what rights will the father of my baby have

[YummyMummyBella]

My partner (unmarried) and I are expecting out first baby and have been having a horrific time at the moment. I won't go into it but he's hardly been there for me during the pregnancy, acts like he doesn't care and isn't treating me with the love and respect I feel I deserve. We were arguing once again yesterday and I told him I don't want him around anymore. His reply was that if I take his son away he'll take me to court. I continued to say he has no rights as we are unmarried. He became very nasty and was saying things like he has a stable family (my parents are divorced, his aren't), my mother is unfit (she has a treatable slipped disk) and so on. Well its got me thinking, what rights would he have if I was to walk away from him? I obviously don't want to do this and I do believe we can work things out but its always good to know what could happen.
Thanks ladies! X

[Willow2017]

Oh ffs, again?
Who the hell goes looking for all these ancient threads to start them up again? Why waste your time giving advice to someone years after the event?

There are loads at the moment.

[NoFuckingRoomOnMyBroom]

Do you know, I am finding myself wondering how people come across these threads from so long ago, just how much time do some folks have on thier hands?!?
Seems to be quite a few ancient zombie threads being resurrected recently

[Haffiana]

Zombie thread alert...!

[Ithinki8abee]

If the father is a decent caring human being then he should be treated as such and not demonised just because your carrying. If he still wants to have a lot to do with the baby then isn't that the best for the child, obviously so long as everyone is safe and in no danger. I just cant understand why cutting someone off or stopping them from having a family part to play will help at all.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

I am not saying the the man in this situation is abusive, merely pointing out the OP's right to keep him out of her life if this does turn out to be the case, as abusive men often like to convince their victims that the victim can never be free of the man's control if he is the father of any of her DC.
, that he will be able to take the DC away from her, that she can't keep him out of her home if he wants to come in, etc.

[gillybean2]

He does NOT have rights. He has responsibilities to the child.
It's up to him whether he fulfills those responsibilities or not. Some dad's do, some don't.

Your relationship (or lack of) with him needs to be separate from that of him and his child. You can't dictate or assume he has no say just because he's an arse doesn't treat you the way you'd like. It is horribly tough to deal with, especially when things between you are bad and you possibly feel like hurting him. But as a mother you need to put your child's welfare and right to a relationship with both their parents before your own feelings on him.

Of course you want him to be a decent person and treat you nicely, especially when you are pregnant. But if he's not doing that now is he ever going too? And just because he is like that with you doesn't mean he will be the same with his child.

He has responsibilities as a father, but so do you as a mother. One of which is ensuring baby has a relationship with his dad and assisting in his right to have that relationship. That's baby's right to it and not dad's right...

[hairylights]

Sorry but it's not about what he deserves. He's the father and you'd be very unreasonable to not let him participate in scans . Sounds very tit fir tat. And when parents separate they should start at a 50/50 point on residence and childcare. Of course he has rights! It's his child foo. Fgs talk to him.

[FabbyChic]

Personally irrespective of personal relationships, I never think a child should be used as a pawn. Fathers should have the right to see their children whether a woman likes it or not, barring if he is violent and abusive.

Just because he doesn't pamper you enough and do what you think is acceptable does not give you the right to take away his child so he never sees it, that is just plain wrong.

[gillybean2]

One more thing. You can add your baby's father's name to the birth certificate at a later date should you decide to do this. Don't feel you have to put him on there immediately if you're not sure. There are several issues you need to consider in this decision.

PR can be used by some abusive fathers to keep control over their ex partner and make life difficult for them. You also may want to wait and see if your partner does step up to the role and take on his responsibilities before agreeing to him having them legally. Or wait for him to take it to court to get it and he will have to show a degree of commitment if he does go to court (including paying maintenance). PR is rarely removed once it is granted, so once he has it he has it forever basically.

Maintenance is payable whether he is named on the birth certificate or not. It is also payable whether there is contact or not. You can't refuse or with hold contact just because he won't pay maintenance. And he can't expect contact just because he pays it either, or with hold it to try and force contact.

Come to the lone parent board. There is much you need to know :)

[gillybean2]

Wow, so much confusion here as to what is the actual situation.

OP basically neither you or your baby's father have any rights over your child. What you both have are responsibilities. Parental Responsibilities often refered to as PR.
www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/ParentsRights/DG_4002954

The only person with any rights is the child and yes they do have a right to know both their parents and have contact with both. A court of law will uphold this right on behalf of the child if you can not come to an agreement between you both (where it is wanted by the father and there are no welfare concerns). However a father can not be forced to have contact if he doesn't want it (or to turn up even if he says he wants it).

