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.

I assumed she meant she wanted to look at the problem through class analysis and the effects of male violence on women (rather like the summary Flora gave in her post at 12:36) rather than the "to have equality you've got to give equality" responses she had been receiving which are more individual based.

They're not newbies. They're infrequent posters. It very much feels like people with an axe to grind against feminists have jumped on here to attack a regular poster talking about a very personal situation. I doubt she was expecting the thread to get so much response.

Do you need to be so offensive MrBloom? Are you suggesting we aren't real women because we don't agree with you?

Or are you on here just to throw around the insults?

MrBloom your simple communication skills need some work. The quote you posted was about why the OP doesn't want her DP on the birth certificate. How did you extrapolate from that her motivations from posting here?

Real women ?

You're on a deliberate wind up, aren't you ? Do you think it's appropriate on a thread where the OP has shared details of her abuse ?

almond I didn't even realise this thread was in Feminism when I first clicked on it, it came up in active. Mostly I avoid the board like the plague because I dislike being patronised and find the 'single agenda' approach alarming and irritating in equal measure.

I identify as a feminist, but I clearly don't go far enough for many of the regulars here, so I stay away and just do my bit to challenge misogyny where I find it in RL.

Mother's rights, father's rights.....I'm hoping in the future people will care as much about children's rights. OP I honestly believe it is a child's right to know who their parents are, both mother and father, so both should be on the birth certificate. Children are not property, should not be owned and I don't believe the mother's right over them is exclusive.

What I mean is, even if heaven forbid your dp left, he should not be prevented from having some sort of custodial arrangement because he is a father and not a mother. He should if he was abusive and the children would suffer. This is based on what I believe would be best for the children, what would suit their rights to have both parents in their lives. And both sets of grandparents (again, if not abusive as this would be against their rights).

As an aside, there can be some very damaging mother/child relationships that are equally abusive and fathers then need to step in and take custody. I am in no way saying you are like this, just that if the world were different and men were not allowed to have parental rights, these children would suffer. That is another reason why both parents should be on the birth certificate. For the children's right to have at least one safe parent.

So perhaps a way of looking at it is taking away the feminist issue of male control over our lives once we have children and switching it to look at the children's rights.

I hope this helps and good luck finding your way through this challenge.

It says in the OP she is posting in FWR.

.

Well said Popalot. People seem to be forgetting that the BC is the child's document, not the parents.

The children should always come first, and in my opinion not putting a father who from what the OP has said appears loving on the birth certificate is not in the children's best interest.

So that's another two posters who will presumably be out campaigning for it to be a legal requirement for both mothers and fathers to be on birth certificates, rather than as it at present - up to men to pick and choose whether they feel like it or not.

Thank you Flora, somehow I knew I could rely on you

Well said MrsDeVere

" OP I honestly believe it is a child's right to know who their parents are, both mother and father..." But the children do know that. That isn't going to change by putting someone on a birth certificate. She isn't violating the children's rights.

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

I couldn't agree more.

I agree with everything MrsDeVere has said.

There are real, day to day implications of not having parental responsibility. For example, at DD2's pre-school you specifically have to confirm whether each parent has parental responsibility on the application form. If you don't, you won't be allowed to take certain actions, including giving the decision on medical treatment should they contact you during a session.

There are also 'disaster' scenarios. If OP died in a car crash, without parental responsibility her partner wouldn't necessarily be permitted to immediately begin to care for the children. I know you are currently living with family, but from what I read on your other thread that was a temporary arrangement?

I am incredibly sorry for your situation Jackie, but I think you have built up an illusion of safety from something that gives you no protection. Your scenarios like running off would not be majorly impacted by not being on the BC. You do not have exclusive rights to your children, whatever you would like to believe. YOu have equal responsibilities, and if your partner is the man you believe him to be then he would seek to fulfil those responsibilities after any split, including being on the BC.

If this is really important to your partner, there is a good chance that your stance will simply hasten your worst case scenario - that he leaves and seeks more formal 'rights' regarding his children. For the sake of an illusion. That is your abuser continuing to control you.

This man has compromised for years, he has trusted her for years. I find it odd that she questions his trust in her when he is the one that should be questioning her trust as she has basically told him "I don't trust you with your own children"

Personally I find it bizarre that he agreed to have children with someone who wants to have 'exclusive rights' to their children.

There have been absolutely no day to day implications of my DH not having parental responsibility for our kids whatsoever. No school or nursery has ever asked.

Almond - Yes, it may well vary. I'm involved in the administration of our local pre-school and I know they take it very seriously. If they let someone take, e.g. medical decisions, who has no legal authority to do so the local pre-school advisory group have told them they could be in very hot water.

Almondcakes my experience iss very different than yours. There have been situations at nursery, school among others where pr is relevant.

You don't even need parental responsibility to take a child to the doctor. DH has done so numerous times.

ok scallops so even if we look at it through the effects of male violence and class analysis, my response would still be the same as i posted twice now, and the first time back on the first pages, and that is that children are not possessions or tools to be used to deal with our own issues and to control others.

why are they infrequent almond? i'm personally a lurker nowadays but i've posted in the past before a n/c.

Flora i explained underneath that how her motivations were apparent.

popalot is spot on, and yes normally the boards are manned by fierce radfem guards trained in extrapolation and abstract analysis, with strong skills in being patronising and/or hysterical.. and armed to the teeth with feminist theory literature and war paint to beat away any wandering woman who can't recite the patriarchy line.

Taking them to the GP isn't necessarily the same as, say, being called to give permission for a GA and a transfusion though.

I don't think anyone has said that leaving him off of the birth certificate is a stonkingly good idea. It's not an ideal solution but it's not disastrous and it can be fixed later on if need be.

The manner in which posters turned against the OP left very little room for anyone to have a sensible discussion with the OP about other methods of protecting herself and ensuring financial security for her and her children. There was a valid discussion to be had that simply never got off the ground because the focus was on attacking the OP instead of helping her.