DP wants to go on new DC's BC

[Jackieharris]

He has just raised this out of the blue.

He isn't on our eldest DC's bc. That's never caused a problem. Now he's saying he wants that changed too.

I know this is 'normal practice' (hence posting on fwr not aibu/chat/parenting/relationships) but it's made me really anxious.

It came so out of the blue, I didn't have much of a response prepared. I said it hadn't caused any problems so why change. I said I didn't want to give up my exclusive rights. He said why and I gave the hypothetical scenario of him running off with a younger woman then being able to restrict where I live etc after a split.

He knew about my stance on this before we had dc1. He knows I had a very bad relationship experience before him (life threatening violence, stalking and breaking into new house after break up type stuff) so I just won't ever feel 100% safe with any man ever and need to have the security that I could escape if that happened again. From my PoV if he was on bc he could potentially use this power to continue to abuse me even if I left. (So many threads like that on relationships board and I know some irl examples too)

As long as he was never violent I'd always let him have fair access to dcs so I said to him why does he want it unless he doesn't trust me?

I'm now going to be constantly worried he'll bring it up again. Maybe he won't. I'll not mention it if he doesn't.

There is plenty of point scoring here. Outsself it doesn't matter which of you were quoted. The quotes were all correct.

OP suffered in the past but it does validate her unntenable and unjustified position. She also made clear she's not interested in a discussion or changing her mind.

Does not validate.

AlisonBlunderland maintenance is not dependant on the father being on the birth cert so that wouldn't be a reason to add him. The CMS would pursue whoever the mother names as the father for maintenance. The man named would be offered the chance to take a DNA test if he denied he was the father and refusal to take the DNA test would be treated as confirmation he is the father.

Does possession of a dick give him the power of veto? Of course not.

Does having a vagina?

The mother has automatic parental rights yet he has to ask for his even though the DC are 50% his. Why should having a vagina trump having a dick?

We don't know why he originally agreed. We don't know if she forced him/promised it at a later date. We don't know why he has changed his mind. He may feel insecure about the relationship. He may fear the OP will just take his children.
It appears it is ok for the OP to feel fear and insecurity but not the DP.

Well, the history of birth certificates and men deciding whether they'll take on a child or not, the unique role that women have in giving birth etc are all pretty relevant to feminism.

The OP obviously wanted to express her concerns in what is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a safe space, and one where issues are considered through the lens of feminism. I don't see why she's not entitled to do so.

The key word is history. BC are no longer about child ownership or not having a bastard child.

Of course she is entitled to post however so is everyone else. To be told that posters are not feminists because they don't agree with her is out of order. The issue she has is not a feminist one and many posters who disagreed with her stated themselves to be feminists however this was not good enough for the OP. Why? Because they didn't give her the validation she was looking for.

Is it not possible to go to court and have your name added to the BC anyway?

It would be an extreme action to take, but if the OP's DP feels very strongly about this, he could take legal advice and seek legal resolution. He may well need DNA proof that he is the father. I suppose that might signal the end of the relationship, but so might the disagreement on this issue anyway.

From the child's POV, I'd be horrified that my BC didn't have my father's details on if he was known about and not dangerous. I'm orphaned, so my BC is quite an important document to me. If this had been my parents, I would try to empathise with how my mother felt, but it would undermine how I felt about her - especially as a quick internet search shows that leaving the father's name of the BC doesn't really make a difference to his rights.

If he ran off with a younger woman, he could contact a solicitor and get a legal restriction placed on where the OP could move to pending paternity tests for the children. If he was already on the BC, he could contact a solicitor and get a legal restriction placed on where the OP could move pending a contact hearing. It makes no difference.

Yet plenty of people on here are talking about his "rights" to be on the birth certificate, Regina. There are no such rights. Parents don't have rights with regards their children. Children have rights with regards their parents. And none of those rights are being violated. If they were it would be a requirement for men to be on all birth certificates.

"The OP obviously wanted to express her concerns in what is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a safe space, and one where issues are considered through the lens of feminism. I don't see why she's not entitled to do so." This. I offered a perspective through a feminist lens. I wasn't "point scoring". I was trying to help the OP work through her feelings, why she may feel this way.

Regina, you know why a woman has automatic PR and an unmarried father who's not on the BC doesn't. I won't patronise you with an explanation. :)

Possession of one sexual organ doesn't trump possession of another and I didn't intend to indicate that it does. Here, however, the OP's opinion appears to be entrenched so if there's no room for discussion and an unwillingness to give on the part of both parties where do you go?

Either the OP, who's been open about her position all along (whether you or I agree with the principle or not) changes her stance or the DP, who has until now been in agreement with the decision changes his.

I'm not commenting on who's right or who's wrong although I'm very aware of the legal position. I'm merely saying that I see no reason why, in a situation of stalemate, the precedent set by the OP should be changed purely because the until-now accepting of it DP wants it to be.

She was looking for support, not validation, IMO.

"Here, however, the OP's opinion appears to be entrenched so if there's no room for discussion and an unwillingness to give on the part of both parties where do you go?" Well yes, agreed. He could stick his heels in too and the OP might not feel ready for that kind of decision. Thinking about how she may feel if this becomes a deal breaker might help clarify her thoughts and spur her on to some discussion with her DP.

And yes I think she was looking for support.

