inheritance...they'd be contested separately even after there's a birth certificate, even after a DNA test that would still be a new case.

So why not put in place some fairly straightforward system for cases where the father was extremely likely to go and put his name on it anyway?

Not just being able to say, he's the father, he's dead...but something easier but still valid.

I don't see how it's such a big deal, especially when you consider that some men must be in a committed longterm relationship happily planning to get married before their baby is born and die before any of that happens and then, not only does their partner not get to marry them, they get to give birth without him, raise their child without him and have to go to court to prove they didn't sleep with someone else. It's just grim.

Marilynsbigsister · 22/03/2016 22:17

All easily solved by getting married before planning children...

As an earlier poster said 'If you want an apple you don't moan it's not a banana, you get a banana instead '

This is not the 19th century. If you want to be married when you have a child, then don't get pregnant or have a child before you are married.

It is absolutely optional.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 22:18

"....have to go to court to prove that they didn't sleep with someone else..."

Now here's the moral judgement that you're inferring....and I'm saying it's simply not valid. I'm my opinion it is a purely legal point - if you are married the law assumes your husband is the father of your baby until it is proven otherwise because he has, at that point, consented to allow his wife unilaterally to put his name to the birth certificate of any children born within that marriage. If you aren't married, then the father hasn't consented to this, which is why he has to go to register the birth with the mother and he consents at that point. If he dies and they aren't married he obviously can't give his consent, so proof has to be provided instead of that consent. No one is suggesting that anyone is sleeping with someone else, nor is there any requirement to go to court. Things like this have serious legal ramifications so due process has to be observed.

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 22:25

" If he dies and they aren't married he obviously can't give his consent, so proof has to be provided instead of that consent."

But the only acceptable proof being a DNA test is suggesting that someone may have been sleeping with someone else if they have access to plenty of things that would establish their relationship...

Or they could move that point of giving consent to the beginning of the pregnancy as someone else suggested, register with the midwife as the father.

It's not a huge insurmountable issue where there couldn't conceivably be a more straightforward way of doing it so that a recently bereaved new mother isn't having to prove with DNA evidence that the father of her child is in fact who anybody reasonable would assume it was anyway.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 22:33

But she doesn't have to prove it and anybody will assume it anyway. She wishes to have something entered onto a legal document and so she needs to provide proof of a legal standard in order to do so. I'm not being obtuse - I genuinely don't see the issue.

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 22:47

"But she doesn't have to prove it and anybody will assume it anyway. She wishes to have something entered onto a legal document and so she needs to provide proof of a legal standard in order to do so."

Because leaving a blank space for your recently deceased partner on your baby's birth certificate must just be horrible...

That's why women are going through the hassle of it, just so their baby has both parents listed there like they would have had if he hadn't died.

Legal proof is pretty much what people decide it is, if they changed it to something robust, what harm does it do? Really?

A short form at the beginning of the pregnancy along with the death certificate at registration, or a relative standing in and signing it on their behalf alongside the death certificate...something that's a bit easier...

I know it's a legal document, but at that point in those circumstances - that's not why someone is wanting to put the father on, they just want a complete birth certificate for their child.

NataliaOsipova · 22/03/2016 23:08

I can understand that - of course I can - and losing your partner must be awful. All these legal things when you are grieving must be dreadful - I will never forget being In the register office the day that a couple came in to register a stillbirth, which they were required by law to do. I've never seen someone as broken as that girl and the whole experience of being In a room where people go to register live births must have been horrific. You can ask why it has to happen, but probably the answer is that there are massively serious issues surrounding birth and death and therefore a legalistic approach is the only way to make sure things don't slip through the gaps. If a name on a birth certificate is an issue then it can be overcome; in those circumstances I honestly don't see why the DNA is such a big deal - as another poster said, it would simply require a cheek swab from your baby and your partner's hairbrush/toothbrush or something.

I do take your point that it must be awful for the individual concerned, I just don't agree that the system should be changed on the basis of one, probably rare, case.

tabulahrasa · 22/03/2016 23:18

"it would simply require a cheek swab from your baby and your partner's hairbrush/toothbrush or something"

Would it? I'm assuming you couldn't provide your own DNA sample tbh, because there's no traceability there...it'd be a relative providing DNA? Surely, oh, or the body I suppose...nice.

I just don't see that it's that huge a legal change that it couldn't be done even if it's only one woman a year that it helps and it's likely to be more than that.

Swipe left for the next trending thread