Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Lone parents

Use our Single Parent forum to speak to other parents raising a child alone.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

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

92 replies

maledetta · 27/12/2009 19:47

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?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

ChocHobNob · 29/12/2009 14:07

Putting his name on the birth certificate has absolutely no repercussions when it comes to the CSA anymore ! Do not keep his name off of it for that!

And just keeping his name off for that wouldn't mean the CSA were not involved in the past. If you were on benefits, it didn't matter if the father was named on the birth certificate or not. They normally demanded the name of the father so he had to contribute some way or they reduced the mother's benefits.

FabHasHadALovelyXmas · 29/12/2009 14:13

Father unknown is worse imo.

It pisses me off no end that fathers don't have the same rights as mothers.

It is awful as a child not having a fathers name on the certificate.

All this signing over rights bollocks, he has as much rights as the mother and if you don't know him well enough to sign over rights that aren't yours to give, then use contraception! it doesn't fail half as much as people on here would have you believe. And maybe stop shagging people five minutes after meeting.

Frostythesurfmum · 29/12/2009 14:13

He could go to court and get PR very easily and would have the "rights" anyway. From what I can gather it's extremely rare for PR not to be granted. It would only prevent him having "rights" temporarily if he was of a mind to have them.

sunshiney · 29/12/2009 14:19

OP just read more of the thread - you mention you worry that the father could stop you for eg moving to another town if he had parental rights.

Yes he totally could! Let the man prove himself to be reasonable and responsible once the baby comes, trust has to be earned. i hope that one day your child has such a good relationship with him you wouldn't want to move away. But wait and see first how he conducts himself.

ignore the bleeding heart liberals on here saying how tragic it would be for your child not to have their fathers name on their BC. it's just a piece of paper.

if you are nervous to tell this man no, sorry i'm not putting you on the certificate right now but hope to reconsider - that in itself is alarm bells about sharing rights over your child with him.

ChocHobNob · 29/12/2009 14:22

Perhaps all Mothers should have to prove their worth as a mother before they can gain their parental rights as well, because apparently carrying a child and giving birth to it makes you a more worthy parent than a man?

Frostythesurfmum · 29/12/2009 14:26

That's the thing though. I've tried to say to dsd "it's just a piece of paper" to make her feel better. But to her it really matters.

Ohforfoxsake · 29/12/2009 14:27

Fab - get down off your high-horse. The moral highground is a wonderful place to be I suppose, but you are being quite judgemental and the OP doesn't need you telling her not to sleep with people 5 minutes after meeting them, as you have assumed. Of course the OP should have been married before intercourse.

DS1 would have no idea DP wasn't on his BC when he was born, there's no reason why he would.

OP - you are embarking on raising your child as a single parent, and have to do whatever you can to protect yourself and your child. Its great that the father wants to be involved and is showing commitment, but you are wise to take a step back and give yourself time if you are unsure.

FabHasHadALovelyXmas · 29/12/2009 14:31

I knew my comments would rattle some feathers.

I can say what I think.

I am on neither a high horse or have the moral high ground to anyone other than myself. Why are you getting so het up?

Frostythesurfmum · 29/12/2009 14:32

I'm not sure how dsd knows dh isn't on hers. Maybe she found her certificate at home. But even if she hadn't, there would come a day when she needed it and would have found out I suppose.

Ohforfoxsake · 29/12/2009 14:32

I'm not getting het up, I just don't think you are being very helpful to the OP.

FabHasHadALovelyXmas · 29/12/2009 14:34

I am not really interested in trying to help her, I am more interested in the rights of the child to have its fathers name on the BC and the fathers rights ot be on it.

Ohforfoxsake · 29/12/2009 14:38

Nothing is set in stone Fab.

