My feed
Premium

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Guest post: "This outdated judgement of unmarried mothers must end"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:
Report
NewLife4Me · 23/03/2016 00:06

I have no idea who my father is because my mother lied, I'd have rather her leave it out than lie. Angry
How could a mother do that, but she did.
I can understand why she wouldn't want her family to know, they'd have killed him.
That doesn't help me, I just have lies lies and more fuckin lies.
It's not nice living with this at times. Angry

If a father has died and was unmarried then it has to be DNA as the poor bugger is unable to agree or disagree.

Marriage gives protection, thats why people say it's more than a piece of paper and a ring.
I can't understand why somebody wouldn't want to protect themselves for less than £200 too. As for outdated, tell that to the companies who earn tons from weddings, the thousands of brides and grooms, those on their second and third marriage.

Report
Olivia1971 · 23/03/2016 06:06

Why can't an unmarried mother just go to the registry office with the deceased fathers next of kin, or a valid DNA test report (using the DNA of the deceased fathers next of kin) and that be enough for the registrar to put the name on the birth certificate?

I would be all for the deceased next of kin signing in the fathers place, as surely if there were doubts then the family could refuse to sign. I understand this could be problematic, but then there is DNA which would end this problem.

FWIW I am married. I had children out of marriage to my DH, and got married before the birth of DD4. I wanted the legal protection, simple as that. If there had been a civil partnership equivalent I may have gone for that. I feel no different, other than I have a piece of paper and a couple of rings on. But I now know I am covered should anything happen. But I wont deny I am annoyed that in modern society the easiest way to legally protect myself and my family was to get married.

However I do continually say to my boys, 'if you wouldn't make her a wife do not make her a mother'. If nothing else, it ensures they grasp the need to plan before having children (financial security etc) and to always use contraception unless purposely creating children.

Report
ICJump · 23/03/2016 08:58

I find this just bizarre. In Australia you send off a piece of paper to register the birth. I just put my partner in it.
In Australia de factos have rights )to pensions, property etc) I can't believe uk hadn't caught up with this.

Report
Want2bSupermum · 23/03/2016 09:04

I'm with expat. I refused to move in with DH before we were engaged with a date set. He asked me to move in with him and I said no. There was no way that I was going to be in a situation where a LL had more legal protections than me. That was without DC in the mix.

DH and I to this day don't wear wedding bands nor do I wear an engagement ring. We do however have life insurance, a will and a living revocable trust (we are expats in the US where kids can't inherit so this trust allows the money we leave should both of us pass to be spent) as well as being married.

The benefits angle also doesn't make sense to me at all. Surely if you are a single parent the benefits paid it takes this into consideration. Also, as another poster said, what about an exW/H who has maintenance stopped when their ex passes. My friend is a divorce attorney here and she insists on term life insurance payable to the ex to cover any loss in alimony. It makes a whole lot of sense.

Report
stealthbanana · 23/03/2016 09:58

As a PP said, in other territories like Australia de facto / civil partners automatically acquire marriage like protections after a certain period of cohabiting (in Oz I think it is 2 years). The upside is that it protects against the abusive situations described up thread; the downside is that it arguably forces people who don't want to marry for good reasons into a marriage-like relationship.

I think it might be time for the uk to revisit this discussion, but picking on the example of dead fathers on BCs seems like a bizarre and very niche thing to focus in on.

Report
RhodaBull · 23/03/2016 11:33

It says it all in OP: "a 15-minute marriage ceremony and £27"

If you could register a birth without the father present (when married the father is presumed to be the husband) you could put anyone down. Imagine the number of footballers who'd be named as fathers!

Report
TeaPleaseLouise · 23/03/2016 11:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jonesstar · 23/03/2016 11:50

All the comments are so black & white… its not about being able to put anyone down - its about giving registrars the power to review the circumstances e.g. supplying documents directly to them rather than court.

Regarding the widow allowance… not sure people know its combined with the orphan allowance so the children get nothing either. I think yes even if someone gets pregnant through a one night stand and the father dies - the children should still receive these benefits. Was he alive he would have to pay support as well. I am simply amazed about all the very conservative views on this comment thread. Also I don't believe that anyone gets married just in case their OH dies before birth. Where is the empathy? Who knows how many women have found themselves in this situation? I don't.

Report
MrsLupo · 23/03/2016 13:09

I think it should be the other way around, and that both parents should be present to register a birth even if they are married, with no automatic (legal) presumption of legitimacy for anyone.

Report
stealthbanana · 23/03/2016 13:10

I don't think it's about empathy jonestar. I think we can all agree that a child's father dying is incredibly sad. But empathy is not a good basis of public policy.

What it comes down is whether a specific benefit of marriage should be extended to non-married people. People are unmarried either because (a) they don't want to be married or (b) they are in some form of abusive relationship where their partner refuses to marry them.

If (a) - why would you extend this somewhat random and v specific privilege of marriage? (Not saying you shouldn't, just don't understand why.) You give up loads of privileges when you don't get married.

If (b) - shouldn't we be looking to extend all of the protections of marriage to co-habitees rather than this somewhat random, comparatively rare case?

Either way, I don't think a case for change is made out.

Report
stealthbanana · 23/03/2016 13:11
  • for public policy
Report
tabulahrasa · 23/03/2016 13:20

Or (c) They're unmarried because they haven't yet got married.

Not necessarily because they don't want to, just because they haven't done it yet...

I've known lots of people who live together and are vaguely planning to get married at some point and end up doing it either while pregnant or just after having a baby.

They hadn't made a conscious decision not to get married, quite the opposite it was always the plan, just not one they'd actually got round to doing anything about until there was a baby on the way.

