
Single mothers will be forced to name baby's father on birth certificate - or pay £200 fine
- Login to post comments
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 9:34pm
Quote:Unmarried mothers will have to include the name of their child's father on birth certificates under sweeping changes to the law unveiled yesterday.
Men who claim they are being excluded will also get the right to demand a paternity test and be formally acknowledged on registers.
The Government proposals aim to give more children the 'security' of being acknowledged by both parents.
Under its plans GPs or social workers will be asked to corroborate claims that the woman or child would be at risk by naming the father, while those who say they do not know the father's identity would have to persuade the registrar they are telling the truth.
Ministers believe that making it a legal responsibility for fathers to register births jointly with mothers will also make it easier to settle disputes over child maintenance.
Fathers who refuse to be named and mothers who do not record the father's name are liable for a £200 fine.
Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell, who won a battle against Cabinet colleagues who opposed the plan, outlined the proposals in a White Paper.
Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman is understood to have expressed concern that the system would tar some children permanently by associating them with undesirable fathers.
But Mr Purnell insisted: 'It's crucial that from the day they are born, both mum and dad recognise the role they play in their child's life and how that shapes their child's identity.
'We want to ensure that while continuing to protect vulnerable women and children, we promote parental responsibility and child welfare by significantly increasing the number of birth registrations which hold the details of both mother and father.'
In 2005 275,000 babies were born outside marriage in Britain. Every year 50,000 have the father's name left blank on their birth certificate.
The white paper would still allow mothers to omit a father's name if they can prove exceptional circumstances - including domestic violence or abuse. Children born as a result of rape or sperm donation will also be granted exemption.
Opposition MPs accused the Government of sending out mixed messages on parental responsibility.
Tory work and pensions spokesman Andrew Selous said: 'The Government has completely failed to send a clear message on the need for responsible fathers in children's lives.
'The Government must start making this a political priority by removing the penalties on couples in the tax and benefits system, recognising the contribution of family breakdown to poverty and working practically to strengthen family relationships.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023664/Unmarried-mothers-forced-babys-father-birth-certificate.ht
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 7:26am
#2
Wow. I can't believe this.
I
Wow. I can't believe this.
I didn't name BD on the birth certificate for many reasons. Including that I believe he posseses a danger to me and my child, but who knows if the government would feel the same way. I know he is unpredictable, moody, unstable, and on drugs... but what if they couldn't prove that.
Also, what about the fact that some women know the father won't be there for the kid, so she doesn't want his name on it. Well, if they do force her to put his name on the BC the deadbeat dads will be able to leave and come back whenever they please to claim the child.
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 10:10am
#3
I don't know what it's like
I don't know what it's like in Britain, but I left SD's name off the cert and it didn't affect anything. Paternity test was still obtained, he still had to pay child support, and his name is still not on the cert. I guess they're just going for this weird idea that paperwork will make guys feel more responsible? I just don't see what this is supposed to accomplish.
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 7:07am
#4
mamamayhem,
i was always
mamamayhem,
i was always told that once you obtain a paternity test, the father will get paternal rights unless otherwise stated in court. even if he is not on the cert.
i don't know if that's completely false.. but that's the reason i never went after BD for child support.
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 7:55am
#5
Here paternity and the birth
Here paternity and the birth certificate are totally different.
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 9:00am
#6
Here, the father can get
Here, the father can get parental rights even if he's not on the birth certificate if the court reasonably establishes paternity. When you are on welfare here, you have to take the father for support and to establish custody (can't get an allowance for a child that you don't have legal custody of), even though SD wasn't on the bc he still had the same responsibility to pay support and the same parental rights. (Although in my case, he was basically given no parental rights because he refused to sign the bc, didn't show up in court and was abusive)
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 10:37am
#7
Bingo. This is what
Bingo. This is what happened to me, minus the abuse. He came to the first court date, but not to any subsequent court dates (had to keep going back because he refused to pay) I was awarded custody at the first hearing (which is what will happen to you, Elyse, because you've had custody the whole time and they've never met each other). As for visitation, he was told he had the right to SUE for visitation. CS and visitation are kept separate so guys can't say they refuse to pay because we refuse to let them see the child, vice versa. Suing for visitation is something he'd have to do on his own. I was on welfare for medical, the CS was taken care of for me including a provided lawyer, which he did not receive. It's highly doubtful, Elyse, that you have the type of guy who'd do worse than threaten to sue for visitation. Every guy I've met or heard of who refuses to pay support rarely has the gumption to do anything but threaten to sue for visitation. It's a lot of time and paperwork.
As for parental rights, once you're given custody he doesn't have the right to just walk in and take your kid without visitation rights, whether or not he's on the cert. Just like joint situations where the dad takes the kid for a visit and doesn't give him back and mom can't just walk in and take him, if you don't hand your child over he can't just walk in and take it unless he's got a court order for visitation. And in situations where you've got a young kid who doesn't know this guy, they don't give unsupervised visitation even if he DOES go to the trouble of suing for it. You stand before the judge and say you want supervised until they know each other, he can't argue with that not being best for the child. Then he'd have to sue again to get the supervision lifted. Trust me honey, visitation is a pain in the ass most of them just don't want the hassle of.

Loving 27 year old mama to a 10 year old activist, a 6 year old energy ball, and a nursling due at the end of May!
Loving 27 year old mama to a 10 year old activist, a 6 year old energy ball, and a nursling due at the end of May!