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

Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Parental rights

31 replies

TheMumsRush · 20/04/2015 09:21

Quick question from looking at another thread. My DSC was born in 2001, parents weren't married but both on birth certificate. Do they both have parental rights?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Pantone363 · 20/04/2015 09:22

Yes I believe so. If both are on the BC then yes

Dumpylump · 20/04/2015 09:24

I don't think so. I think the change in law came about in 2003. Dsd2 was born in 2000 and dp had to get solicitor to sort parental rights and responsibilities. She has lived with him for last two years and we are off on holiday this summer - he sent her passport renewal forms away and has had letter back from passport office asking for proof of parental rights, so although it's not something he needs on a day to day basis, it is important.

AuntieStella · 20/04/2015 09:25

There are different dates, depending on which nation of UK the birth took place in, for automatic PR from naming in the birth certificate. But 2001 is before any of them.

So your DP will not have acquired it from birth registration, but may have got it by other means.

WrappedInABlankie · 20/04/2015 09:25

No only the mother.

An unmarried father can only get legal responsibility for his child in 1 of 3 ways:

jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1 December 2003)
getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
getting a parental responsibility order from a court
He does not have PR

Original poster

TheMumsRush · 20/04/2015 09:28

I don't think he does, things are amicable though. What are PR anyway, what does it mean to have PR, don't think will effect him too much but best to know

OP posts:

Dumpylump · 20/04/2015 09:36

Well, school isn't obliged to inform him of dcs progress or any upcoming trips/events.
He can't take them to dr or dental appointments.
He won't be able to renew passport.
These are just things off the top of my head. If the relationship between your dp and his ex is amicable then these may not be a problem.....otherwise, they could be very difficult.

Original poster

TheMumsRush · 20/04/2015 09:42

Thanks, just looked on the gov website and I don't think it will effect him in the grand scheme of things. He's taken him to a&e before but I think anyone could do that for a child. His mum deals with the other stuff as they don't live close (not that he wouldn't be happy to) and she informs him of trips and parents evening.

OP posts:

Dumpylump · 20/04/2015 10:08

Well, it's up to him, but given that things between him and ex are amicable, then it would be easy to arrange....so really, why wouldn't he?

CocaKoala · 20/04/2015 10:18

No, your DP doesn't have PR. The new ruling came in to effect in 2003. If I were your DP I'd consider asking the ex to agree for him to have PR because as it stands it's ex who can make all big decisions (schools, moving and so on) without consulting him.

If their amicable it's as straight forward as getting a form and signing in agreement. If not, then he'll have to go to court. However, if that happens it's very rare a PR order isn't given. Plus if he has them EOW and is such a big part in their lives then I can't see it being too difficult.

PeruvianFoodLover · 20/04/2015 12:24

The biggest reason for seeking PR of your child if you have regular contact and things are amicable is, in my opinion, the aftermath of the sudden death of the parent with primary care.

It is a lot messier, and costly, if the other parent doesn't have PR, and the DC can legally end up in the temporary care of the local authority, even if they are living with their surviving parent.

In reverse, if the parent without PR dies, then it is messier for the remaining parent to secure financial support for the child left behind.

Original poster

TheMumsRush · 20/04/2015 14:19

That would be a very good reason indeed, thank you

OP posts:

yellowdaisies · 20/04/2015 21:13

My ex has never had PR for my DC (born before 2003). It's never caused him any problems and he had taken them to GP, dentist, A&E, etc. Schools have communicated fine with him and haven't enter asked whether he has it. He has their surname, which may help though.

My will states that he gets custody if I die, which I think ought to leave things reasonably secure. I'm also confident that he and my DH would sort that out amicably if it ever happened (and no one else would want them)

PeruvianFoodLover · 20/04/2015 22:01

yellow. You may want to check, as it varies within the UK, but my understanding is that when a child's parent/s dies, leaving them without anyone who is legally responsible for them (an orphan) then parental responsibility passes to the local authority who then initiate court proceedings.