Report
stealthbanana · 23/03/2016 13:31

I would include them in (a). Indifference as well as active opposition to marriage.

If falling pregnant triggers your desire to be married, you can do it in 30 days if you want.

(FAOD I'm of the opinion that cohabitation should be equivalent to marriage so all benefits should be extended. But not everyone agrees with me - and I think this is a pointless weird niche change that detracts from much more serious issues.)

Report
tabulahrasa · 23/03/2016 13:54

See it's because it's a pointless weird little niche thing that I don't see why it has to be like that...

If you can take in paperwork to prove you're married and therefore have your husband on the birth certificate I don't see why you couldn't take in some different paperwork to prove you had a partner and he died and so put him on the birth certificate, it'd affect hardly anybody, it doesn't need to have a knock on effect to any other legislation but it's a world of difference to those few people that it would matter to, and given they've had a pretty shitty time of it, just why not?

Report
Want2bSupermum · 23/03/2016 14:03

It will always have knock on effects though. Nationality is one area affected by marriage. DH is danish and I am not. If DC had been born without DH and I being married they would not qualify for Danish citizenship. However, when a Danish mother having a baby outside of Denmark to a non-Danish father the baby is automatically Danish. It's basically the same notion as what we have in the UK with current law but worse because at least there are ways around the issue in the UK. In Denmark there is no way around the rule.

Report
tabulahrasa · 23/03/2016 14:06

Why would it affect nationality?

They wouldn't be put down as married on the birth certificate, just as the father, exactly as if they weren't dead and had gone in to register the baby or exactly as they would be after the DNA test as it is now.

Report
meditrina · 23/03/2016 14:12

It would affect nationality if the father held a nationality for which the child would not qualify unless paternity is legally acknowledged. At present, that requires marriage or being on the birth certificate, or through the courts using evidence such as a familial DNA test.

Report
dontcryitsonlyajoke · 23/03/2016 14:13

I just don't get why people who choose not to marry because they think it's an outdated institution or not for them then want all the legal and financial benefits that marriage offers. You can't reject one bit but not the other.

People make choices. People should make themselves aware of the implications of their choices. I chose all the benefits of marriage. It means it's a damn sight harder to get myself out of it than if I'd remained unmarried, but that is my choice.

Of course, I have huge sympathy for anybody who goes through an unexpected bereavement, especially when pregnant. I can't imagine how awful that must be. But if they're unmarried when it happens that is a choice they made and they can't undo that choice because it now suits them. It costs very little to protect yourself on paper, and you don't need a wedding, or to take his name, or wear a ring, or to even tell anybody to benefit from the protections of marriage.

Report
dynevoran · 23/03/2016 14:25

I don't understand why it can't be that it goes with her word unless challenged. if challenged then the greater level of proof I.e. DNA could then be requested.

These situations must be so so rare. and for it to be challenged would be even more rare. so wouldn't that be quite simple and cover all bases?

Report
tabulahrasa · 23/03/2016 14:44

"It would affect nationality if the father held a nationality for which the child would not qualify unless paternity is legally acknowledged. At present, that requires marriage or being on the birth certificate, or through the courts using evidence such as a familial DNA test."

It wouldn't really change it though, it's just a slightly different way of putting the deceased father on the birth certificate.

As long as it was a robust enough system, then it's not an issue.

Which is why I agree that it shouldn't just be a case of naming somebody.

Report
ApplePaltrow · 23/03/2016 14:49

I don't understand why it can't be that it goes with her word unless challenged.

Because court costs money and time and it's not fair that someone can be forced to prove the negative rather than prove the positive.

Report
dynevoran · 23/03/2016 14:58

applepaltrow it would still be the mother having to prove the positive on challenge. The costs would remain hers and the same.

The only difference would be that if no one challenges it then it would be able to remain. So basically same as now unless no one challenges it. What is wrong with that? Surely if all the deceased parents' family don't challenge then who exactly would the current law be protecting?

Report
AllPowerfulLizardPerson · 23/03/2016 15:08

"then who exactly would the current law be protecting?"

Not who, what. The orderly transfer of property.

Report
Fruu · 23/03/2016 15:11

I'm sure there are loads of unmarried women who are in the same position I am, where they want to get married and their partner wants it too but he doesn't see the rush! I have medical issues and the doctor told me I had to try to get pregnant straight away or risk never having kids. My partner refused to rush getting married because he wants to organise a big complicated wedding. So here I am with a baby but no husband (yet!), because it was that or I'd never have children and I wanted a child. It's very easy to breezily say that women should insist on getting married before having kids if you don't have underlying medical issues or a partner who won't budge.

Going back to the original topic, I think it should be possible to get the father's name added without DNA testing if you turn up with a bunch of evidence that you were in a relationship like photos, utility bills proving cohabitation etc, a copy of the death certificate and witnesses (maybe including a close relative of the father or beneficiary of his will). In cases where it's not contraversial that the couple were an item and his family are backing up the statement from the mother, it seems OTT to have to go through courts and a load of legal faff.

Report
dynevoran · 23/03/2016 15:18

Totally agree Fru. allpowerful if no one alive objects to it and other evidence indicates it to be the case then it's as orderly as it needs to be in my opinion.

It's unusual for the father to die before birth. Of those small set of people it's a small subset who are not married. of that small subset it's an even smaller one where the paternity is disputed by someone who is alive. So to what end are we really punishing poor grieving people? So that in one or two cases a year the process can be seen to be more orderly?! Even with all the other evidence we think this is not enough?! It's hardly going to create total intestacy related anarchy.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.