What if he turns out to be a shit?

grumpypants · 29/12/2009 14:41

I've read the whole thread but I just can't get past the fact he will on only pay you enough to keep your benefits the same. How about replacing the (tax payer funded, not a growing on trees freebie for you) benefits with earned income from him and then the country's welfare bill might decrease slightly? Sorry if that's harsh, it's just irritating.

sunshiney · 29/12/2009 14:42

ChocHobNob - if your comment was directed at my post, then my response is wholehearted agreement. The world would be a much better place if a woman had to prove her worth as a parent before having a child. There are plenty of women out there who shouldn't be mothers.

but unfortunately it doesn't work like that does it.

rasputin · 29/12/2009 14:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LadyBiscuit · 29/12/2009 14:47

Well if mothers don't have to prove their worth before their child is born, why should fathers? And if the mother is incompetent, why should it be up to her to decide if the father isn't?

Northernlebkuchen · 29/12/2009 14:50

I just despair reading comments like Sunshiney's about giving the father rights over your child. This man has rights - he is the father! The law will support him in reasonable claims but why on earth does it need to get that far? This child is not the op's property. You might not like having to share decisions with another person - but it does as Fab has pointed out take two people to make this baby and having done that - well it changes things. Being parents is a massive thing - for both people and they should both have every facility in parenting this child - including being named on the BC. The father is not unknown, she knows who he is and he knows who his child is. It is hugely self centred to think you can exclude this person just because you want to. Those of you who say you excluded the father and it's a good job you did - well another construction you can place on that situation is that because you excluded the father he turned out to be no bloody good? I'm not saying you were wrong to act as you did - but when you acted in that way you did not know what would happen. Neither does the op - I just can't believe that it is best for the child to proceed expecting the worse?

ChocHobNob · 29/12/2009 14:52

Ohforfoxsake Tue 29-Dec-09 14:38:19
"Nothing is set in stone Fab.

What if he turns out to be a shit?"

Some mothers do that too. Turn out to be shits.

I agree Sunshiney ... if you (general, not you in particular) want a man to prove his worth as a parent, the mother should too.

It seems so hypocritical and stinks of double standards.

My BIL is raising his daughter almost alone, except for when her Mum flits in and out of her life, most recently demanding Christmas day access. It works both ways. Women can be crap parents too.

thesecondcoming · 29/12/2009 14:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ChocHobNob · 29/12/2009 15:03

Why wouldn't you be happy negotiating birthdays and christmases forever more thesecondcoming?

It doesn't matter if she allows him to put his name on the birth certificate or not for that matter. Not allowing it, will not stop him seeing his child. The courts will award access if he isn't a risk.

Why does the father have less rights that the OP?

Ohforfoxsake · 29/12/2009 15:06

I am interested in helping the OP because I have been in her position.

Maledetta, do whatever you are comfortable with. If he's going to be a part of your childs life he will hopefully understand, but right now, you are the only one you can count on to care for and provide for your child.

When we became a couple, we changed it. DC1 was about 4 months old. Things change! Good luck with it all.

LadyBiscuit · 29/12/2009 15:06

Have you actually read the OP thesecondcoming? Here's a few highlights:

"he has made it clear that he does genuinely want to be involved with his child"

but the OP "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"

So he wants to be involved in his child's life, not just doing the odd bit of babysitting but support the child financially too.

No I wouldn't want to be financially or legally committed to every person I'd ever shagged. Which is why I use contraception if I don't want to conceive. It's not that fucking hard to avoid pregnancy

Northernlebkuchen · 29/12/2009 15:10

thesecondcoming - your arguement in your last post is nonsense. Of course you aren't tied to everybody you've had sex with - because it's possible to have sex and not conceive a child. However once you've conceived that child well that does change things for both of you and BOTH parents should be held to that. I'm not interested in feckless, cock wielding fathers - but neither am I interested in selfish and pessimistic mothers. Yes the op does have to negotiate birthdays and Christmas - because her child has two parents not one!

SpottyMuldoon · 29/12/2009 15:22

They don't put 'Father Unknown' actually. They put a line through the box instead.

clam · 29/12/2009 16:07

"It is extremely foolish and naive to handover rights to a near stranger just because you have conceived a child with him. He could be an abuser, a bully, or just a common or garden bully."

Well, call me old-fashioned, but perhaps we shouldn't be conceiving children with "near strangers" then. Perfectly easy to avoid, really.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Swipe left for the next trending thread