General Chat

From another angle, this could cause some huge problems regarding adoption. I'm adopted and as far as I know my father wasn't named on my birth certificate - I only know his age and forenames from the information my adoptive parents were given and which they kept for me.

Given that my father was married to someone other than my mother when I was born (and I've never known whether she knew about me or not), if I had my father's full name and had a mind to make contact, that could cause some huge problems. I assume there would be safeguards against that kind of thing, though?

Talking about Jeremy Kyle,

Am I correct in thinking that before you get to appear on the show you have to have a test to prove you have one or more missing genes?

i wounder about all thease new rules
if thay want fathers name on birth cert then why shouldent the child have fathers sername and not mother sername
if thay are unmarried

to me the farther dont seem to get a chouse in that one
what the mother want the mother gets

i just feel its a little unfare on good loveing fathers

It is a true saying that only your mother knows for certain who is your father. Mind you in this day and age they don't and go to Jeremy Kyle!!

as a side note if a couple are married but seperatred and the wife has a child by a different man; who is not the husband ;but who is not a part of her life when the child is born, there is absolutly nothing to stop her putting the husbands name as the father because as he is still legally married to her he would not have to be presant to sign the register !!!

( hope that makes sence?)

From the Times, 2008

I now vaguely remember hearing something about this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4052091.ece

All fathers will be required to sign their baby’s birth certificate under a change in the law designed to ensure that both parents are involved in a child’s life.

The law will give birth registrars powers to pursue reluctant fathers who do not want to be named. It will also prevent mothers from keeping the name of the father off the birth certificate because a relationship has broken up acrimoniously.

The responsibility to register a baby’s birth presently lies entirely with the mother. No questions are asked if she chooses to leave the “father” section blank on the certificate.

The new law, to form part of the Welfare Reform Bill in the autumn, applies to unmarried couples. When a couple are married, the names of both parents are automatically entered on the birth certificate. About 50,000 babies each year, or 7 per cent of the total, are “sole-registered” with only their mother’s name on the certificate.

Ministers said that the move would put parental responsibility centre stage. James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said: “Registering a child’s birth isn’t just a legal requirement, it’s a lifetime commitment by both parents to safeguard their child's development, health and welfare, and provide them with direction and guidance throughout childhood.”

Under the new scheme, if a mother attempts to register the birth in her name alone, she will be asked by the registrar to name the father. If she wants him to be named and provides details of his whereabouts or workplace, the registrar will be obliged to pursue him until he signs. The father will be able to register by post and not be obliged to turn up in person — another significant change.

If the father disputes paternity, he can take a DNA test. He will also face a fine for non-cooperation if he fails to fulfil the new requirement to register.

If the father wants to be named and the mother opposes the move, he can contact the registrar and ask to sign, taking a paternity test if necessary. At present fathers in this position have to go to court to secure the powers of “parental responsibility”, then apply to re-register the birth.

But there is little that the proposed new law can do if the mother does not want to identify the father and he does not want to be named. Government sources said yesterday that they would not be expecting registrars to “do the impossible”. Registrars will be allowed to use their judgment and allow sole registrations if getting both parents’ names would be “impossible, impractical or unreasonable”. That would cover cases where the father’s identify is unknown or the woman is a victim of abuse.

The proposals, set out yesterday in a White Paper, will also establish pilot projects to allow birth registration to take place in hospitals immediately after the birth and in community centres. Parents presently have to go to their local town hall by appointment to get their child’s birth certificate.

Fathers’ organisations welcomed the announcement. Charles Kenyon, chairman of Families Need Fathers, said the move would ensure that fathers had parental responsibility in law and a right to be consulted about major decisions in their child’s life.

Duncan Fisher, the chief executive of the Fatherhood Institute, called it “a significant step” and predicted that the number of sole registrations would fall significantly.

In Australia, which has a similar system, only 3 per cent of births are sole registered.

Campaigners for single mothers called the move clumsy. Fiona Weir, the chief executive of One Parent Families, said: “We are keen to see both parents encouraged to fulfil their responsibilities, but legislation requiring a father to be named on the birth certificate is not the way to achieve this.”

Unison, which represents most registrars, said it was concerned that its members would not have the resources to fulfil their new responsibilities.

Thanks Chris and Rose

Stray some children have on their BC's the name of a man who isn't their biological father so it really doesn't go to prove anything.

i think all childen should have the father on there birth certs, if possible

obviouly there is cases were it isnt possible, but i think dna tests should be manditory if the father refuses to be named, and then shoulf be put on after proof,

i have a friend who didnt put the fathers name on the cert so they could claim seperate, i would rather be skint and allow my child to know were they really came from than have a few extra bob a week n my child always wonder if "dad" was really dad, i was discusted when i found out why she didnt name him on the cert,

Cat it was proposed in 2008, but how far it went in terms of becoming a legal requirement and actually resulting in fines I don't know.

What I did find on another site was that there were exemptions, that if the mother could convince the registrar she didn't know the identity of father ( how would the registrar know!) or there was a case for arguing it was 'unsafe' to name because of domestic abuse.


edit sorry phone went before I posted so this may be a bit late.

Apparently it was a law New Labour brought in and now is to be amended.

What law is this? I was under the impression that an unmarried mother couldn't legally put the father's name on the BD unless he was present. In fact on another site that I frequent there was a thread by a woman about how her ex, who walked out on her when she was pregnant, didn't show up for the registration so she made another appointment but decided that if he couldn't be bothered to show up for that one she was registering the birth without him on it.

Edit: having reread the op is it actually a law or simply a fine?

There are some occasions when it's better for the father not to be named on BC.

Tricky one isn't it? When D was born I didn't put his dad on birth cert ( you couldn't then without dad being there) but required to name him to CSA for DNA test or lose 6 weeks benefit ( think it was 6 weeks so same as the 'fine' I guess. )

Labour's argument for the law bought in in 2007 requiring father's name was apparently that

"Labour argued it would be easier to collect maintenance if both parents’ names were registered."

I wonder how many were fined? if any?

Yes Chris... That was my understanding of how the system worked too, although I don't remember producing a marriage certificate at the registration.....

I wonder how Labour would protect men's rights as well as the child's.

Gwyn

As I understood it some years ago the father had to be present if he wished to be named and mother could not produce a marr cert. otherwise no name of father was entered. Certainly was the case 50 years ago OH was away courtesy of HM Forces!

Our dau was in hospital after birth of baby when Registrar came around and she could not remember her maiden name. However all was not lost as Registrar happened also to be a neighbour of ours and so was able to help her out!

More unfair who is named that isnt the father !.a denial results in costly DNA tests.

How do they get over the absence of an unmarried father when the registration takes place?

Can Mum just name him (or anyone) ?

Gwyn

Apparently under Labour Gov. there were rules that a father had to be named on birth cert or else a fine was imposed. There are proposals now to lift this rule as not being altogether fair - not fair on some children - at least they had a chance of knowing who their father was.