You will automatically have PR as the mother. As you are unmarried your partner can obtain PR either by attending the registration of the birth and agreeing to his name being included (this can only be done if he comes with you), or by you agreeing to him having PR and signing an agreement, or by him going to court to obtain it if you refuse. Courts generally grant PR unless there are significant welfare reasons against it.

You can name the baby whatever you like. And that includes giving baby your surname even if dad is on the birth certificate. Please think carefully about that choice. There are many questions in the lone parent thread about how to get a baby's surname changed after splitting with the dad and there can be issues at school (they will call you Mrs whatever your child's surname is regardless) or while travelling abroad if your child has a different surname to you. The reality is that a surname is incredible hard to have changed unless the father agrees to it and a court is unlikely to grant it. So please look into it and think carefully if you decide to give your baby his dad's surname while it seems your relaitionship won't last.

There is lots of info on the lone parent boards here eg on what kind of contact level is suitable for a small baby, when to step it up, overnights etc.
I suggest you get reading there as you'll find many issues arise both during pegnancy and after and by and large your questions will have been answered there before most likely. You'll also find a whole host of other issues will arise so it may give you a heads up on what to expect and help you feel a bit better informed when he says he'll take you to court etc so you can respond with facts.

Best wishes and congratulations on your pregnancy.

[CheerfulYank]

I know a few men who are shit husbands/boyfriends but good dads.

There's no reason for him to be around you while you're pregnant if you don't want him to be, but if he'll be a good father I would see no reason to deny him.

Once the children are born, they're not property. One of my good friends went on a (drunken) rant once about how she would keep the DCs away from their father if he ever cheated on her. I tried to tell her this was both a terrible thing to do (he's a good dad) and not legal , but she was having none of it.

Congrats on your pregnancy, OP, and good luck to you. :)

[perfectstorm]

"TBH it is not that fucking difficult to refrain from stalking and threatening your former partner or to acceptwhat contact you are offered without launching lawsuit after lawsuit purely to make your XP dance around to your tune"

Again, obviously I agree... but can you find me anything in this post that remotely suggests any such scenario? They've not even split up yet, it seems. They just had a nasty scrap after a horrible few months, and it may be on the cards. (And OP, I think that 2 week break is a brilliant idea. Spoil yourself rotten, relax, and have a lovely time.)

[perfectstorm]

Finallygotaroundtoit, I disagree. A child's relationship with their father should not be dependent upon the mother's personal feelings towards that father, IMO, and as long as the father is not being unpleasant and causing stress at the scans (and it is pretty explicit here that he is not - I agree that anything that stresses a pregnant woman should be avoided if at all possible, and that nobody has a right to be at the birth, come what may) then yes, actually, I think it important he attend. Bonding starts in utero for most women, and many men. You may feel it has to be two-way, but I disagree. I don't think it does at all. Just speak to anyone who has had a stillbirth. The notion you can't bond because it wasn't two-way doesn't hold up, I don't think. It seems a very rigid definition.

And a father's right to be on a child's birth certificate should not be dependent on the mother's whims, either. If the father is abusive, then no, he doesn't have that right, but otherwise I have no idea on this planet as to how you can justify that statement. The birth certificate is a formal recognition of someone's parentage and identity. It is not an ownership document. I find the failure to separate out the needs and rights of the child, and the needs and wishes of the mother inherent in regarding it as such to be, quite bluntly, repugnant. Short of actual abuse, nobody outside has the right to determine what does or does not go on inside a relationship, and you are advising a real person here on decisions that may affect her child for life, with an awful lot of conclusions being leapt to on very sparse information.

Solid I agree, but we don't have a scrap of evidence that that is what this guy is doing. All we have is: heated row in which he said if she tried to take the child away completely he'd go to court. Yes, that is arsey and not remotely constructive; no, of course he shouldn't have said it, but it was apparently in response to being told by his pregnant gf that she was dumping him and that he had no rights concerning the baby, as they weren't married. People in relationship breakdowns have horrible fights. Hell, people in relationships do. I am, truly, not an advocate for women meekly taking shit. I've told women on MN a stack of times to get shot of aggressive, scary, or just abusive men. But we don't have enough info here, IMO, to say that's what is happening. I think it's a bad idea to encourage someone to take huge steps without asking for more info (not saying you, specifically, just in general). Obviously some men use the legal system to bully and harass exes and don't give an airbourne fornication about their kids, but frankly I think it helps everyone if people considering a breakup, when kids are involved, don't start off antagonists. If at all possible. And while I am well aware some men make that impossible (vivid memories of my father swearing down the phone at my mother for no good reason, a decade after he married someone else) I think asssuming that a poster's P or H is that type and advising accordingly is a bit iffy.

