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.

Regina I saw what you saw from the OP. I guess where we differ is that I saw that as a sign of how desperately she does need help. I also found her tone pretty tough to handle, but there are posters more thoughtful and I guess empathetic than I am who could get past that and try to offer support. I didn't get the sense that anyone was telling her she was right on everything she said. Just that sometimes picking up on some parts means alienating someone in need of support, and focusing on other elements might get better results- which is presumably the goal.

*TBH, if a woman had posted here and said her DH/DP wouldn't let her go on the birth certificates because he wanted exclusive rights to the children in case she ran off with a younger man he'd be called a controlling cunt/twat/dick and OP would be advised to LTB
*

Agree 100%

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.

Why on earth do you need 'exclusive rights' when you are not the exclusive parent? And what about if you ran off with a younger man and wanted to take your children out of the country and away from their father? Do you think that's okay and tough titty on him?

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?

Because he is their biological father, he loves and supports them every day and he wants official recognition for that, not be given the same status as a sperm donor or a one night stand whose name you never asked.

And I imagine the children would quite like to have their father who loves and supports them on their BC as well. It has nothing to do with whether or not he trusts you - if you split up, regardless of why or who was to blame, you could change your mind and go back on any agreement you had with him at any time and remove those children from his life without a backward glance and there is nothing he could do about it.

I would be very hurt and very angry if I were him. I would feel insecure, used and disrespected and like nothing more than a temporary fixture whose services might be dispensed with at any time.

So to make this equal, Nolim and Giraffe, would you like it to be illegal for fathers not to be on birth certificates, or would you like womento no longer have to register the birth either?

And if you have issues relating to your previous relationship then deal with them the right way - not by making your children's father the scapegoat.

I will not even dignify that with an answer aldmondcakes

This is about a woman who has been abused to such an extent that her ability to trust has been severely compromised.

This is about a woman who needs, for her sanity, to keep herself safe and her options open.

This is about a woman who is so alert to any red flag behaviour that a sudden change by her partner. on a previously agreed issue, is alarming and triggering.

It is not about a woman getting one over on the man in her life or denying him a place in the lives of his children.

Why? Various posters seem very concerned that a woman should have an opinion on who is on the birth certificate. Surely you must all be completely horrified that fathers have a legal right to not be on it, if they are unmarried.

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

Irony alert.

I'm amazed at people who feel able to tell a woman with a traumatic past that she needs to trust him or pass comments on his motivations or intentions. You don't know anything about this man or the OP's relationship with him or his feelings for his children. He may be wonderful or he may not be. Interesting though to see so many people telling her she has to put aside her feelings of trust to avoid any possible discomfort for him.

As a PP said, trust goes both ways. The default doesn't need to be that her putting trust in him trumps him putting trust in her.

"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."

That's a very interesting point.

Can I go further without being shot down on a forum where I feel not at home?

It's arguable that women should have the greater moral right in these situations. We live in a patriarchal society where it's more often than not women who are left holding the baby, where men on the BC can prevent the ex from moving out of the area, where legislation about and punishment for non payment of maintenance is a bloody disgrace and non payment is freqenty used as a method of control, a weapon to punish a woman for leaving, where unmarried men can decide not to be put on the BC if they don't want to be.

We are the ones who earn less, who are more often the not the ones who do the bulk of childcare through default 1950s thinking, the ones who are expected to take time off to look after a child with measles and the ones who are penalised in the employment market because employers know this is too often a fact.

We are the ones who are told by courts that we must hand our children over to men who've been proven to be violent to us.

Should we relinquish this right to omit a father's name from the birth certificate too? (I accept that courts can order otherwise).

PP's are suggesting that the child has a right to have the name on there, that the child needs it on there. In the OP's case, why does he? He knows his father. He knows the man's name and character, he lives with the man. There's no longer the stigma of "bastard child".

My DD is pregnant. She and her partner have split up. He has an unpleasant history and I've implored her to not put his name on the BC. He can go to a court to get it added. I don't think he should be able to because if he does he'll spend the next 18 years attempting to use the child to control, monitor and harass my DD but at least if he's not on it to start with he'll have to make an effort to get it added and he'll have to pay for it. I'm hoping that like many feckless fathers he won't want to make those sacrifices.

I don't think that is what is even at the heart of the responses Blistory. All of the threads where someone is distressed and feels a need to put their needs over those of others go the same way. It is the whole self sacrificing mother thing.

"This is about a woman who is so alert to any red flag behaviour that a sudden change by her partner. on a previously agreed issue, is alarming and triggering."

That's how I see it too Blistory.

Agree Blistory and Blue

"This is about a woman who needs, for her sanity, to keep herself safe and her options open."

