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

So.........as we are being discriminated against yet again......

66 replies

badelaide · 26/03/2007 21:28

for not being married, how does dp go about getting parental responsibility for our 2 older dcs?
I spose we have to go to a solicitor and pay heaps do we?

OP posts:
Original poster
badelaide · 26/03/2007 22:22

Of course I'm not comparing it to discrimination like that, how crass would that be?
OK, I shall drop the word. But i am not choosing to opt out of certain obligations, I am choosing not to opt into marriage.

OP posts:
Aloha · 26/03/2007 22:24

But legally you are opting out of those obligations. Marriage is a mix of legal obligations and legal rights. I can understand someone not wanting a legal contract - that's absolutely up to you. But then complaining about it seems really odd to me.

EllieK · 26/03/2007 22:36

i do find it bizarre that married mothers can put their dh on the birth certificate without his say-so but we have to take the man with us, as was said previously - there are married couples where the dh isn't the father!

Judy1234 · 27/03/2007 08:12

It all goes back to women owned by fathers, given away as property in a wedding ceremony, taking their husband's name as they become his property and assumed to be kept in sexual purdah from all except their husband and men wanting the legal protection and certainty that children born of their women are their children. Blunkett changed this a bit in a law he benefited later from - he could force Mrs Quinn and her husband paternity test their children born in marriage to prove it wasn't the husband's but David Blunkett's. Good law change. Too many men are deceived. Perhaps paternity tests at birth might be an answer for all.

bozza · 27/03/2007 08:25

EllieK - it was DH who put my name on DD's birth certificate without my say-so! I didn't bother going - was waiting in for the midwife.

PinkChick · 27/03/2007 08:30

so what diff would having/not having a form saying dp had PR?, we are not married, dp is on birth certificate??

Judy1234 · 27/03/2007 08:33

I'm not sure, PC. badelaide's situation was complicated because of children born before the law changed. I'm not sure if you need the form now or not.

Although not being married does mean key differences in some cases e.g. the children of Prince Ernst of Monaco won't inherit as he didn't marry either mother. It's one reason twins (I have twins) re the only children whose times of birth are written on birth certs by the way so you can prove who is the older son so the older boy can inherit all land titles etc in those kinds of families (not mine).

Judy1234 · 27/03/2007 08:34

..but only if the parents are married. If they aren't the boy whether twin or otherwise gets not a penny.

chirpygirl · 27/03/2007 08:38

PC, a friend's child was taken to casualty by her dad after she fell down the stairs and they wouldn't treat her until they could contact her mum to check it was okay as he didn't have parental responsibility.

But, as they pointed out, if he had left her alone in casualty, they probably would have treated her instantly. It's crazy.

Anna8888 · 27/03/2007 09:01

On the marriage business - I think, having seen lots of friends marry and divorce, that people go into marriage without much understanding of all its legal implications (for children, divorce) and I wish that there was an obligatory short course so that everyone properly understood the legal contract they were getting themselves into.

This is particularly true of international marriages, by the way, where people get some nasty shocks. In France you may have to support your parents-in-law if they become impecunious, even if they have never given you a penny. And there is nothing much in the way of alimony after divorce here either.

PinkChick · 27/03/2007 09:21

i see, so dd was born april 2003, would dp have p.r or would he need to apply for it ?
funny some things you never hear about could mean important issues being raised!

Twiglett · 27/03/2007 09:26

I'm finding the use of the word 'discriminated' laughable and slightly offensive

but willing to set it off against your fury at having to fill out another form

your decision not to get married (a foolish one in my opinion if only for the tax implications should one of you die) so you have to pay the consequences .. please tell me you have good, robust and well-written wills

FioFio · 27/03/2007 09:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Freckle · 27/03/2007 09:48

If your dp doesn't have automatic pr, then he can acquire it by the pair of you signing an agreement. There is only a need to involve the courts if there is a dispute.

hippmummy · 27/03/2007 10:00

pinkchick, my DS1 was born in August 2003. We didn't know at the time but DP didn't have PR.
We subsequently got married in 2005, so he had PR but we still needed to get DS1's birthcertificate re-registered.
I think if you are unmarried and your dd was born in 2003 your DP won't have full parental responsibility for her. This means things like, signing for treatment in hospital, or being able to apply for her school place.

PinkChick · 27/03/2007 10:07

hmm, thanks, so its something that should be done really isnt it!..very odd tho being that he is on b.c?

daisy1999 · 27/03/2007 10:12

should have got married then!

PinkChick · 27/03/2007 10:13

??, was that to me?

daisy1999 · 27/03/2007 10:15

no pc to the op.

daisy1999 · 27/03/2007 10:17

can't be doing with people complaining about trivial problems of their own making. If you want the benefits of being married get married.

PinkChick · 27/03/2007 10:21

oh..i was just gunna say i never mentioned wanting to get married..sorry..

Gingerbear · 27/03/2007 10:27

Please read this thread from Yorkiegirl:
here
I used to think that it was just fine to be living together, but when you look at the legal and financial implications if either of you die, even if you have a quickie regitry office do, without all the pomp and circumstance, it is worth it.
A marriage is what you make it. Women don't have to be their husband's chattel anymore, you can keep your own surname and still call yourself Ms.

PinkChick · 27/03/2007 10:28

sorry for ignorance, but would a good will solve this problem?

zookeeper · 27/03/2007 10:42

Hi Badelaide, haven't read all the thread but if your children are 6 and 7 your dp won't have pr for them even if he is on the birth certificate as the law that gives pr to dads if their name is on the birth certificate only came into force in late 2003 (Can't remeber exact date). You both need to fill in a parental responsibility form - you can go to your county court and do it over the counter - you will need to take ID and I think there is a small fee. I would definitely do it for things like medical emergencies etc etc

I'm not married and couldn't care less if others think I'm "foolish" for making that decision. I have made a will and own everything jointly with my DP so don't see a problem.

Judy1234 · 27/03/2007 13:33

If you marry in church in the UK and most religions you need to do through some courses/information which is very good actually. People marry often even without asking if the other person wants children. Or one is expecting to be waited on hand and foot or doesn't believe women should work. Pre marriage classes get you to talk about those things. Or people cohabit in the UK thinking that gives them common law rights but in fact when they split at the moment they have hugely different rights than they would if married.