[smallmotherbigheart]

He will still have rights of access but he should be warned that his legal entitlement will be limited compared to if he comprises with you. Also, you two might not have a great relationship, but if he proves himself as a worthy father I would say at least thats a positive.

At the end of the day, it is your body and I would never advise you to risk your sense of well being for someone who doesnt care for you, even when his baby is present inside you. People often forget that although you are carrying the child, it is also his responsibility to ensure that you are well as you did not create this child on your own. So, if you need to, take your two weeks away and spend it happily. After all, if he walks away its you who will pick up the pieces, and no government intervention is really going to help you solve that. Just take care of your happiness right now and focus on yourself. If he's going to be a good parent he will do so x

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

OK there are some women who take an excessively punitive attitude towards a man who is a DC's biofather but no longer the woman's partner.But a man in such a situation will od himself no favours by trying to force his way into the woman's live while she is PG. And the man who wants to see his DC and knows he is going to need to take court action needs to jump through all the hoops and keep his temper.
TBH it is not that fucking difficult to refrain from stalking and threatening your former partner or to acceptwhat contact you are offered without launching lawsuit after lawsuit purely to make your XP dance around to your tune: an awful lot of men who are refused contact with their DC have themselves to blame more than anyone else.

[Finallygotaroundtoit]

The baby is indeed 'theirs' but while it is in her body any decisions about who should be present at investigations & later on at the birth are 'hers'.

As I said bonding is a 2 way process - 'seeing' the baby helps with positive feelings towards it (& that's great) but until the baby is born & has an awareness of dad the so called 'bonding' is all one way.

Yes, the baby is it's own person and as such it will bond with people who love it, nurture it & above all put it's needs above their own - not just those who got to be present at the scan or insisted on being on the BC despite treating the mother like shite.

Prior to scans, dads still loved & looked forward to their children's birth, true bonding takes place once the baby is a participant in the loving relationship. Dads now don't love their babies more because they 'bonded' with them in the womb (IMO).

[perfectstorm]

Oh, I absolutely recognise that some men are utter arses. My own father's one - my mother spent my childhood trying to keep him involved, and when I had my own kids I decided he was not someone I wanted anywhere near them and severed all contact (not too hard, given it mostly involved Facebook). It's just that some women I know IRL aren't that great at separating out "man I don't get on with" with "man my kids don't need" and as a friend is in court this week, because he had no alternative if he ever wanted to see the kids again, I just wanted to stress that that's pretty well the nuclear option, IMO.

My husband found the scans very bonding. I think it's a lot easier for women to bond with the baby in utero because we can feel it. It was an amazing experience for him to see this living little person in there. I know a lot of people (including some women) who say the same. And while I agree that if he is likely to be vile she is under no obligation, her only given reason is that she doesn't see why he should get the nice bits. That implies rather strongly that it would be a pleasant experience for all concerned, and the motive is punitive, not self-protective. To rewrite that in responses is to ignore the OP's own words, which is not an ideal way to advise, surely.

I absolutely support a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. I was quite clear that she shouldn't have anyone who might make her tense at the birth. But the baby is not "hers". It is "theirs" and most importantly, its own person. I don't think trying to deny the father the experiences of parenthood on punitive grounds is going to help him and that child form a more positive relationship, which is, after all, the primary goal.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

I am not assuming that the OP's partner is abusive, I am pointing out that if he is, she can cut him pretty much out of the picture - but even if he is only tiresome, she can keep him away from her at least until the baby is born. A man has no 'rights' at all over an unborn child, because it is part of the woman until birth and an adult is not the property of another adult.

FWIW I was not on very good terms with my DS' dad for most of my pregnancy (PG was unexpected and unplanned, we were drinking buddies rather than a couple anyway) the dad did not initially want to be involved so I sent him away with no hard feelings, he had a change of heart shortly before DS was born but I wouldn't have him at the birth. That was 6.5 years ago and we are all on great terms now, DS and his dad adore each other, the dad and I get on perfectly well too. So things may well turn out fine for the OP and her baby and indeed her XP.

[zikes]

Scans are private: you lie there with your bump exposed, it's a vulnerable position psychologically if nothing else. I wouldn't have anyone there that I didn't actively want around.

She can get him a pic, or he can pay one himself, but if the OP doesn't want him there she doesn't have to have him. Her body isn't public property.

[Finallygotaroundtoit]

Scans are medical procedures - at which the mother may get bad news.

