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

Other subjects

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Consequences of having child out of wedlock?

59 replies

artyjoe · 05/06/2004 10:53

After 9 years of trying I am finally pregnant, but the timing is a bit strange as I was due to marry my long term partner in February, but our child will be born in January, so we have called it off. We were planning to wait until the baby was a few years old and then marry, but we are having conflicting views from friends and family about this. I have looked on Google and can't seem to find anything that isn't related to religion with regards to consequences of having a child out of wedlock.

I was of the understanding that the father loses some paternity rights through this, but my partner has also been told that he would have to adopt the baby once married, surely not!

I didn't think it would be a big thing in this day and age, especially as I have been living with the father for 3 years, but a few people are horrified and say it will cause problems for the child. How?

I don't want a shotgun wedding but I also don't want to affect our child in a negative way. Any ideas, advice or opinion (except religious) would be much appreciated.

Joe

OP posts:

WideWebWitch · 05/06/2004 19:35

Artyjoe, oh right, well that's interesting re your assets! My ds (from my previous marriage) is called Boy's name/my surname as a middle name/ex dh's surname, the idea being that he could double barrel it if he wanted to at some point (we didn't know we were going to split up when we arranged this! Plus my surname is a boy's name, albeit not a particularly nice one, still, it was handy). My dd with dp is Girl's name my surname-dp's surname, since I strongly felt that one of my children should have the same surname as me. I didn't change my name on marriage and don't ever intend to. There have been looooooooooong threads on this whole surname business! Ha ha sobernow at not showing your dp this thread!

aloha · 05/06/2004 19:57

Prenups are increasingly being taken into account by the courts in the case of divorce. So yes, provided there was full disclosure of assets and BOTH parties took independent legal advice, and your circumstances don't change (ie more kids) then a prenup should be respected on court.
I know lots and lots of unmarried couples who have no problems, and lots of children have different names to their siblings (my stepdaughter, for one) and dont' mind a bit nor find any problem with it.

hatter · 07/06/2004 10:26

Artyjoe,

I really think that the names thing is not an issue anymore. If I think of all my friends with kids, married, unmarried, divorced and with new partner, never married and now split up, etc etc, there are very few families where everyone has the same surname. I know one family with three surnames in the same household.

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 10:45

My DD was born 'out of wedlock' (sounds soooooo oldfashioned!). Her father and I got married 10 days before her 1st birthday.

As DH was named as her father on her birth certificate and given his surname (we were planning to get married), all we had to do post-wedding was to re-register her. All that means is that they legitimise the child (again, sorry for the old-fashioned terminology!). She became 'a child of the marriage' and a new bc was produced. Admittedly I was a little confused by this as I was thought that the fact that myself and her father got married post birth would have absolutely no bearing on her bc. I certainly never thought her bc would have to be changed !

Apparently naming her as a child of the marriage only really comes into play if DH and I were to have more children whilst married. If DH and I died then legally speaking the children born within the marriage would have more say than DD who was born outside of it (of we hadn't have re-registered her), despite the fact that they would all be 100% biologically ours. Re-registration only takes a minute of two, all you have to do is present your marriage certificate and the orig birth cert to the registrar.

Artyjoe - Your DP will NOT have to adopt his own child after the marriage, so long as you name him as father on the birth certificate, but you will have to re-register baby after the marriage has taken place (for reasons outlined above).

There are other legal/financial securities which come with being married, but you can obtain similar securities (albeit, in a slightly more long-winded way) as a co-habiting couple.

Also I understand that a father who is not/ has not been married to the mother has no parental rights. Your DP would have no rights when it came to making legal decisions regarding your child. For instance, if your child got taken into hospital and needed treatment, your DP would not be able to sign it off, you would have to. You can get around this by getting a parental responsibilty order (i think) from the courts. But as you are planning to get married shortly after anyway, this is unnecessary.

HTH, and congrats on the baby !

WideWebWitch · 07/06/2004 10:49

Hi nomdeplume, a father DOES have parental rights, even if he's not married to the mother IF he goes with her to register the birth. The law changed on this Dec last year.

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 10:51

Ahhhhhh, sorry www. Apologies !!

Blu · 07/06/2004 10:59

Hey ArtyJoe, it sounds as if you have everything well sorted out for what suits you. Fankly if someone was rude, insulting and ignorant enough to say MY ds was born a bastard, I would not listen to their opinion on anything at all!
Congratulations on your pregnancy.

Toothache · 07/06/2004 11:07

My ds was born before DH and I got married and we made a decision to wait until he could walk up the aisle with us. Which we did.

The ONLY downfall of not being married was that when ds took his Daddy's surname it meant he had a different name to me.

I don't think it effected DH's parental rights at all as we both registered the birth, as WWW says. Don't know if it's different up here in Scotland though.

mumbojumbo · 07/06/2004 11:08

I didn't realise that a birth had to be re-registered following marriage. I'm about to marry dp and have two ds's. Thanks for pointing this out, I'd not even thought about it.

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 11:10

OMG - Have only just seen your bit about 'b*ard' child . I'd have lamped them one !

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 11:11

mumbojumbo, I didnlt realise either but we were told when we went to give notice of marriage at the registrars that our DD (who was with us at the meeting) would have to be re-reg if she was our child biologically.

Toothache · 07/06/2004 11:12

Definitely NomdePlume!

REREGISTERED??? Nobody had mentioned that to us! DS was registered with DH's surname anyway. Do we still have to reregister? I mean, what happens if we don't? DH's is still registered as DS's Father whether we are married or not!

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 11:12

I guess that if you and DP went to meeting without the kids, then the registrar wouldn't have even thought to mention it.

Toothache · 07/06/2004 11:13

Ooooopss - DH's?? Just to clarify, I do only have one DH.

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 11:13

DD was originally registered at birth, pre-marriage. She was given her fathers surname and also he was named on the bc as her father. We still had to get her re-registered !

Toothache · 07/06/2004 11:14

We were married in the same registry office as DS was registered... and the registrar knew he was our son. Surely she would've mentioned it then? Maybe it's different under Scottish law. I must investigate....

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 11:15

I would contact your local registry office and find out if it's something you need to do, toothache.

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 11:16

Hmmmm, Scottish law is a bit quirky

Tinker · 07/06/2004 11:16

Re: the parental rights thing. a) is it retrospective and b) if he didn't come but signed a Statutory Declaration does that equal him coming to register the birth?

motherinferior · 07/06/2004 11:19

Artyjoe, who on earth thinks your children will be bullied? I can't remember the figures off-hand and can't find them, but honestly a significant percentage (like one in three or more) children is born to unmarried parents these days. Please don't let them upset you.

You plan for a wedding which you can enjoy, and swan around in a fabulous clingy frock, girl. And in the meantime, concentrate on the baby you have tried for, for so long - enjoy and indulge that pregnancy!

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 11:19

Info re reregistering a birth . This is from Barnet reg office, but it's the first informative link I could find ! I should think that it is a English law rather than a local policy thing.

NomDePlume · 07/06/2004 11:20

Re-register upon marriage

This facility allows for the natural parents, who subsequently marry each other, to re-register the child as a child of their marriage, regardless of whether or not the natural father's details were recorded in the birth registration. The following documents will be required: the child's full birth certificate, your marriage certificate and a Form LA1 completed and signed by both parents. This form can be obtained from your local register office. Local authorisation for the re-registration can be granted by the register office for the district where the birth occurred. However, if your marriage took place outside of England or Wales and / or the father's domicile is not within the UK, the application for re-registration will have to be submitted to the General Register Office for their consideration and approval.

You then need to re-register the birth at the register office for the district where the birth occurred or make a declaration at your local register office. Either parent can attend for the re-registration.

Toothache · 07/06/2004 11:27

Thanks NDP - I've just emailed the Scottish Office of Registrars.

Pidge · 07/06/2004 11:31

artyjoe - congratulations on your pregnancy!

As a (so far) unmarried mum, I've been really interested to read this thread. When we had my dd (nearly 2) we had to get a parental responsibility agreement for my dp, but it sounds from replies here that the law may have changed on this. Interestingly we were contemplating getting married purely to simplify things like this. we kind of thought it might be easier to get married than have to trek off to get parental responsibility documents for any future children. I'll be discussing this with dp tonight!

You do have to be more careful about your rights as unmarried parents - inheritance, wills, pension rights are all more complicated for unmarried couples.

As for any stigma attached to children born out of wedlock ... for goodness sake. I think the figure now is that 40% of children are born to unmarried parents. Really that is not an issue.

mumbojumbo · 07/06/2004 12:53

When we gave notice of marriage (with both sons in tow) it wasn't mentioned. Thank goodness for mumsnet - I've learned something and can now get it sorted!

Flip

1 2 3