Guest post: "This outdated judgement of unmarried mothers must end"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

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.

[NewLife4Me]

It's not about somebody disputing who the father is though.
A member of a deceased family isn't going to check what's written on a birth certificate. So how on earth would they be able to know, it's not something you go looking for normally.
This doesn't mean that a mother can't lie whether married or not.
Surely, the fact that the father has to be present when registering is to stop this.
If he has died he obviously can't be there to register and no I don't believe the mothers word should be taken tbh.
I will say though that the fact she is married or unmarried is immaterial, a married woman could have had an affair and become pregnant and name her deceased husband as the father.

[NataliaOsipova]

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...

If I think - oh, I must renew my house insurance but just don't get round to it because I'm busy and then my house falls down, would Direct Line be obliged to pay? No - and nor should they.

Plus - what about people who don't want to be married because they a) aren't sure they want that level of commitment or b) don't want the tax consequences. Why should they be shoehorned into that position? Or forced to live alone? And what's cohabiting? My friend's DD is 23 and has got her first job in London, so she's renting a 1 bed flat with her boyfriend (coming up for 2 years now). They aren't married because they (she certainly) don't want to get married yet. Just assume it's her flat that she's bought - would he be entitled to a portion if they split up just because they were shagging and had a convenient domestic arrangement for a couple of years.

Honestly - I think all this "equality for cohabitees" is actually far more judgemental than anything that's been said here; the underlying inference is that marriage is something "better" rather than being something that one can choose to do or have every right to choose not to do.

[tabulahrasa]

"My friend's DD is 23 and has got her first job in London, so she's renting a 1 bed flat with her boyfriend (coming up for 2 years now). They aren't married because they (she certainly) don't want to get married yet. Just assume it's her flat that she's bought - would he be entitled to a portion if they split up just because they were shagging and had a convenient domestic arrangement for a couple of years. "

No, I can say absolutely definitely that giving registrars the power to put a deceased man's name on a birth certificate when presented with evidence that he is the father will not give your friend's DD's boyfriend a share in her flat...

Don't even know why you think it might tbh, because he'd have to be dead for it to be relevant.

[QueenLaBeefah]

It would seem some people would like the legal protection of marriage but with out the scary commitment bit (with the possibility of a hugely expensive divorce).

Cake and eating spring to mind.

[Alisvolatpropiis]

Well quite, Queen.

[dontcryitsonlyajoke]

Exactly Queen.

[expatinscotland]

Nail hitting head, Queen.

[tabulahrasa]

Except it's not the legal protection of marriage...

It's just what substitutes for the presence of a man if he's dead and who can decide it's valid.

[expatinscotland]

And again, there is a state-sanctioned system for this . . . marriage. Then there's no need to decide or determine validity.

[tabulahrasa]

Ok, leave the comparison to marriage out of it then if it really bothers you that much.

Why not have an easier to manage system that includes legal documents like the death certificate?

Not because it makes it the same as being married (which it wouldn't anyway as long as it wasn't simply turn up and name someone) but just because it's overly demanding and expensive when it could be made simpler.


Inheritance isn't affected because the heir would dispute it anyway and nobody would accept just a birth certificate in those circumstances, there are no other benefits to be gained from it...

So, why not?

[expatinscotland]

'So, why not?'

Because there is already an easy to manage system at no extra cost to the state and that leaves people the option to opt in or out as they see fit with relatively little cost to themselves; one which relies on all people taking personal responsibility for themselves and their children. It's called marriage or civil partnership.

[tabulahrasa]

No..they're different systems, they're not how you register births.

[Want2bSupermum]

If you have a rule for cohabitee couples you need to bring in comprehensive reform that includes full recognition of prenuptial agreements. As it stands in the UK someone like my father who built up a business while married to my mother. When they divorced she got 50% of the assets and none of the debt. He then a few years later met his GF who he lived with for 17 years. She was a PITA at the best of times. No children and no financial contribution to the marriage (actually she cost a fortune). I'm discounting the fact she never lifted a finger in terms of helping running the house, my dads businesses and actively isolated my father from family and friends. Thank goodness she got her knickers in a twist when my dad spent Christmas with my sister who was expecting her 2nd DC. She upped and left the relationship when she was returning to her parents for the holidays. My dad never married her for a damn good reason. Had he done he would have lost 50% again after a 17 year marriage, leaving him with 25%. During those 17 years she could have worked but chose not to. My dad paid for her to study and after 3 months of leaving my dad she got herself a job that pays well at £50k a year. Plenty to 'survive' on for sure. My dad also gave her a house which she kept after they split and my dad let her keep the things she took including a car, 2 horses worth about £225k at the time and jewelry. She has gone after my dad for a settlement for abandoning their relationship. Thank goodness there are no cohabitation laws giving rights to women like my dads exGF.

[tabulahrasa]

"If you have a rule for cohabitee couples you need to bring in comprehensive reform that includes full recognition of prenuptial agreements."

No you wouldn't, again, they're completely different things, it's not that they're cohabiting, it's about how to verify a father if he's dead.

Currently cohabiting couples don't need it changed, they can just go and register the birth together.

[NataliaOsipova]

tabulahrasa The discussion has widened to one of the rights that should be afforded to cohabiting couples more generally (and is something that is referred to in - and is therefore relevant to - the OP). That was the point of my last post and that of Want2BSupermum!