Agreed. However, this thing she wants doesn't actually help with that. It is a symbol but not a real action. My concern would be the extent that she is using symbols to help her feel safe, as ime that tends to expand, as of course it doesn't result in a real increase in safety.

And I do think that this particular one affects the children, as well as the father of course. So for me this isn't as clear cut as 'whatever you need to do to feel safe'. I think there needs to be a balance where your need to feel safe is weighed against the needs of others- especially others in your family or those who don't have full agency eg kids.

Blistory I don't buy that as sufficient justification in this case. If her ability to trust any man has been that compromised and she is that fearful and suspicious then I'd question how she is managing to hold down this relationship with the father of her children in the first place.

Would you justify a man displaying very controlling behaviour over his new female partner because of awful behaviour from the last one? No, I thought not.

Good post Shaska

But where's the harm, Shaska, right now in continuing with the status quo ? The DP has let it go until now and presumably he's an active and involved parent, a concerned and loving partner ?

It might be that he's entirely content to leave it if she can articulate her feelings but instead she's now in a place where she's not able to discuss it.

I suspect that a little bit of room on here may have given her the chance to talk through her fears and rationalise them or at least accept that this issue would need to be addressed at some point when she is able to deal with it.

She could also have had constructive advice on here as to how she could protect herself and her children. Instead, the tone and content of some posts have forced a defensive reaction and have resulted in a poster not receiving the support needed and there has been confusion that support for the poster automatically means supporting her position.

Jackie, I'm sorry that you were so badly abused by your Ex. It has clearly had a deep and lasting impact on you. I don't know if you have had help for this, but given that this aspect of your past is impacting your present, it may be time to seek more.

As previous posters have stated, the idea that not putting the DC's father on the BC means that you will have exclusive rights over them is an illusion. If you and your DP split the courts can and will demand his details be put there and grant him legal parental responsibility.

I understand that this illusion has provided you with peace of mind, but it is no longer doing so. You say that you are anxious that he will bring it up again. Is that because you know that it is an illusion, a bubble that you have created that is popped so easily?

Your DCs should have all their details on their BC, not just the one's that shore up your fantasy of exclusive rights.

You say that you can't trust your DP 100%. That's ok. Part of being an adult is recognizing that life comes with no guarantees, that things can change in an instant.

Your Ex is impacting your current relationship and your DC's legal documentation. This is intolerable. He had power over you in the past, he is exerting power over you now. Please get the help you need to cut him loose and stop him from having
this power over you and your family in the future.

Would you justify a man displaying very controlling behaviour over his new female partner because of awful behaviour from the last one? No, I thought not.

Would you allow me the courtesy of responding instead of just presuming that you know my thoughts ?

Where has she been controlling ? Are we seriously back to the default position of having to consider the men in priority to women who have been beaten ?

would you like it to be illegal for fathers not to be on birth certificates

Interesting, I think they should be on it personally but it's hard to madate. It's a certificate detailing who someones genetic parents are & should be treated as such, the information is a fact and will never change.

If a mother doesn't want to put the father on at birth, that obviously can't be enforced, but I do think that a record should then be kept of the childs DNA so that the father can prove their details and be added at any later date.

It's not about their right to have their name in the box, it's the fact that it should be in there.

I don't think the OP is in a position where she is unwilling to discuss this. She purposely posted here because she thought she would hear the things that she wanted to hear, that her wish for control trumps her DP's legal and moral (because there is nothing to suggest that he shouldn't be on the certificate) right.

I really cannot see a way in which her actions can be viewed in any way other than really selfish and controlling.

Fucking hell. I really have fallen into the rabbit hole.

Men's rights activists of course are advocating for the opposite. They want paternity testing so men can't be falsely accused of being the father.

And of course some children now have two women on their birth certificate.

Outs Aw thanks. This is actually a heartbreaking situation the more I think about it.

Blistory No harm, maybe. And yes from the sounds of the OP he isn't pushing terribly hard - it may never come up again. But I do think he's allowed to change his position. There could be any number of reasons for his change of heart and I don't think there's anything wrong with raising it if it's done sensitively.

If it was a genuine question of safety, rather than a talisman, then maybe that has a different weight. Or if it was a talisman that had no effect on anyone else but just helped her feel better. But here, I would personally lean on the side of it being perhaps better for the OP and her partner to work through this issue she has around the BC - to see that in this case it's not actually helping her and look at other, real things she and he could do to help her feel more secure. I think that sort of work can be quite helpful in dealing with the larger issues at play - so it would be just as much for her as for him. It's not as simple as 'oh just let him have his way'.

I totally agree that all of the 'you're just wrong the end' was really unhelpful for her. I was definitely guilty of reacting that way myself, though tried to control it in posts, because of some things she said. So I guess, I can understand why some people said the things they did (though not all - but then, it is the internet) - applause to the posters who could be more sensitive about it from the get go!