Your DC may well be placed in their fathers care, but if he does not have PR at the time of your death, then he is deemed a kinship fosterer/carer, until the relevant court proceedings have been completed, which can take some months. There will be checks, and interviews with the DCs etc - It will not be automatic, despite his blood relationship. He will be treated in the same way as friends/relatives who are named as DCs guardians in the event of both parents dying.

For the sake of a price of paper, I think it's avoidable stress for those who are left grieving for you.

yellowdaisies · 20/04/2015 22:25

Peruvian You're right on a sense, it could potentially make things simpler for my ex if I die if he already has PR.

But I probably won't die. I generally get along ok with my ex but he can occasionally be a bit bonkers (vague plans to move abroad to set up Buddhist retreat centre, complacent about DCs health concerns, etc). I feel slightly more secure with the DCs knowing I hold all the rights as it is.

I also feel strongly that he should be the one to sort PR out. I wouldn't object to him applying for it, and he knows that, but I'm bloody well not going to do it for him!

alwaystryingtobeafriend · 21/04/2015 23:08

We are in Scotland. Dp just got a divorce in summer. Does he have parental rights to his children?

I always assumed a father had rights if he was on the BC. That's a load of old bollocks that there is restriction on that. If dad is on certificate he should be equally responsible regardless of dates.

If my dp didn't or doesn't have PR then why should he be paying maintenance for children he technically wouldn't have parental responsibility for? Or am I missing the point? (Which is most likely)

yellowdaisies · 22/04/2015 07:37

alwaystrying Your DP will have PR because he was married to the mum. It's only unmarried fathers who weren't given it automatically prior to 2003 (in whole of UK I think)

roughtyping · 22/04/2015 07:42

In Scotland unmarried fathers have PR automatically if they're on the birth certificate from 4 May 2006.

see here

roughtyping · 22/04/2015 07:43

always he should be paying maintenance because he's their father. Although tell that to DS's dad.

alwaystryingtobeafriend · 22/04/2015 07:58

He always would pay always has. I just wondered where it would stand legally especially as he has his children 50% of the time. If he had no PR then surely that includes paying maintenance?. IMO PR includes providing financially. Anyway totally hypothetical situation. I'm sure he has PR and he will maintain his payments. (Ps I'm not trying to get out of it.I'm happy he pays. I'd be raging if he didn't)

yellowdaisies · 22/04/2015 08:15

PR doesn't legally have anything to do with maintenance.

CocaKoala · 22/04/2015 08:42

Maintenance and PR are two totally different kettles of fish - as is contact. Weather he has PR or not, if he knows the children are his he should pay financial support regardless of anything else.

If he were to take it to court for a PR order and said something along the lines of your post that he should have PR because he's paying maintenance then that would completely go down like a lead balloon.

yellowdaisies · 22/04/2015 09:22

I don't think that's entirely true cola - I think to get PR you have to show you're involved in the child's life - and paying maintenance could be a part of that (though you'd also want to show that you were involved in other ways - caring for them, etc)

CocaKoala · 22/04/2015 09:42

Yellow, I get what your saying.

PR as you say is about your involvement in a child's life. PR shouldn't be based on maintenance being received or not - hence why I said different kettle of fish :) . If you know your 100 percent the dad then having PR is a big deal but even if you have to go to court it shouldn't mean "well, I don't have PR so why should I be paying maintenance?"

You pay maintenance because the child is yours and you should be supporting him/her regardless of anything else.

Again, I don't agree with the old law that mum automatically gets PR but dad doesn't. Even when the law changed in 2003 or 06 in Scotland - I think it should have still automatically applied to those born before the change. It would cut a lot less time in the court system too then with those who are involved and doing their bit having to go to court for an order.

Although, yes, I do agree that if an ex is being difficult about you having PR but you can prove that you're involved in your child's life and supporting them financially it can only strengthen your case.

madamtremain · 25/04/2015 16:41

Things are amicable... Until they're not! Do it now whilst everyone is smiling

madamtremain · 25/04/2015 16:44

It is a bit daft though.. You must pay maintenance for these children because you're their father but you can't be part of any big decisions regarding how they are raised

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread