37 weeks pg, and father has just announced he wants to be on the birth certificate.

[maledetta]

The baby's father and I are not together, but recently have been spending more time together, and he has made it clear that he does genuinely want to be involved with his child. Yesterday he said he wants to come to the registry office with us when the baby is born, and have his name on the birth certificate.

As he is being quite helpful and decent at the moment, I think I owe it to him if that's what he wants...It's just that I have a huge distrust of authority, and am worried that, if there is a named father, the CSA will find a way to shaft us both.

His income is v. erratic; he's in a lot of debt, and TBH I didn't expect to receive any financial help at all, just hoping for some practical help and maybe some childcare. Now he's offering me some kind of official monthly minimum via standing order (basically the maximum allowed before they start stopping it out of my benefits).

I am worried, however, that as his income fluctuates, or if he falls off the mythical bit of scaffolding, the CSA might try to hold him to a commitment he can't honour, and my benefits could be docked or something.

Do you think my concerns are justified? Also, what rights would he have as "officially" being the father?

If the CSA are involved then he would be assessed according to his income anyway - the rules surround child maintenance are changing I believe and the amount you are allowed to keep will be increasing before affecting benefits, check out the CSA website I would suggest.

As to being on the BC, well that is fantastic - not only for dad but for the child. Dad will automatically have Parental Responsibility (which if he is involved with the child cannot be a bad thing, and tbh if he made an application to court later on he would get it). It legally recognises him as father, this is a huge thing for us men, to be legally and morally recognised as the childs father.

Plus the child later on will be able to see his/her BC and see someone named as father - rather than a blank space.

I don't personally think you have too much to worry about...

You shouldn't stop him being a named father if he wants to be on the BC

It would be worth contacting Citizens Advice about the effect of his financial commitment on your benefits although I think that if he is willing and able to contribute to the costs of raising your child then he should - the State shouldn't have to fork out because you're distrustful of authority.

I have no experience of the CSA.
however, my son's dad is on the birth certificate. And i found out later that that gives him some unexpected rights as well as parental responsibilities. Generally this has to be a good thing, right? and great for the child to have an interested father and a name on the birth certificate.

I was worried however in our case that this might cause problems in terms of custody if my son's father wants to be difficult. The father is an alcoholic, and the child has a lot of health issues, so that I might not want my son staying with his father if his father is drinking. We haven't crossed this bridge yet, but if the father is named on the certificate, from 2003, the mother no longer has automatic rights of custody.

It would be worth checking this out so you are fully informed. look up child custody if you want more information.

And, congratulations, and good luck!

You have no reason to go through the CSA once baby is born. No-one can be forced to use them anymore. Whether on benefits or not. The rules changed last year. You are allowed a private agreement with the other parent ... as long as you declare how much you receive to the benefits people.

Oh, is that so, ChocHobNob? That sounds a lot better: it's just that everything I've heard about the CSA is so negative, I didn't want us to get mired in lots of horrible inefficient bureaucracy.

Thanks for your advice everybody. I'm still worried about the implications of having his name on the BC, I guess I'd ideally like us to build up more of a relationship of trust before such a big step that could have implications for the future, but unfortunately we've nearly run out of time to do that!

I do worry that if, for example, I decided to move away in the future, he would be able to block it if he had parental responsibility...

But maledetta - he is your child's father. Hopefully that won't impact on your future plans but you do need to respect his right to know his child and do the right thing by him or her. This man will be a big influence on your child and you can't pretend he doesn't exist. Put him on the birth certificate, accept the arrangements he offers if they suit you and if not begotiate calmly and hope like hell everything works out because a named, involved, loving father as well as a mother is the best thing for your baby. All the best for the birth and beyond.

He has every right to be on the birth certificate and you should do it for your child. It isn't nice to see a -- where the father's name should be.

"from 2003,the mother no longer has automatic rights of custody".... utter rubbish!

From 1st December 2003 the Children Act was altered so that when a father was named on a child's birth certificate that gave him parental responsibility, alongside the mother.

Unless the Court are asked to do so, there are no Orders made determining where a child should live (residence order) or how much contact a child should have with a non-resident parent (contact order).

I recommend that you look at www.resolution.org.uk to find a local family solicitor near to you who will be able to help you. Many offer free half hour meetings.

I just think you are being really selfish. It is all about how it effects your benefits having him on the BC, not how it will be for your child.

He has every right to be on the BC!!!!

I would check out the parental responsibility thing, I THINK its only automatic when you are married and the mother has to assign it if not and if she does not, it might be a court issue. But I could be barking up the wrong tree completely.