OP needs someone there who will provide emotional support.Not someone who is already causing her stress! An aggresive DP had no reason or right to be present - get him a pic.

BTW scans are usually happy, reassuring events but not sure about 'bonding' (which is surely a two way process - the baby had no awareness of the parents' watching).

OP think very carefully about allowing him on the birth certificate - do you think he will use PR for the good of your child or just to control you?

[perfectstorm]

I think a lot of assumptions are being made here - and SolidGoldBrass, the baby does not forfeit anything because the parents fall out - or shouldn't. I absolutely agree that no woman should have anyone at a birth she isn't absolutely comfortable with, but I do think unless very stressful scans etc should be open to the father, because it's a part of the bonding process. This guy has been agressive about being pushed out of his child's life, agreed, and not as supportive as his partner has every right to expect, but there's no indication I've seen that he is anything other than a crap boyfriend - not abusive or aggressive - and so many men abandon their kids. One who wants contact and responsibility, unless he is a complete arse, is a blessing for that child.

Aimee0211 you sound a wonderful mum, and a bloody saint. I take my hat off to you. It must be unbelievably hard, putting your daughter's needs so front and central. She's a lucky munchkin. If parents can manage that, even after an acrimonious start, the kids benefit so much. It's a shame so few parents have the maturity and selflessness that you do.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

The thing is, a man who is horrible to his partner starts forfeiting rights straight away.
You can legally cut him right out of your life until the baby is born, for one thing. He does not have any say or control in how you behave during your pregnancy, nor does he have any right whatsoever to be with you during the birth if you don't want him there.

Once the baby is born then the courts would take a dim view of you refusing to let the father see the baby at all unless you could prove risk to the baby ie that the father is violent, mentally ill or a habitual alcoholic/drug user (if he is any of these things, start amassing evidence now) However, it is perfectly reasonable for such contact to be arranged via a third party in a neutral place, and if you do not want any contact between the father and yourself and you are BF, it will be regarded as reasonable for contact appointments to be kept short.

And if the man continues to behave in ways that are demonstrably abusive, whether that's nasty texts, turning up at your house and refusing to leave, stalking or constatnly phoning, you can get court orders to keep him away.
If drink or drugs are an issue, you can insist on drug tests.
Basically, the more horrible a man is, the easier it is to keep him out of your life as long as you have plenty of evidence as to his horrible behaviour.
Because the remedy is in the man;s hands. He can stop being horrible if he really wants to build a relationship with his child.

[TheOriginalFAB]

He should have as many rights as you but I don't expect he will get them. I am sure you will be advised of all the ways you can avoid him having any say in your baby's life but this is not about what is best for you but the RIGHT of the baby to know who its father is.

[EricNorthmansMistress]

It wouldn't be right to leave him off the birth certificate - your baby should have both parents named for his sake. It's also easy enough for fathers to gain PR by going to court if they aren't on the BC so it will not achieve much to leave him off, except potentially upset and confuse your child.

You and he should agree on access/contact that suits you both. At first that will be with you present as the baby will be too small to take away. When you feel comfortable with him taking the baby away for short periods than you can, likewise with overnights. If he gets heavy handed trying to demand this or that then he needs to be told that's not acceptable. Threatening court is childish and vindictive and he would not be awarded custody of a newborn baby unless you were proven to be abusive.

I think it sounds like you should go to counselling to work on splitting and arranging access in a mutually respectful and positive way.

[aimee0211]

Hi, really wanted to post to say last year I was in the exact same situation. I broke up with my ex last year when I was about 4/5 months pregnant, there were some nasty words said and to cut a long story short I wanted nothing to do with him at the time.

However, family members convinced me that its in the babies best interests to see their father (whether you like him or not). It took a lot of effort on my part (still does sometimes) to allow him to come to EVERY doctors appointment and the scan. He was not at the birth however I promised I would let him know as soon as it was over and I had to allow himself and his mother in to see the baby just after I gave birth.

He then came round to my house for the first 2 months to see DD until I thought she was old enough to go to his house and now she is 4 months and goes to his 11-5 every Saturday. I do my best to keep them sweet by having gradually increased his time without him having to ask (making him feel like I am doing him a favour) and I only see him and speak to him on pick up and drop off. It's hard work on my part to have him involved but it's ultimately best for DD. This works for us and I understand that as hard as it is for me I have to make an effort because I don't want to have to do the whole court thing.

I don't understand why you would want to be with someone when it's this hard at the moment, I promise you there will be even more strain on the relationship when the baby is born, but that's up to you. Just thought I would tell you what we decided and what currently works for us, it's hard but the best option.