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.

You don't think it's just a teensy bit controlling of her to not allow this man to appear on the birth certificate of his own children? Who he lives with a pays for?

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

Well I don't think that 'keeping her options open' should really be extending quite this far, and if she disagrees then perhaps she should question whether she is really suited to being in a committed relationship at all. I think this man has been more than reasonable to agree to this the first time round, and now that he presumably hopes he has 'proved himself' to be a non-abusive and trustworthy stayer, she's still holding him at arm's length in a most hurtful way.

And it's not even necessary! It's pointless and any sense of security she gets from it is not even valid as has been pointed out on this thread.

Excellent post MrsD.

I see Mrs D, and I did retract my comment above, I had thought only in terms of the personal relationship but of course as you said, and Shaska pointed out and I accepted, the wider context in which oppressed people must live among their oppressors is massively relevant. I had only been thinking of being expected to form intimate life partnerships with their oppressors but I do agree that focusing on that as THE only way makes invisible the many oppressions that follow from being expected to live and work alongside the oppressor class.

Where is the harm...in maintaining the status quo?

The harm is in the OP's anxiety regarding her DP and his inclusion on their DC's BCs, her illusion of security, and in her past abusive relationship presenting itself in her family's life. The harm is that her abuser is continuing to control her thoughts, feelings and actions, long after his physical disappearance from her life.

I don't think the OP's partner is significantly disadvantaged by not being on the BC, though? In terms of will he get access, will he be awarded residency, will he be able to apply to stop OP leaving the country with his children, his non-appearance on the BC will not affect that, right? And it won't mean that the children are disadvantaged or regarded as illegitimate, right? I can see why the man might feel hurt. But I don't think he is disadvantaged in a structural or legal way by this. In which case, why not allow her to keep this 'tallisman'?

It may, though, as you say, Dione, continue to shore up a sort of illusion of security that OP has about this and it is allowing the OP's abusive partner to have a say on her current DC, in a roundabout way. I agree that that is a powerful argument as to why she might want to rethink. But I wouldn't want to insist that she affects her recovery in a way I think proper? IYSWIM? Imagine this one thing, this one gesture is the difference between her peace of mind and feeling of security, imagine that she feels that her partner's willingness to do this is the ultimate signal that he is not ever going to be abusive, or manipulative, etc. If that was the difference, why not give it to her? I think I would be inclined to, for my partner's sake - especially when it didn't affect my legal access to my children.

It's really interesting that we are so, so keen that this woman act absolutely rationally about this. Because who does it really make an actual difference to? What it means to her and what it might mean to her DP won't change her DP's actual legal rights or standing in his children's lives.

Why not allow her to keep this "talisman"? Because the father of the children who presumably finds it hurtful and insulting and would rather she didn't?

That's really what it boils down to, isn't it? A woman is dealing with trauma from life threatening violence and has chosen to deal with it in a way that makes her feel some sense of security and a man who previously agreed with her approach has now decided he "would rather she didn't".

No feminist issues here at all.

The life threatening violence came from someone other than her current partner.
She trusts him enough to have children with; but expects to keep exclusive rights over said children just in case he isn't actually safe...
Why is it a feminist issue?

I agree Flora.

That's really what it boils down to, isn't it? A woman is dealing with trauma from life threatening violence and has chosen to deal with it in a way that makes her feel some sense of security and a man who previously agreed with her approach has now decided he "would rather she didn't".

just.. wow.. so it's ok that she just "chooses" to use her and her dp's children as a possession, a weapon almost so that she can deal with her past issues.. it's not like they or he even has any say in this whatsoever.. and also op stated it is due to him possibly leaving her not in case of abuse. She is being manipulative and controlling.

Regina and lass welcome to the nuthouse.. where women can do no wrong but men must ALWAYS pay for the society we live in because of their physicality

Women as victims of male violence = feminist issue
"Acceptable" responses to male violence = feminist issue
Women dealing with male relationships following male violence = feminist issue
Women's concerns about inadequate state response to male violence = feminist issue
Women being told to prioritise feelings of men about male violence = feminist issue
Women being told to STFU about the above and not analyse it in the framework of oppression of women as a class by men as a class = feminist issue

yes ok then... i know that many a crazy, irrational feminist are always keen to take a situation and work out how it can be reduced to the fault of a man.

as pp have pointed out, she came here because she wanted agreement and validation for the simple reason that she is female and that's it.

Mr Bloom, do you think it should be a criminal offence for fathers not to be on the birth certificate?

Op admits having nothing to fear from the particular male she selected as father to her children (within her specified limits, of course) suggests the above either doesn't apply in her situation; or applies to us all.

If they separate then yes the father could apply to the court to go on the birth certificate and no it wouldn't affect contact or residency down the line nor will it change how the children view him but what it does affect in the here and now is how school would view him, has the eldest just started school and is how excluded that makes him hitting home for him, or it could be medical as without PR he is also affected as to agreeing to any treatment the dc need be that from a doctor or a dentist. I can understand the op not wanting the dad on the birth certificate and my youngest doesn't have her dad named on it (not my decision but it does make life easier) but I can also understand why the dad could have now realised the full extent of what it means and why he wants to be on. The only people who can resolve this is the op and her dp talking things through and trying to understand each other.

Op if by any chance you are still reading then

MrBloom it is irrational to think you know the OP's motivations. Do you generally believe you can read minds or do you simply make sweeping assumptions based on your evident prejudices against feminists?

Amazing how so many posters have such a degree of insight as to what the OP's posting intentions were. Must be my crazy, irrationality that prevents me from reading her posts in the same way.

Why come on to a thread in FWR to insult women and feminists ? What do you hope to achieve or add to the discussion ?

"i know that many a crazy, irrational feminist are always keen to take a situation and work out how it can be reduced to the fault of a man. "

Wow.

My DH doesn't have parental responsibility and it has made no difference to my kids at school whatsoever. Four different schools and they have never asked.

flora.. read the op

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.

it's not telepathy.. just simple communication via words.

as for her reasons to come here her responses have made her expectations very clear, she expected validation because this is the feminism forum but all the feminists are away because we don't agree with her side..

"as for her reasons to come here her responses have made her expectations very clear, she expected validation because this is the feminism forum but all the feminists are away because we don't agree with her side.."

I agree with you that that was not a great remark, and it pissed me off.

Where I think some people are coming from is that they could look past that and see someone who is struggling.

Which doesn't sound crazy or irrational to me. In fact, jumping to rage and insults fits the 'crazy irrational' bill better, imo.

I didn't need to look past that. I assumed she meant the posters who usually post on this section, and most posters on this thread rarely do.

yes i probably shouldn't visit this section when i'm feeling a bit unhinged with sleep deprivation.. it does give me rage!

yes almond.. normally the feminism board border control sorts out the newbies who dare to question the rhetoric and sends them packing.. dear oh dear real women have been let loose