[tabulahrasa]

"The discussion has widened"

Not hugely...you quoted me, my post was about registering births, the posts in between the one you quoted and where you posted were all about the same issue...

I assume you mean you tried to widen it because that leads to discussion about the issues around providing legal rights based on cohabitation as that's a lot trickier than the one small issue relating to birth registration?

Because it is a different thing completely.

There are no extra rights being afforded, just a slightly different system of registration than is currently available for a very small number of people.

Because actually it's not about having the same rights as someone who is married, it's why is there such a stressful system for someone who has been bereaved?

[HarlotBronte]

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.

The problem with this Oly5 is that your feeling that you should be able to have all the rights and protections of marriage, even though you've decided you don't need to be married, shits on other people's rights. Plenty of people in your position have decided not to get married precisely because they don't want the things that marriage brings: maybe they have children they want to leave their assets to without a spouse having a claim. What you're advocating here is for them to either have to not live together or to have legal and financial obligations imposed on them that they don't want. All because you've decided you don't need marriage.

If you want people to have the rights of marriage outside marriage, then you should be arguing for CPs for all, or some other form of registration. Why do people who've deliberately chosen not to marry have to be sacrificed so you can get what you want, when you've got a perfectly valid way to get the rights of marriage open to you anyway? You already have a way of getting the legal arrangements you prefer, but you want to take theirs away entirely! This is a really bad system: the poster upthread who described the Australian law as representing some kind of progress was dead wrong.

[LynetteScavo]

As the law stands the mother gets to be on the BC, but not the father if the parents aren't married, and the father doesn't attend.

This gives the majority of unmarried mothers an advantage, as an unnamed father has no parental responsibility, yet will still have to provide financially (in theory!) A change in the law may provide equality, but would disadvantage many unmarried mothers who aren't in a committed relationship or agreement with the father.

[whattheseithakasmean]

I cannot see any 'judgement' of unmarried mothers in the moral sense, just a legal distinction between recognising paternity when the father is married to the mother as opposed to when he isn't. Marriage is, first and foremost, a legal contract and a man is bound by this to recognise and support the children from his marriage. If there is no marriage, paternity has to be established - I really cannot see any issue with this.

'Unmarried mothers' are not being 'judged', just required to establish the identity of the father under law, as there is no marriage certificate to do this. Seems reasonable.

[HarlotBronte]

I don't either. If you marry someone, part of that contract is that you're giving each party the power to unilaterally register any child born to the woman, without the other being there. And if you're a man, you're agreeing that any child born to your wife while you're still married will be legally considered yours, unless and until you prove otherwise. If you don't have a particular contract, you don't have the rights and obligations that come along with it. That shouldn't surprise anyone.

We could develop some kind of facility for unmarried couples to pre-register, or take some kind of affidavit during the pregnancy, in case of the man's untimely death. Various posters have suggested this and there's no reason why it couldn't happen, if we as a society decided it was a worthwhile thing to invest the time and expense of developing it. It would have to be free, if you wanted anything like universal uptake. The problem though, I think, is that people wouldn't bother with it. Some would, but most people presume they're not going to shuffle off this mortal coil imminently so they don't get round to it. Same reason so many don't have wills, or they do but they're out of date.

[NataliaOsipova]

HarlotBronte Totally agree with you - spot on.

[dynevoran]

But its a tiny number of people new life and could easily be addressed by in the situation where someone has died and evidence is presented such as death certificate then all next of kin could be informed and be able to dispute.
It's a tiny number of people this could apply to. So there would be no major cost involved.

[Marilynsbigsister]

There should be absolutely no way that anyone should be able to register a father on a birth certificate without the father himself being present - unless one has irrefutable biological proof. DNA sampling is neither intrusive nor expensive these days . I'm sorry, I am long term employed in the identity fraud world and the chances of this being abused are ridiculously easy.

A poster up thread said it best. If you don't insure your possessions/home/holiday and then they are stolen/burgled/cancelled you come unstuck. You cannot then call up direct line and demand the same rights as if you were insured and paid the premiums !

If you want the same rights as a married person, then become a married person. The problem here is a mans reluctance to marry once the children have already arrived.

[Halafim]

My husband died 4 months after our wedding. I went directly from my husbands funeral to hospital to be induced, due to pregnancy related liver problems. I gave birth 3 days after the funeral.

On top of my grief, I had such a painful longing for him to hold his son. It was horrendous sitting in the Registrar's office, just me and my new born son, watching the other happy couples with their babies. It took all my strength to walk in that room alone to register his birth. I was so worried they couldn't put his name on the certificate but after some discussion they did, and although the word, Deceased, after his name was another dagger to my heart, it still meant the world to me having his Daddy's name on the birth certificate.

It could have been so different. When we made the decision to marry, we considered waiting until after our son was born. The fact that we decided to marry before, was right for us but I would never condemn a couple that either chose not to or didn't get the chance to marry.

For us marriage was very important but marriage does not make a relationship 'valid', it is love, friendship, understanding, the life you choose to live together. We live in a time and place that should be more understanding and accepting.

Some of the thoughtless, uninformed comments have shocked me. Open your eyes people and broaden you minds. Step out of the "dark ages" and look around you, look at your own families! How would you feel if this happened to you or your loved ones?

Some of you commenting here, I doubt you will ever understand and to be honest I hope you never do!