Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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Guest post: "This outdated judgement of unmarried mothers must end"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:
HarlotBronte · 23/03/2016 21:42

I am so sorry for your loss. I'm not sure why you think people are saying being unmarried makes a relationship less valid, though? Most people have said the exact opposite. The objections to this are about the legal ramifications, not because people think stable cohabitants are somehow lesser. Marriage isn't a reflection of how 'good' your relationship is, it's a legal contract. Because so many of the rights and responsibilities it bestows are so important, many of us feel that people should have to make an active choice to take them on. Not just acquire them when they never consented to it.

tabulahrasa · 23/03/2016 21:47

Halafim - Flowers

"How would you feel if this happened to you or your loved ones?"

That's the thing, it doesn't and isn't ever going to affect me...I'm having no more children, but I just think...

How horrible must it be to go through all that and then to have to have an entirely different process and to wait for DNA tests just to put the father of their baby on the birth certificate.

When realistically it could be done at the registry office with a death certificate and other documentation.

whattheseithakasmean · 23/03/2016 21:56

So sorry for your loss Halafim

Just to be clear, no one is condemning a couple that don't marry - the point has been repeated that there is no judgement on 'unmarried mothers'. Absolutely none. It is about the legalities of ensuring the father's name on the death certificate is accurate. Without a legal contract, DNA seems the only reasonable way to do this, and indeed could be far less upsetting than letting next of kin squabble over whether your partnership counted as married or not.

whattheseithakasmean · 23/03/2016 21:57

Sorry, birth certificate, not death certificate.

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 01:41

The comments under the Guardian article by Ms Creasy's constituent were (quite reasonably) a bit scathing. The 'arduous' process described was not actually overly arduous at all ( a handful of documents and a DNA test).

Considering that inheritances, marriages, reputations and so on can hing on the accuracy of a birth certificate, which is a powerful legal document.

I have registered a birth while unmarried and I can't see that allowing me to simply name someone with no proof would have been reasonable. Birth registrations must have complete integrity.

If some kind of parity under the law is desired, then insist that ALL living parents (both married and unmarried) attend birth registrations and bring arrangements more into line for posthumous births, perhaps with marriage certificates being the only proof of relationship required for a declaration of paternity, where one exists, and retaining the utility bill & DNA test requirement for other couples. (Seems a tad silly but not as silly as what is proposed.)

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 01:48

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?

Hala Flowers

I'm so sorry for your loss, but with respect, Birth, Marriage & Death records can't be a policy area driven by emotion. The need to ensure the accuracy of the record is no slur on unmarried parents. Nor a suggestion that their relationship is in any way less 'valid'.

If the system must be changed, it should be changed to require more proof from all. NOT less proof from any.

There is provision for someone other than a parent to a register a birth and deal with simple court proceedings to shield a bereavement mother from some of the upset of dealing with bureaucracy.

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 01:48

bereaved mother.

jonesstar · 24/03/2016 07:54

Gooseberry - i also saw the Guardian piece and it was clear that it was not just a handfull of documents and a dna test. That is actually closer to the new process being suggested. It was applying to court which cost the woman £365 - doing a dna test witnessed by the gp which was around £300 for the test and £150 gp fees for each of the three involved in the test.

I really do not understand some of these comments here. Noone is suggesting to turn up with no evidence - the OP is just asking for a process that doesnt involve the
court. Its a simple change that saves the state money which can be used for better things.

whattheseithakasmean · 24/03/2016 08:36

Well if it is just a simple administrative change, I don't understand the need for the emotive language in the article around 'judging unmarried mothers'. It seems counterproductive in fact.

HarlotBronte · 24/03/2016 10:45

I really do not understand some of these comments here. Noone is suggesting to turn up with no evidence - the OP is just asking for a process that doesnt involve the court.

To be fair, the OP didn't actually mention evidence at all. The stuff about proof of cohabitation etc has been added by subsequent posters. It's actually quite a significant change to what Stella proposed, because she didn't say anything to suggest she only wants this reform for unmarried couples who cohabit. Additionally, Stella criticises the refusal to trust a woman's word alone. If a bereaved mother has to submit evidence of cohabitation, this is still not trusting her word alone either.

jonesstar · 24/03/2016 11:01

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.

She suggests its up to the registrar what the evidence is to be.

Want2bSupermum · 24/03/2016 12:51

So I am scheduled for my CS on Monday. Interesting to go through the paperwork this morning and see the registration of birth document. It's filled out by someone and signed by the doctor who either delivered the baby or managed the pregnancy. The doctor then submits the paperwork and you get the birth certificate in the mail 1-2 weeks later.

If not married your doctor takes blood samples at the start of the pregnancy from the father regardless of marital status so I guess that's used if any questions are raised about the paternity.

Also you see the same doctor here throughout your pregnancy. They get to know you and sign off to verify the information on the registration form is correct. I'm in the US, NJ to be specific. Not sure if it's like this in other states.

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 12:57

She suggests its up to the registrar what the evidence is to be.

Which seems to me to be too much pressure and responsibility to place on registrars. Some of these situations will be complex.