Blue you were the one who mentioned sexual organs not me.

OP was only looking for support that validated her choice/decision/opinion.

I am merely stating that I see no reason why, in the situation of stalemate the OP will not change her mind. The DP has given longevity, is a good father and not abusive. I think he has earned the right to change his mind and be recognised legally as a parent.
The OP doesn't want to to give up my exclusive rights but why should the DP give up his?

This is a very nasty thread. Regina who made you the arbiter of whether this is a feminist issue? The OP clearly wanted a discussion of the feminist aspects of her life and not an AIBU or even Relationship thread. Whether you think it's a feminist issue or not really doesn't warrant this level of pile on. Some people clearly think there are feminist aspects to be discussed but all you (and a number of others) seem to want to do is to keep shouting "NO IT'S NOT" over everyone else and carry on attacking the OP.

If you consider yourself a feminist, perhaps consider giving space to a woman to talk through their experiences and trauma (particularly following life threatening male violence) and cut her some fucking slack.

jackie

Support that her sexist position was right. She said she had no interest in a discussion. The posters who disagreed with her weren't feminists.

Op, think back to before you had your children. Could you honestly have imagined the depth of feeling you have for them? It's the same for your DP. Before you had your children, they were just an idea and so out of love for you he agreed to your request.

But just as you would protect your children at the expense of your partner, I think your partner is beginning to realise that his feelings for his children are so deep that he would also do everything within his power to protect them, even if that is at your expense. And to do that he needs to be legally recognised as their father.

You have every right to do whatever you want to protect yourself - cut yourself off from people, leave and never contact them etc.

But, because you chose to have these children with your partner, you share those rights to protect them.

If you had wanted to remain in sole control, then you needed to have an anonymous biological father, through sperm donation, where they LEGALLY give up all rights.

You clearly trusted your partner enough to have children with him. He clearly loves you, and he loves your children. You say you live surrounded by close family.

Trust in that.

I have as much right to comment as everyone else Flora and I will not be shot down by anyone.

The OP did not want to discuss the feminist issue she wanted everyone to agree she was right. She didn't take it well when posters didn't.

The biggest problem with this board is you only allow posters to pass opinion and comment if they are the same as yours. Well no I do not think the OP's issues is a feminist one I think it is a relationship one with her DP and the past trauma she suffered. The OP left the thread way before I started to comment so do not try and hold me responsible for her non return.

Who gives you the right to decide it is a feminist issue? Jackie made clear she doesn't think feminism is about equality. She thinks she has exclusive rights over her children. If that is a feminist stance then those who disagree have every right to say so.

I hope the OP doesn't come back, frankly, as I don't think there's much here for her.

It's an interesting question in theory, but it seems to me from what the OP said that her issue with it isn't neccessarily a reasoned one - it's an an emotional one - and I doubt any amount of debate would change her feelings about it.

Where I'm a bit stuck is for me this is a question of the OP needing to deal with those emotions as I'm sure it's not just the BC it's affecting. Telling her she has to put the fathers name on is maybe not the most helpful thing, but then, I also don't always feel it's appropriate to validate ideas that aren't coming from a good place- which, imo, this isn't. It's coming from trauma and fear. It's a bit like a phobia- I have one and no amount of 'just get over it' helps. But likewise it's not healthy for me to hear that I'm right about it. Because I'm not- and that's evident if you talk to me about it for even a minute. I feel that it's similar, here.

I again want to reiterate my good faith posting on this thread, to support the OP. People keep saying it's not a feminist issue but I rather think that the OP was looking for support from people like minded, because she trusts their political judgement. Like you might post in the Muslim tea room about a non-spiritual issue, perhaps.

I disagree with your reading of her intentions and feelings, I think you characterise her in the most unsympathetic way possible Regina. I am not point scoring for feminism here, I am trying to offer support for this woman. I rather think that the point scoring allegation is rich from you Lass, you're like feminist discussion bingo, 'man-hating' check, feminists are unwelcoming check, you generalise about men, check, there's a party line, check, you are point scoring, check. Not one of those points speaks to the OP's issue.

Why is it so hard to speak kindly to and about this woman?

I don't think anyone is denying that the OP needs further professional support. The majority have also said she needs to talk to her DP and to communicate with him about why she feels the way she does and ask him why he wants things differently now. Sadly the OP wasn't interested in that. She didn't want to discuss it with him or anyone and that means the situation will not change. She will continue to feel anxious in case he brings it up again. Which cannot be wonderful to live with day in day out.

I have spoken kindly about her. I have expressed empathy and sympathy to her situation and what she suffered. However in doing so does that mean that I cannot then form an opinion? Does it mean to be kind to her I have to agree? No it doesn't.

The OP didn't want discussion and adjudication on the initial decision. You can't say she wants no discussion of any if it in the context she posted on a discussion forum. And really, is it hard to speak kindly to someone who is obviously massively anxious. Berating her for bu is spectacularly missing the point of how anxiety affects people.

That wouldn't happen Giraffe, because it is a criminal offence for a mother not to provide her details to the government following a birth.

It is only unmarried fathers who havethe right not to be on the birth certificate. A right that many of themchoose to take up, without society seeming to care very much.

"Blue you were the one who mentioned sexual organs not me."

I may have been (although not the first person on this thread) but you are the one who's misinterpreted my comment on them.