"Change to birth laws means end to fatherless children"

[Creole]

"Look at in here

Well, my ex h is named on my son's birth certificate and that did not prevent him from disappearing. My DS doesn't even know him, even though we were married. And the useless CSA, can't do a thing to help with maintenance.

So, whether thay are named on the BC or not the children can still end up fatherless (like my ds).

What do you think?

What a load of rubbish.
DD's Dad is on her birth certificate and he fucked off back to ASustralia and doesn't want to know her.
I can't see what a name on a piece of paper will do

no but "there MAy be bloody good reasons" is theoretical.

i don't see why men should be forced to jump through hoops to get on their own childrens birth cert if the mother is oppossed to it.
but on the other hand mothers should not have to answer questions as to why they are excluding the father from the birth cert.
i don't see anywhere how they are being treated like "naughty schoolgirls" as has been suggested. and i'd imagine fear of violence would be treated as a reasonable threat by the services.

Hmm. Thebod, fear of violence is not treated as a "reasonable threat" by the family courts, so I don't hold out much hope of the other state authorities having much truck with it. There are numerous examples of men with violent records being given sole contact with children.

There are numerous examples of women and children being murdered as a result of courts imposing contact with violent men.

I really do think something is going on with our lawmakers atm - seem to be on a campaign against mothers. Knife crime is our fault (no mention of fathers), disputes over contact are our fault (it's those uppity women preventing fine upstanding men from seeing their children - how DARE they go off and get divorced?) etc. etc. etc.

all this is al oad of old fucking bollcks

Whilst I'd agree that the CSA seems to be a waste of time right now, I guess that what the government is doing is seeing a simple statistical link between unfathered boys and antisocial behaviour and criminality AND seeing how much taxpayers (voters...) money is going into supporting 'deserted' children and thinking 'Mm... I wonder if we'd have way more young men demanding the use of a condom if they know they'll get clobbered financially for any offspring that might result in this fling/short term casual relationship seeing as we can now trace them?'

And shouldn't we, as grown-ups perhaps appreciate that an alcoholic druggy ISN'T going to make a 'great dad' and is far more likely to hoof it... and that a government might be seeking to limit the bill it gets left paying as a result?

Sorry, but I felt it might be handy to consider WHY this concept is even being discussed.

Whilst I'd agree that the CSA seems to be a waste of time right now, I guess that what the government is doing is seeing a simple statistical link between unfathered boys and antisocial behaviour and criminality AND seeing how much taxpayers (voters...) money is going into supporting 'deserted' children and thinking 'Mm... I wonder if we'd have way more young men demanding the use of a condom if they know they'll get clobbered financially for any offspring that might result in this fling/short term casual relationship seeing as we can now trace them?'

And shouldn't we, as grown-ups perhaps appreciate that an alcoholic druggy ISN'T going to make a 'great dad' and is far more likely to hoof it... and that a government might be seeking to limit the bill it gets left paying as a result?

Sorry, but I felt it might be handy to consider WHY this concept is even being discussed.