Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Do I have to re-register ds now we are married?

22 replies

beansprout · 15/01/2007 17:15

A friend has just told me that if a child is born out of wedlock, you then have to register them again when you get married. I haven't heard of this. Can anyone shed any light?

Thanks

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 15/01/2007 17:17

we did with dd but that was over 5 years ago so don't know of things have changed

foxinsocks · 15/01/2007 17:17

don't know if things have changed!

LIZS · 15/01/2007 17:17

Isn't it only if you change his name ?

SturdyAngel · 15/01/2007 17:17

I think its optional. I did as I wanted DS1 to have my married name on his birth certificate, the same as his brother does. We didn't do it straight away, we did it at the same time we registered ds2's birth (2yrs after wedding)

If you decide to do it give them a call first as there is some paperwork to fill out and they usually send it to you, then you can complete it and take it in with you.

SturdyAngel · 15/01/2007 17:19

DS's name didn't change- was registered as Dh's name to start with, all that changed was my surname on full birth cert.

Original poster
beansprout · 15/01/2007 17:21

Ah, is this to do with name changes? There haven't been any, so do I not need to bother?

OP posts:
pandagirl03 · 15/01/2007 17:23

hello beansprout we was told if me and dp got married we would have to re-register dd altho she has got dp's surname, dd is 18 months old so im guessing this still counts.

Original poster
beansprout · 15/01/2007 17:24

What is the the basis of this? Why do we have to do it? Do we have to do it?

OP posts:
pandagirl03 · 15/01/2007 17:26

i'm not sure why, i remember saying but she will already have dp's surname and the registar said it didn't matter we still had to re-register her. maybe ring up and find out. sorry cant be more helpfull.

piglit · 15/01/2007 17:29

It seems a bit daft that you should have to re-register ds. After all, same daddy, same mummy, same names. What on earth is there to change? You could argue that if that's the case then dc need to be re-registered when parents divorce!

I'd give them a call, just to be sure.

KathH · 15/01/2007 18:02

yes we did - had dd1 & dd2 then we got married and had ds2. When registering his birth the registrar said that even tho dd1 & dd2 had dh's surname already that we would have to re-register them.

ProfYaffle · 15/01/2007 18:06

We had to do this with dd. She was born in 2004 and when we married in 2005 we had to re-register her.

ProfYaffle · 15/01/2007 18:07

Oh, and no names changed in our case. I kept my maiden name and dd has my surname.

BuffysMum · 15/01/2007 18:10

it means they are no longer illegitmate.....

foxinsocks · 15/01/2007 18:14

it's some legal requirement - Freckle may know why

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 15/01/2007 18:20

Strictly speaking it is a legal requirement (I used to register births & deaths) But no-one will come along and hit you with a big stick if you don't do it.

Linnet · 16/01/2007 22:48

when dd1 was born we gave her my surname. When dh and I got married we re-registered dd1 to change her surname. Just had to fill in a form that was sent to register house and they wrote back saying that I had their permission to go along to the registrars and amend the entry.

Edam · 16/01/2007 22:59

My parents never bothered to reregister me after they married (I was three months old) and it's never come up. Have filled in thousands of bloody forms in my life and never had a 'WERE YOUR PARENTS MARRIED WHEN YOU WERE BORN' question.

I imagine it might be relevant if you wanted to change the surname but can't think of any other reason.

PrincessPeaHead · 16/01/2007 23:06

your friend is right, you do have to do it.

if you want to know why.....

  1. if a father is not married to the mother at the time of the birth of a child, the child is illegitimate (although this has few implications these days), and he doesn't have parental responsibility unless he is named on the birth register.
  1. if a father subsequently marries the mother, they are treated as if they were married to each other at the time of the birth so legitimising the child (s2 Legitimacy act) and will both have parental responsibility (ie father will gain it if he didn't have it because he wasn't on the register)
  1. whether or not father was originally named on the register, under section 9 of the legitimacy act if a child is legitimated by the parents' subsequent marriage, the parents must re-register the child's birth.

(excuse the numbered paragraphs, I just can't help myself...!)

PrincessPeaHead · 16/01/2007 23:08

I think the REASON for it goes towards evidence of legitimacy - for example if your child were going to succeed to a title (ha!) or if great aunt agatha left her fortune to all of her legitimate great-nieces and nephews.

Actually the reason doesn't matter, it is an obligation, but as saggarbottom says it is often overlooked and there aren't any big sticks around.

I COULD look up the penalty for non-compliance/enforcement procedure if you wanted, but I'd really rather not

3Ddonut · 16/01/2007 23:12

I assume it costs money to re-register....... is there a time limit after marriage to re-register, we've been married 18 months and had two children prior to marriage and one after.

PrincessPeaHead · 16/01/2007 23:27

no charge to register, although I assume they'll charge you for extra copies of certificates etc as usual.

I don't think there is a time thing - anyway they will be so glad you've bothered I shouldn't think it would be a problem.,

this page tells you about it

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread