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 don't know MrBloom, nor do I think speculating on their reasons has any relevance to the OP.

Nothing anyone can say will change my mind. I'm not looking for a debate, just support
Op very effectively shut down debate all by herself, Blistory, wouldn't you agree?

you seemed to find it relevant enough to bring up the status of posters in the first place? something along the lines of you could overlook that because a lot of posters were not regulars??

Because I was saying why I thought the OP had made that comment, Mr Bloom, and so it was relevant to the OP.

I don't think speculating on why they do or don't post on threads other than this one has any relevance to the OP.

I don't think it's 'bizarre' for a man to make such an agreement that he would not be on the birth certificate. Odd yes, and perhaps made with best intentions and with a sensitivity and 'sacrifice'. But it doesn't mean it needs to be repeated for the new little one, or even maintained for the pfb.

There's some nonsense being written on this thread, imo, but MrsD has it when pointing out that abusive ex- would be quite satisfied that he is controlling so much of the rels. dynamics for the OP.

fine, whatever you say almond i was under the impression this is a conversational format and posters can respond to each other's comments, but you deem it not relevant so that's that.

It is a thread started by someone wanting to discuss relationships, birth certificates and parental resposibility within the context of their experiences of abuse.

It isn't exactly light hearted conversation. There's a general chat thread on this section.

wanders back< sorry almond just me again, i had a think about your comment for 2 minutes and i think that the reason people have been compelled to comment on this thread more than others on the board is that it's something more people are able to relate to for once.

i think op made that comment because, to quote her I'm not looking for a debate, just support

Context, FloggingMolly, context.

She explained in her op that she was anxious, that she was unprepared when her DP raised the issue and that it came out of the blue. She specified why she was posting in FWR.

She then pointed out again that this wasn't AIBU. She was insulted and called selfish. She reacted. To be honest, I had exactly the same reaction when I first read it because it was so clearly not the supportive response that I know the posters on FWR give generally. She got an AIBU flaming when she had already made it clear that she wanted support and a feminist perspective.

That would be the feminist perspective that allows her room to analyse her thoughts, consider practical steps she can take to empower herself, support her in coming to her own conclusions and ensuring that her confidence in herself was boosted. Instead, FWR regulars had to resort to advising her to get off her own thread as it was clear that some posts were going to cause her further upset.

Why post if you're going to begrudge support for a woman who needed help ? Why trawl through previous threads looking for something to attack her with ? Why begrudge the fact that regular posters on FWR recognise, respect and support other regular posters ? Why assume that regulars are so thick that they can't differentiate between support and blind agreement ?

so to clarify, op did not want discussion, she just wanted a group of people to agree that she should absolutely falsify a legal document in order to help with her own issues and so she has "exclusive rights", he's a man so.. well that's the end of that he should apologise for his existence.. so she posted in fwr, and then when she didn't get the validation she wanted she complained that all the regulars were gone and disappeared.

Sorry for being a non-regular blundering into your space, Blistory. For the record; I most certainly did not "trawl through previous threads" for any reasons whatsoever, never mind looking for something to attack the op with.
She made the comment I quoted on this one.

She wouldn't be falsifying a legal document.

I'm always amazed at the people who complain about the hostility of FWR when they are piling on and so unpleasant to women who want to talk about traumatic events. There are some horrible posts directed at the OP and others on here and they're not from FWR regulars. You want to be welcomed here so you can tear strips off people? You want hugs and tea for your contribution of yelling "not a feminist issue" repeatedly?

There are lots of posts from FWR regulars I don't agree with and there are a fair few where I think "not sure that's a feminist issue". For the most part I don't think that's a constructive contribution. If two feminists think something is a feminist issue and worth discussing, have at it. Sometimes I change my mind and think there's something in it after all (as with this thread and more particularly the responses to the OP).

"This isn't a feminist issue" is just a pretty poor quality contribution and often expressed with such hostility. Are you surprised there are no prizes for such insight?

to put "father unkown".. on what is a legal document, when the father is not unknown. Also i don't know much about it but if a father can go to court to be placed on the bc without the mother's consent then it must be pretty significant. that's without considering the children's perspective.

do you know flora, i feel completely different when i post on this thread compared to other areas of mumsnet.. when i first joined I naively tried to contribute to a discussion on this board and because my comments didn't match the status quo the thread exploded into a bewildering number of posters who made all sorts of attacks on me.

For that reason i am a bit defensive when i feel reckless enough to comment on here, but i'm not a horrible person, and i'm pretty sure in an earlier comment i mentioned my own experiences of abuse only for op to then disregard other's experiences which didn't match her own. This was addressed at the beginning of the thread.

on this board* not thread.

That means father unknown to the registrar, not the mother.

Last time I checked it wasn't the OP who wrote the law around the registration of births.

There's a reason that unmarried women aren't allowed to simply register the father and guess what, it's not one that's favourable to women. It's a space on a form that can be filled in later.

well if the registrar asks the mother who the father is and she says unknown then she's lying, and when the registrar asks her to sign certifying the information is correct and she does when it isn't, surely that's falsification.

The registrar doesn't ask you that question.

they will surely ask what the mother wants to be put for the child's father, if nothing else to advise on what they will need if unmarried?

surely it wouldn't be right if unmarried women could name anyone on the bc without them being present or evidence? not sure how that's not favourable to women.

The "status quo" on this thread is that the OP is a selfish man-hater. Anyone who goes against that status quo is apparently crazy and irrational.

If this was my first thread in FWR I don't think I'd be back.

You still seem unable to recognise your massive assumptions about the OP. Support doesn't mean slavish agreement as others have pointed out. It's not a binary choice between validation and this bear pit.

That isn't what happens. It isn't falsifying a document. The OP is in fact legally prohibited from registering a father unless she is either married to him or he attends the appointment.

Whatever the issues here, the legalities of not registering her partner isn't an issue.

No. The registrar cannot enter anything under the father's name if the mother is unmarried and the father is not present or has not filled in a parentage form or court order.

Sorry Penguins, x post.