Does this sound right re dp being on birth cert of his ex's baby who was not his?

[hattieboo2012]

dp met his ex when she was about 5 months pg. The real father left never to show his face again. Dp was with her til the baby was 18 months old. He left her coz she used him for money and was very materialistic. They never lived together.

I recently found something on dps old phone in his search history that was about getting his name removed from a birth certificate. So I questioned dp about it.

He said that hos ex had dps name put on birth certificate when baby was born without him knowing about it. He only found it was on a few months before he left her...could this be true?

Also he said he went through a solicitor and got his name removed from birth certificate. It was easy for solicitor to do this as his ex admitted putting it on without his consent. Does this sound true to ear? I always thought it was impossible to get name removed from bc as it's an historical document?

Really!? You don't have to show a marriage certificate!

I didn't show mine either time. I assumed they looked it up or something.

It is true that I didn't have to show my marriage certificate but I assumed that was because my DH was present.

goldwrapped can you confirm that if a woman attending alone wants to put a mans name on the certificate, and that man has a different surname to her that you don't ask to see a marriage certificate?

Also isn't making a false declaration to registrar a serious criminal offence? goldwrapped if such a lie came to your attention, presumably you'd have to report it?

Regardless: two options here:

Mum lied about the father on the birth certificate and later "confessed".

OR OP's ex is lying now.

I know which my money would be on.

Quite apart from the (almost certain) lying, why on earth is a discussion on a topic as important as this being conducted by text ?! That alone should tell you he doesn't want to talk about this in a mature and honest manner.

It is impossible for an unmarried mother to put a man's name down as father on a birth certificate without him knowing about it - he must be present at the registrar's office and agree that he is the father.

Sara has a good question. I think you must be right about him needing to be there.

As far as I remember (back in the mists of time) I could have put any name I liked on DDs birth cert, could have put Mick Jagger if I'd wanted to.
I remember being surprised at this at the time.

Certainly in my case the father was not needed to be present, the registrar asked me his name and I asked her to leave it blank.

It's never been possible unless you were married CuttedUpPear.

The woman could have lied and said that they were married. That is possible. The Registrar does not ask for a marriage certificate.

goldwrapped - I used to reg births too but I can't remember - if parents are unmarried do both sign the reg and if married only one signs even if they are both present?

When we registered DCs births we were asked when and where we married.

It was precisely because mothers were able to name either Uncle Tom Cobley, Mick Jagger, any of the Beatles, etc, as the father on birth certificates that the law was changed and where couples are unmarried, both must be present to register the birth of their dc, Pear, and both are required to sign the register.

As Mr Jagger's parsimony with regard to child support is well-known, I very much doubt that you would have got a better arrangement out of him

No, even Mr Jagger couldn't have done worse than my XP izzyizin

Well I missed my chance now that they've changed the law to stop idle imaginations like mine running riot!

No man made laws can stop our anything but idle imaginations running riot, Pear. Enjoy!

I think the law changed in ......1875 re naming an unmarried absent father on a bc. So, a while ago!

They should have let the registry office in my -backwoods- town know then as they clearly weren't too fussed who I put on it