If a woman is pregnant and the relationship with the unborn child's father ends, does she have a right to deny him any involvement with the child when it's born?

[BarbecuedBananas]

An old friend I hadn't heard from in ages is in this position. He's asked me for advice because I'm a lone parent and I suppose he thought I'd know what's what. Except I don't. For all the grief there's been between my ex-partner and I, we manage to achieve a reasonable co-parenting relationship most of the time.

Anyway, my friend's ex-partner plans to have the baby. He has said he'd like to go to scans if possible, and to be involved in his child's life and be a good, hands-on dad from when it's born onwards. She has said no - that she doesn't want him having anything to do with her or with the child.

I've said that, providing there hasn't been/isn't any abuse in the equation (he says there hasn't been/isn't - and TBH I can't imagine for a minute that he'd be abusive), that I don't think she has a right to determine his relationship (or lack of) with his child like this - but to be honest, I'm not 100% sure. And I realise that, in reality, some mothers (and fathers) do this.

I've said to continue to calmly and respectfully show an interest in the pregnancy and the baby, and to express this (and most communication) in writing (email/text), and to keep copies of his sent messages to his ex-partner - and to keep her replies. And also to find out where he stands legally (contact Families Need Fathers?), and take it from there.

Any other advice? What are his and his unborn child's rights in this situation? Thanks.

I don't know legally where he stands, but I found out I was pregnant 2 weeks after I split from ds's dad, he wasn't abusive in any form, but just not for me and I didnt feel the relationship had any more leverage in it.

I kept the baby and would have been happy for ex to be involved, I emailed him asking him if he wanted to go to scans, be kept informed of developments etc, sadly, he didn't if I wasn't involved in the equation.

So, no I don't feel your friend is being at all unreasonable if there is no abuse involved, however I don't know what his legal position would be, he would probably need to have a chat with a family lawyer to get clarification if she won't put his name on the birth certificate.

Ideally, he needs to get parental responsibility and since he's not married to the mum, he must get his name on the BC. If she's being awkward even now, he will likely have to go down the legal route to secure this.

But to answer in general terms, no, she has no right to just say he can't be involved. She can make things very difficult for him, but if she is under the impression that she has the legal right to make an absolute decision on this, she is mistaken.

That, I'm afraid, is the limit of my knowledge on the matter (had a friend in a similar situation), but hopefully someone will be along soon who can advise you further. :)

He would have to prove paternity, doing that would be extremely hard.

If he wants to be involved and they can't agree things amicably then I think he could take her to court to get a DNA test, parental responsibility and access. She has no right to deny him a relationship with his child.

My mum actually sought legal advise on my behalf (without my permission ) about dd1's father as he had threatened to apply for custody and contact SS to complain about me, while I was still pregnant

Her Solicitor informed her that unfortunately SS do not safeguard foetus' but should he apply for custody after she was born it is unlikely he would get it. He would have been granted access or shared custody, unless I could prove there was a history of abuse or that access/shared custody would be detrimental to the child's wellbeing.

We were advised not to put his name on the BC as it gives him more rights, but warned that he can apply to the courts to have his name added for up to a year after the BC is issued.

Your friend should see a Solicitor, but yes, he has legal rights. He should do his upmost to get on the BC.

not putting his name on the BC, really only delays him getting PR. all he has to do is apply through the courts and if necessary prove paternity via DNA testing to get his name on BC. so not putting the name on doesn't give him less rights. it just delays ever so slightly his access to those rights. court can process his application for PR and DNA in a matter of weeks.

fabby paternity will not be hard to prove with a court ordered DNA test.

OP your friend's EX is either misinformed or quite deluded if she thinks just saying no will keep an interested parent from having contact. the courts uphold the child's right to contact with both parents where no risk is posed by either.

BooHoo! Hope the woman concerned doesn't go into hiding, so easy for her to move and then not be found for a year or more.

Families Need Fathers would be an excellent place to start. They're a good bunch of people. If possible, regard court action as a last resort as it often just causes greater antagonism.

A DNA test would only be necessary if there is a dispute about parentage. If the mother agrees that he's the father then a court wouldn't order that a test is carried out. As BooyHoo says, it would be best if his name was on the birth certificate - if only to make it a true statement of fact - but if not it will only delay things a bit. You need very good reasons to persuade a court not to grant a request for Parental Responsibility.

Until the child is born the father has no rights. At all. That means he can't insist on being present for scans or for the birth. Once born, however, the child has the legal right to have a relationship with both of his/her parents unless there are compelling reasons why that should not happen.

fathers name can be added at any time. it doesn't have to be within teh first year. but yes. lets hope she doesn't go into hiding. the father can applyto the courts on the day the child is born and have the ball rolling from the start. if he anticipates her disappearing he would be wise to speak to a solicior ASAP.

His best bet for the moment is to back off and be polite. As Snorbs said, he's got no rights at all until the baby is born - effectively, until the baby is a few days old at least, as if he turns up at the maternity unit and kicks off demanding to see his child, he will be booted down the steps if the mother doesn't want him there. He can apply for contact and access through the courts if the mother is still refusing after the baby is born - but she may not do. It's better to come to an amicable agreement if possible.

Think it is a real shame that fathers get such a raw deal sometimes.

i think it's a shame that any parent gets a raw deal. fathers arent the only ones that get treated unfairly sometimes you know.

There's no legal right for him to involved at this stage. There must be so much more to it, I think, than what you have posted. Mostly, unless there was a very good reason, mothers would like the fathers to invovled?

Are you sure your mate hasn't been behaving like a knob to this woman, OP? While it's possible for a woman to treat a man like a sperm donor ie make nice until pregnancy is achieved then bin him, it's a bit unusual. His best chance (unless she's nuts) is to be calm, friendly and back off while making it clear that she can contact him at any time.

Bio parents have an automatic right to apply for contact and parental responsibility, and would almost always be granted both. But if the mother is very hostile that would be very difficult to enforce, and court action almost always ends in hostility, takes almost a year, and costs a fortune. If he can possibly gently persuade her that the baby would be better off knowing both parents and having the security and sense of self from that, and that all he wants to do is support her and be there for her then that would be best for everyone. Conflict would also be awful for the child, too.

I agree that it's horribly unfair, but he's on a losing wicket asking for scans etc., it will probably make her feel crowded and angry, and backing off while keeping the focus on how he can best support her and the baby is his best bet. He also needs to think about how much he can reasonably afford in maintenance, too. Far better to volunteer that than have the CSA enforce it, especially if it does come to court. If he can show that level of commitment from the off it looks better than CSA enforced cash.

The courts aren't unfair in theory to non-resident parents, but the length of time it all takes and the power held by the resident parent due to the child's bond with them means in reality they are, and grossly so. It's tough, I'm sorry.

He may be a knob, but you'd be amazed by how many women decide their kids need no contact with the other parent after a split, and I can link you to cases where gay women fight bitterly to keep the ex out of their lives, even after planned babies have been born and raised together, using the bio trump card to do it. It's not about gender.

He may be a complete knob. She may just not want an ex in her life, and not be able to separate her needs from her baby's. The fact is that unless a parent is actively abusive, the child is better off with the sense of self and the security of both parents, and what the motehr wants does not matter - or should not. It should be about what the child needs. I dopn't care if he IS a knob to her, actually. That would be a bloody good reason for her not to be with him, but no reason at all to deny her child her or his father.

This question shouldn't be has she the right to deny the father, IMO. It should be has she the right to deny the child.

OP said the relationship hadn't appeared abusive and has simply ended.

The overwhelming right here is for the child to have both it's parents.

It'll be a shame if recourse to the law is needed, but I hope he does have paternity recognised and access established. And that then he uses every opportunity to be a good father.

No, the father has a right to see his child ....

MCDL the court does not view it that way. the court uphold's the child's right to contact with both parents. it isn't about the father's rights. it is the child's rights that matter.

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread but the Court's view is always going to be that the child has a right to a relationship with both parents, it's as simple as that. I have a v similar case on at the moment, acting for Dad and I know that we will succeed but the mother is putting all sorts of ridiculous allegations forward, none of which, even if they were true, would prevent the court from making a contact order.

The only recent case I've had of a dad not being able to see the child is where he kept making her physically ill on every contact visit.

If she doesn't want him at scans etc, that's her choice and he must abide by it. He's no right to bother her during her pregnancy and he'd be wise to back right off, say he's there anytime she wants him (for scans/the birth, whatever if she changes her mind) and try to keep things amicable. She may come round once the dust has settled.

If not, once the baby is born, however, he can apply for access/parental rights etc.

If I was him I wouldn't expect to go to the scans with her. But once the baby is born I'd hope to be involved in the child's life to some extent. She may be grateful/willing for him to give her a break by looking after the child, especially if they can develop a good parenting partnership.

Whatever she does, she needs to be aware that the child will grow up one day and will ask about his/her father. Some children even go looking for their "absent" parent and then the child will find out the truth.

Legally, the father can assert his legal rights through the courts and gain PR, contact. But in practice, if the mother doesn't want him involved and is prepared to move and put other obstacles in his way, he'll find it very hard to maintain contact.

My brother's ex left him when she was pg and didn't even tell him, she moved miles away and registered the baby on her own. He eventually got PR in the courts after DNA tests but she'd already moved abroad by then. He is supposed to have contact a few times a year but it hasn't actually happened for the past two years because she's found some excuse for it not to happen. My brother has tried to take it back to the courts but there's little he can do as he can't enforce it in that particular country (she chose to move there as she knew this). I have never even had the chance meet my niece.