Re-registering child's birth after natural parents marry

[JimmyCorkhill]

DP and I went to the register office today to start marriage proceedings

We already have two children together.

The registrar told us that we would have to re-register their births after our marriage.

Obviously I can/will ask for more details officially but until we return there does anyone know why this is and if we actually have to do it?

I have no problem with this but as I am not planning on changing my surname and the children already have DP's surname is this necessary?

I've tried to google for information but I'm no clearer.

Again, there is no problem with doing this. I'm just curious!

The Legitimacy Act 1976 says that you have to re-register the births within 3 months of getting married. If you are convicted of failing to do so you can each be fined £2. That is not a typo - the fine really is just £2.

There are no other consequences for failing to re-register the births, either for yourselves or your children.

Thank you! So we just have to weigh up a possible £4 loss then!!

I only ever heard about this on MN. Dd was 15 months old when we got married. I never did anything, nor saw any consequences of not doing anything. She is 10 in March.

We re-registered our first daughter about 18 months after the wedding, when we registered our second child. No fines were issued.

Im glad to hear there are no real consequences to not re registering as we never did for DS1 as DH refused to do it as he said he wanted DS's birth certificate to reflect the situation when he was born (unresolved issues around a concealed adoption for DH) and it has always worried me if it would cause issues in the future i.e applying for passports etc

I re registered my elder 2 when the youngest was born (we got married in between DC2 and DC3). I think it can affect inheritance rights, but as long as all your children are the same (we would have had the youngest as 'a child of our marriage' and the other not), it shouldn't make any difference I don't think.

No, it makes no difference to inheritance rights. All children have equal rights regardless of whether or not they are legitimate.

Thanks for all your help It's interesting to hear all your experiences.

The difference is, that if a child cannot be located when the parent dies, and stands to inherit a portion via intestacy, the court will hold the portion for any 'legitimate' children indefinitely until they are located or come forward. 'Illegitimate' children will be looked for, but if they can't be found within a reasonable time frame (no idea what this is!), or aren't known about, their portion will be redistributed among the other beneficiaries.

I think this is how my solicitor explained it to me... If I'm wrong, I must have misunderstood him! Our children are all named explicitly in our wills, so no issue anyway :-)

the only time legitimacy still matters is when inherited titles are on the cards you can not become 11th earl of citytownb unless your parents were married at time of birth, in this case them marrying after birth will still stop you inheriting title though not the money

also unacknowledged illegitimate children have to prove parentage to inherit under intestacy, if there is a will it is immaterial unless they are young enough to have claim on the estate as a dependent