It is emotive to talk to about 'court processes' and 'expense' when what is meant is a straightforward, unopposed court procedure and a cost of a few hundred pounds, which set in the context of probate costs etc isn't insane expense. ('A long and arduous court process' is what Dianne Blood endured. Not this.)

But drastically reducing the fees and maybe streamlining the process by having a link between the registration office and the court would address that. I don't see how you do away with proof, though.

In the Guardian article, Ms Creasey's constituent seemed aghast that her word wasn't enough. I find that very naive and don't see that you could run a system on that basis.

Of course if you've lost your partner , everything does seem hard and arduous, but a 'because I said so' system of establishing parentage would lead to awful cases and injustices.

I don't understand the need for the emotive language in the article around 'judging unmarried mothers'.

I agree. As a formerly unmarried mother myself, I just can't see that.

DaphneWhitethigh · 24/03/2016 13:10

Registrars already have a statutory duty to watch out for and report sham marriages which is just as complex an issue. They're not just paperwork filers.

jonesstar · 24/03/2016 13:14

Which seems to me to be too much pressure and responsibility to place on registrars. Some of these situations will be complex.

How can the situation be complex? You simply decide on documents to bring along to the registrar which are accepted. For e.g. a parental declaration at the first appointment with the midwife, a copy of the will which might state the partner as a lifetime partner, a letter from next of kin of the father, a joint mortgage etc… Thats for the law to decide which ones will give proof. If other countries can do it such as Switzerland and Germany and by the looks of Supermums post the US - why can't the UK do the same?

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 13:22

Registrars already have a statutory duty to watch out for and report sham marriages which is just as complex an issue. They're not just paperwork filers

Of course they're not filing clerks and they're not Solomons either; They're public officials. I can't see that they deserve (or get paid enough) to be put in the front line of making impossible decisions with little proof about bereaved parents who insist their word should be enough. That's an impossible situation to be in.

Marriages involving foreign nationals can only take place in a handful of designated registration offices, BTW. Not every registrar is expected to deal with those complex cases.

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 13:25

How can the situation be complex? You simply decide on documents to bring along to the registrar which are accepted. For e.g. a parental declaration at the first appointment with the midwife, a copy of the will which might state the partner as a lifetime partner, a letter from next of kin of the father, a joint mortgage etc… Thats for the law to decide which ones will give proof. If other countries can do it such as Switzerland and Germany and by the looks of Supermums post the US - why can't the UK do the same?

You think posthumous paternity determinations can't be complex?!

HarlotBronte · 24/03/2016 13:29

She suggests its up to the registrar what the evidence is to be.

Stella doesn't specifically mention evidence. She says registrars should be able to use their own judgement, with no mention of whether this should include evidence at all. Read in conjunction with her remark about not being willing to take women's word for it, I can't see that you can definitively say nobody's suggested bereaved women being able to put a name on the BC with no evidence at all. It's a badly written post. At a bare minimum, she should've been clear whether she was referring to all unmarried couples or cohabitants only!

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 13:29

Threre are so many possible situations; short lived relationships; couples who don't live together; babies conceived during break-ups or reconciliations; the father being married or otherwise partnered; hostile paternal families...

Or is what is actually being requested is that a joint mortgage be treated as a de facto marriage certificate?

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 13:32

She says registrars should be able to use their own judgement, with no mention of whether this should include evidence at all. Read in conjunction with her remark about not being willing to take women's word for it, I can't see that you can definitively say nobody's suggested bereaved women being able to put a name on the BC with no evidence at all

Indeed. The constituent in question was certainly incandescent that her word alone wasn't accepted;

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/mar/12/the-battle-to-get-my-daughters-father-on-her-birth-certificate

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 13:35

"I thought I would just have to swear an oath – a formality. So when I went to the first hearing I turned up with the baby. I was sitting breastfeeding my daughter while I was talking to the judge".

"I was so shocked when he said I would have to provide a DNA sample from David’s sister, two shared utility bills and a relationship history."

DNA, two bills and a relationship history sounds fairly reasonable to me. A court fee waiver for posthumous births would be good, though.

Oly5 · 24/03/2016 13:36

Joint mortgages should be regarded as de facto marriage certificates

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 13:41

Minefield Oly. I can immediately think of three couple I know well who had joint mortgages long after divorce and also several couple who split very soon after moving into together, very early on.

What about joint tenancies? You couldn't have mortgages and not tenancies.

The early pregnancy parental declaration sounds like a good idea, though.

GooseberryRoolz · 24/03/2016 13:44

(You can't design public policy that only works for naice, MC , property-owning couples. That's not good policy-making.)

HarlotBronte · 24/03/2016 14:11

Of course you'd need to have tenancies if you had mortgages, otherwise you're just discriminating on age and income grounds given the profile of owner occupiers as against the general population. Although again, nobody seems to have addressed the impact of this modification of Stella's argument on unmarried couples not living together. IIRC these couples are also likely to be lower income. MN has indeed naice-ified it.

I do think we could cover the costs of DNA in that scenario, at the very least for people on low incomes. Seems reasonable and it can't be very common. We spunk more on less.

Swipe left for the next trending thread