What goes on a birth cert

[Womenz]

Should mothers be allowed to avoid putting the fathers name on the birth cert? While I often see this advice given, is it fair to the child? Who actually owns the birth cert?

If the parents aren’t married, the mother can leave the father off the certificate.

The actual original cert belongs to the government. It stays with them.

The copies belong to whoever buys them and anyone can buy a copy of any birth certificate in the uk.

A mother can only put the father on if she’s married to him. If they’re not married he has to be there for the registration or add himself later if he’s not.

That advice is only given, that I’ve seen, when the father has fucked off (which is often redundant as he can’t be put on if they’re not married) or shows signs of abuse and the mother and child would be better off if he didn’t have PR.

Was the change of unmarried fathers gaining PR automatically by being on the birth certificate may be a better question. When my eldest DDs were born being on the birth certificate didn’t give their father PR. He was told, by the registrar, of different ways to obtain it. He never ever bothered.

If the the couple subsequently marry, the birth has to be re-registered and the father is put on. If you don't you could be fined £2.

Yes but if it ethical to leave his name off it? Even if he’s awful? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sure what I think

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that it belongs to the government. I thought it belonged to the child.

The original certificate that you fill in stays in the register office and is an official government document. Every one that you buy is an officially a copy.

As someone who does genealogy I think certs should be filled in with the proper information as much as possible. However, with the change of PR rules I can understand why some women are wary of adding the father on. Especially as it is a known thing for domestic abuse to begin in pregnancy.

Well given she CAN’T add his name if they aren’t married and he doesn’t attend, why are you putting the ethical responsibility on her?

The advice to leave him off is literally only ever given in cases where the father is abusive or has abandoned the pregnant woman. Giving a man like that PR is dangerous for both the mother and child as it opens them up to abuse. You think a man who isn’t involved in his child’s life should be allowed to interfere in which school they attend? Stop them from being able to get a passport before they’re 18? Prevent them from going on holiday with the mother? Stop the child from getting vaccinated? And so on.

It is never advised as a way for the woman to get one up on the man. It is advised to keep them safe. And he can apply to he added to the birth certificate - so let him show his commitment and do that. Or even be committed enough in the first place to go along to registering the birth.

It would be good to have multiple categories. So you could indicate source of the genetic material, whose womb the embryo grew in, and then the person or people with parental responsibility. On many certificates this would only be two people but allows accurate reflection of more complex cases.

The point is that while it is easy to prove the mothers identity it’s not so easy to prove the fathers identity, so a lot is taken on trust, ie they are married so he he must be the father. That is why for an unmarried couple the father has to attend the registration otherwise a woman, it is assumed, could put anyones name on the certificate.

But he has to agree to his name being on there.

It should be remembered that he can get himself added by going to court so the woman can’t keep him off it forever, she can just make him make the effort to be added.

If she's not sure she wants him to have parental responsibility for the child, the smart move it to register the birth herself and leave his name off it.

If the man wants to be on the birth certificate and the parents arent married, he has to attend with the mother to register the birth.

I think the current system exists because men aren't expected to pay child support for a child they haven't acknowledged is theirs. Did you think it was designed by women to get one over on men?

The ethical onus isn’t on the mother. If the father wants to be on the birth certificate, he can make that happen.

If the parents are not married then the mother cant put the father on the birth certificate only he can by turning up to the registration appointment and declaring that he is the father himself.
If the father doesn't his only other route is a dna test and crt order.
If the parents are married the husband is automatically assumed to be the father and doesn't need to go to the registration appointment hes just automatically put on.
@Womenz whilst the birth certificate is the property of the child and in many cases the mum cant put the dad on, its only since the change in the law that gave men automatic parental rights and responsibilities by being named on the birth certificate that women are advised not to tell an abusive father about the registration appointment so he can't take the baby or continue to abuse the mother by using the child, it has to go through the crts and many wont bother and the crt orders reduce the continuing abuse.
The thing is that since the law change fewer men are signing the birth certificates and thats due in part to mothers not allowing the father to and in part to the father refusing to because if he does hes automatically liable for child maintenance

I’m not married to DP yet his name is on both our children’s certificates as he attended the appointment with me. It’s incredibly easy in that circumstance - the registrars just trusted my word that he was indeed the father.

And how could you have it any other way? What if I attended the appointment without DP and declared the father was Ryan Gosling and they just took it as true?

So what this really comes down to is not unethical mothers but feckless fathers - because as stated above, fathers can still get their names on birth certificates after the fact if they are willing to put the effort in.

I think though so many previous posters have really highlighted a key issue. Should being named on a birth certificate have any baring on PR, and I really don’t think it should. Every child should have the right to know who their parents are (the good or the bad) and have an accurate record of that but that shouldn’t automatically mean an absence father has the same rights to decide for the child as the present mother.

Whats the point of leaving the name off now with the advance of DNA a child has a good chance of finding out parentage

The ball is entirely in the bloke's court here.

He can attend with the mother of his child and be on the certificate, or, he can get himself added later through the court.

If the relationship is such that she doesn't want him anywhere nearer, then he should probably have a) not been such a jerk or b) not impregnated someone who's a jerk.

Admittedly the last two aren't foolproof, but I think most of us could probably try a bit harder than we do.

Not being on the birth certificate makes no difference to CM. If the man declares he’s not the father of a child someone claims for then DNA tests are required. Thats the case regardless of the birth certificate.