UK Government to require joint birth registration - fathers recognised at last!

December 14, 2008 5:37am CST
20 years after the Children Act introduced into UK law deliberate and direct discrimination against unmarried fathers, it looks like FINALLY the government has accepted that children need two parents. Until now, unmarried mothers acquired parental responsibility on birth, unmarried fathers only acquired it if the mother chose to tell them about the child and if the mother chose to allow them to jointly register the birth. Thus the woman had a veto over whether the father was involved or not. It appears from the latest government announcement that this is to change (although no date is set). "7.10 Encouraging parents to help provide for their children is central to achieving our goal of eradicating child poverty. One of the starting points of responsible parenthood should be the duty to acknowledge your child. In June 2008 we announced our intention to promote child welfare and parental responsibility by requiring unmarried parents to jointly register the birth of their children. This is a move away from the current position where unmarried fathers have no automatic right to register the birth of their children and thereby acquire parental responsibility and there is no requirement to record the father’s identity or details in the birth register. 7.11 This position can no longer continue. We recognise that children have a right to know, and to be formally acknowledged and to be supported by, both parents, whether or not those parents live together or are involved in a relationship with each other. Joint registration will allow unmarried fathers to acquire parental responsibility and have the opportunity to fulfil their role as parents." http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/raisingexpectations/chapter7.pdf Do you agree this is well overdue? Do you agree this should automatically be back-dated for all fathers? How could this be enforced?
2 people like this
2 responses
@laydee (12798)
• Philippines
14 Dec 08
Yeah, it's actually a good thing. But the problem now is how to implement it, I mean, what if the father skipped town or something, right? Would that mean the baby won't be registered until they find him? Similarly, if those cases are exempt, then how can authorities control it if women would just say 'he skipped town' as the reason for not acknowledging him? Anyhow, it's a good step. At least children would not at least have a way of knowing who their father is. But I just wish though that we'd have a way to keep families together.
1 person likes this
14 Dec 08
Thanks for your comments - yes - it has not been thought through and the points you make are obvious questuions. we shall have to wait until the detail follows. As for keeping families together - the government culd start by reversing the discrimination against families in the benefits and tax credits system. If people were financially better off together then that would help. Plus the divorce law needs to be reformed so that people are not rewarded financially for ending a marriage where they have not contributed financially. The best thing would be to make pre-nuptial agreements legally binding, as in USA.
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Dec 08
"Plus the divorce law needs to be reformed so that people are not rewarded financially for ending a marriage where they have not contributed financially. The best thing would be to make pre-nuptial agreements legally binding, as in USA." That is a horrible idea. That would punish all stay at home moms. In the USA, prenuptial agreements aren't all that popular and it is pretty insulting if someone tries to get you to sign one.
1 person likes this
• Australia
15 Dec 08
I agree with prinzess about law reforms that could potentially penalise stay at home mums. Before saying that a mother hasn't contributed financially to a family it has to be taken into account the costs that would have occurred if she had gone out to work, all the childcare fees, additional take away foods (because she's too tired to cook from working all day), extra fuel (to and from work, dropping off and picking up children) etc. Just because a stay at home mum hasn't physically brought money into the house, her stay at home role has created serious savings for the family.
1 person likes this
• Australia
15 Dec 08
It's a good idea that will go a long way towards eradicating child poverty. However... What about all the fathers that get their woman pregnant then dump her and want nothing to do with her and the baby? Why?... because they don't want the responsibility. This is altogether too common an occurrence. You need to look at it from both sides of the argument. Yup, it increases the fathers rights... but it also increases his liabilities. As the registered father he has a financial responsibility for his child. And if he doesn't meet that obligation the government can (and will) divert end of financial year tax refunds and other government payments to support the child. That happened to my ex brother in law. He didn't pay his child support/alimony for his daughter (because, and I quote, he 'couldn't afford to'). Anyway tax time came around and he discovered that he was entitled to $2,500 tax refund and he was all excited by it... until he received a letter stating that the refund had been sent to his ex wife in lieu of child support! You should have heard him rant and rave about that one. Yes, I can just see it now... all the irresponsible fathers screaming because they've been forced to take financial responsibility for their child.
• Australia
16 Dec 08
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you entirely. A child is far better off with both parents on the scene. And yes, I know that mothers can be irresponsible also. And that it's only a small percentage of either mothers or fathers that are irresponsible. The point that I was making is that while fathers (or mothers for that matter) demand to have more rights to their children... they must also accept that more rights also means more responsibility. You can't demand one but reject the other. Wouldn't you agree? And if it's any consolation to you... yes, I agree that official income percentages payable as child support are inhibitive.