do i have sole legal custody of ds?

[juicychops]

ds hasn't seen or heard from his dad for 5 years now (ds is only 6) ive not heard anything from him since 5 years ago when he said he doesn't want anything to do with ds ever again.

i make all decisions regarding ds and his health/welfare. ds has his dad's surname which i tried to get changed but ds's dad refused permission to change it, and i spent 2 years trying to get legal aid to go to court but it never made it to court as they said as ds is in no danger from his dad i cant get his name changed through legal aid, i would have to pay the fees of around £1500 to get it done. due to being completely skint i have had to leave ds's name as it is. This is the only link he has to his dad. He doesn't see him and we get no maintenance from him

My question is, although i have ds with me full time and i am effectively his only parent now, do i legally have sole legal custody? or do me and his dad legally have joint custody?

OK.

Firstly lets answer the last question. There is no longer the concept of custody, only residence.

Since you have no court order in place, you have in effect a residence agreement in which you are the primary carer.

The father has parental responsibility since your son was born after December 2003 and is named on the birth certificate. But don't sweat it. It means naff all in practice as any court would give him it as a matter of course.

The important thing from your point of view is that you've had the status quo for 5 years and for all intents and purposes the father is a stranger to DS.

As for changing name thing, its going to be a fight to get it done without his permission. The only chance you have is to wait a while, see a solicitor and try to convince a court you've done everything you can to find the guy to ask for permission but haven't been able to do so. They may let you do it then but its still not guaranteed. And yes it will be costly.

As for who DS would go to in the event of your death. You can name a guardian in your will for DS. As the father yes he can challenge that. And rightly so. But that does not mean the court will automatically award him residence just because he turned up.

They'd listen to his argument, want to know where the hell he's been and why he's only now turned up. At the same time they'd look into DS, who you nominated as guardian and make a decision as to whom they felt it was in the best interests for DS to live with. One of the factors of course would be the fact the dad is effectively a stranger.

That's assuming of course he even bothers. A lot of men would not want the responsibility of raising a child singlehanded. Gets in the way of shagging and drinking you see.

Hope that helps. Just remember, the best bet is simply not to die!

Parental Responsibility is the responsibility and rights required to carry out those responsibilities which a parent of a child has in relation to the child. It includes rights and duties with regard to education, choice of religion, administration of a child?s property and choice of residence. The courts rarely, if ever, revoke PR. The view taken is that it is in the best interests of children to have involved parents even if there is a long break and the door should be open for an absent parent to become involved even after a considerable time of no contact.

Also the probability of courts granting permission to change a child's name is low unless a name change can be shown to be in a child's best interests. That is difficult because it is now generally accepted that identity is important to children and children who grow up without links to their natural parents and heritage tend to have low self esteem leading to behavioural and emotional difficulties in later life.

In the UK the terms "residence" and "contact" replaced "custody" and access sometime ago. Residence determines where a child lives but many parents agree this between themselves and don't have a residence or shared residence order. It isn't necessary unless there is a dispute and for one reason or another it is deemed inappropriate for the child to live with the other parent.

Is there any reason the father would object to holidays abroad? Although consent from all those with PR or permission from the courts is required to take children abroad the exceptions are;

going on holiday if it is believed consent has been given or would have been given if there was awareness of all the relevant circumstances;

all reasonable steps to communicate with the other person have been unsuccessful;

consent was unreasonably refused;

If the father isn't in regular contact it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe consent would have been given and it would be unreasonable for consent to be refused for a week or fortnight's family holiday once or twice a year.