But then a piece of paper is no substitute for a proper relationship with your child. I don't remember even seeing my birth certificate until I was about 12. It just seems irrelevant compared to spending time with, and putting effort into, your child, hour after hour, month after month, year after year....I'm not saying that he is not willing to do this, just that I would prefer that he proved himself a bit first.

He did, after all, dump me when I found out I was pregnant. And we have only been in contact again for a few weeks.

I have a friend who has been going through hell with the father of her children. He is not a nice person. Because he has parental responsibility, he can block every single change she decides to make to their childrens' lives;- recently he tried to take her back to court over changing their GP. (She's been back to court about 3 times in the last few months, as she wants to move house). Unsurprisingly, he fits the template of the emotional abuser that I read so much about on these threads.

I'm not saying that my baby's father is like that. I just don't know him well enough to say. But I do understand that maybe he, too, is feeling anxious about whether he can trust me to do the right thing by him as regards having contact with his child. Which is why I feel I should give him the benefit of the doubt...

And Fab, did you read my last post, and the one preceding it by ChocHobNob? I don't see that it's selfish to worry that a bureaucratic screwup by the CSA 6 months or a year down the line could result in our housing benefit being stopped and me and the baby being evicted?

I've heard awful things about the CSA taking money from the father and yet it not getting to the mother- things like that. Luckily, CHN put my mind at rest a bit, letting me know that we don't have to deal with them.

My children's father's name is on the birth cert and they have his name. He hasn't contributed a penny, but he's very aware of his rights. Blind to his responsibilities though.

Proceed with caution I'd advise the OP. If he is even slightly inclined to be controlling or manipulative then just keep your eyes and ears open.

It's all so easy for women married to pa walton to come on and say 'the father has equal rights'. Well, yes, he also has equal responsibilities then. Will he be fulfilling those? or will he be quick to claim his rights and blind to his responsibilities?? You know him, and you will be the best judge of that.

Whether or not his name is on the birth cert won't prevent him from being a good father. If that is what he is determined to be.

From the CSA website ...

From 27th October 2008
Parents with care can choose to leave the CSA and make their own arrangements for child maintenance with the other parent of their child(ren).

He doesn't have to have his name put on the birth certificate to gain parental responsibility. All he has to do, once baby is born, is apply to the courts and they will give it to him unless there is a very good reason not to, ie. he is a risk to the child.

I think it's very sad that the op is being supported and justified in her apparent decision to exclude this man from her child's life. She doesn't know what sort of father he will be, come to that she doesn't know yet what sort of mother she will be either and I think assuming that abuse, failure to support and general fuckwittage will follow is to take a very dim view indeed. She knows who the father is, she knows he now wants to be a parent to this child. So he cleared off when she became pregnant - if we are to exclude everybody from parenting if they freaked out at the sight of a pregnancy test then there would be a lot of parentless children! In many ways yes life may be simpler if you keep your child from their father - but simple doesn't equate to right. Op - you knew this man well enough to get pregnant and now you owe it to your child for you both to know each other well enough to make a good job of raising that child.

Op, would you like your name on the birth certificate? Would you mind if mother section was left blank?

Well secondcoming I defer to your iffy experience but imo - it's not down to her to 'give' him anything. he has rights as the child's biological father. He is expressing an interest in the child and a commitment as evidenced by his desire to have a legal role. Yes it may go bad - but a desire on the part of the mother - any mother - to purposefully exclude a man (who isn't abusive) from his child's life because it will make her life simpler - well that's a very dubious motivation indeed. She is already tied to this man - they have a child together. Far better for all to keep the arrangements above board, transparent and fair.

Sorry, I agree with Northern. It seems unjustified to not allow the father to have his name on the birth certificate just to make the mothers life easier.

This man isnt abusive, in fact is making a conscious effort to do the right thing and try to be involved in his child's life. Yes, some men can be arses when it comes to their dc's but is it fair to judge all men on this theory.

I speak as the mother of a child who has his fathers name on his birth certificate but has had no contact with him since he was 6 weeks old btw.

Agree with Northern and Korma.

As parents of that child, you are tied forever already.

The big step you made OP, that had implications in the future, was to get pregnant by him in the first place.

And as I said earlier, refusing to let him put his name on the birth certificate will not stop him from having parental responsibility. He can apply for that as soon as baby is born. For your child's benefit, it's probably nicer to have the "father" space filled in on his/her birth certificate when the father can gain all the "rights" he is entitled to whether on it or not.

I also object to the fact that he will only pay you enough to keep you under the threshold for benefits.
If he can afford to support his child, whether or not his income is erratic, why the hell should the state pay out instead?