Advice about BirthCertificate??

[purpledahlia]

If he threatened your child, and you, then i dont even see why you would consider putting him on and handing over rights to him.

I didnt get asked why/who or anything about FOB when i registered ava. Simply said hes not going on and she said ok and did a line through the space.

Im not sure about the law's in canada... but i wouldnt put him on.

 

[karamel]

If he threatened your child, and you, then i dont even see why you would consider putting him on and handing over rights to him.

I didnt get asked why/who or anything about FOB when i registered ava. Simply said hes not going on and she said ok and did a line through the space.

Im not sure about the law's in canada... but i wouldnt put him on.

My only concern is if I dont put him on the BC and then he fights for rights ; wouldn't that put me in a bad position for not putting him on in the first place, knowing he is the father?

 

[purpledahlia]

Not if hes violent and you have genuine concerns and reasons for not putting him on? Violence and threats will stand against him in court...

 

[bek74]

Alright ; last night here was the debate in my household :

Should I put FOBs name on the BC or not?

I don't particularily want him to have any rights to the child (mean, i know, but he's not a good person) ; and I couldn't care less about child support. He currently has a 6 y/o that he pays $221 a month for. So it's not like it'd be a substantial amount.
Even if he were to have rights, I would be telling the courts I only want him to be allowed supervised visitation if anything.
But ;

I have a feeling that FOB is going to fight for his rights to this child. But, I also know he can't afford DNA testing or anything if he's not listed as the father on the BC. But I'm sure he'll find a way to pay for it.

So what do you all think would be easier? Just to put him on the BC, go for sole custody with no access ; or not put him on the BC and have him have to fight for rights (if he chooses to). Like i said, the child support isn't really something I'm worried about ; but if his name is on the BC, then I'll have to go for CS as my assistance with income when the baby is born will make me do so. As a single mother, they'll force it. FOB not on BC means I never have to deal with him again, unless like i said, he fights to see the baby.

I just really don't know what to do. And I also don't know if it'll come back to bite me in the ass if I DONT put him on the BC, knowing damn well he's the father.

I'm thinking I should consult a lawyer about the whole thing ; but I'm really just not sure what to do!
And advice would be amazing

I live in Aussie so things work differently over here. Here if you fail to put the correct information on the BC you can get in alot of trouble as it is a LEGAL document, not only that. If the father claims to be the father and takes the matter further, yes he will have to pay the DNA testing and if it comes out positive he is the father then he can sue you to recover his court and DNA expenses so in actual fact it won't cost him anything in the log run. Not to mention the fact that your were dishonest won't help your custody case.

I know alot of posters have suggested NOT to put him on, but threats and violence acts have nothing to do with putting false, incorrect information on a LEGAL document. If you have concerns regarding violence etc then you will need to take the CORRECT LEGAL approach.

You could not put him on as others have done and I guess their ex's haven't taken the matter further, but in your case you feel your ex may take it further, in the long run it could cost you alot, money and possibly custody.

I would go the honest legal way and apply for sole custody. Just don't do anything you may regret, yes you may have a long road ahead of you, but by the sounds if it, that will be the case either way, so in my opinion I would go the LEGAL way.

 

[purpledahlia]

Its not illegal to not name the father here. Infact you cant put him on here, He has to be there and sign himself. Some people dont know the fathers of their kids..

 

[karamel]

I think what I'll do is contact a lawyer and get their advice as well.
Not that I don't appreciate everyone who's given me advice ; but I'd rather be safe that sorry.
If i have to ; I'll go for sole custody the moment the baby is born.
I just don't want to end up screwed because of anything.

 

[purpledahlia]

I dont understand, your not loosing anything by not putting him on, hes a violent dangerous man! you dont need to go for sole custody - he has no rights if hes not on it. even if he fights to get put on it, he will never get custody if hes threatened your lifes. so it doesnt really matter? if you put him on your giving him access and rights... why would you do that for a man who threatened to cut open your stomach and take out your child? I would definatley just ignore him, move, and dont put him on the BC. if he fights he will have to pay and will probably loose. I dont really understand why you think he would get sole custody?

 

[karamel]

It's not my concern that he'd get sole custody.
My concern is not putting him on the BC and him fighting it because he knows damn well he's the father. There would be more drama and b.s. by not putting him on, than by putting him on and going for solecustody with no access the moment the bean is born.
I know damn well he'd never get custody ; and as long as i took it to court, he'd never get access or anything of the sort.
It's basically to avoid the unwanted drama from him. Which i know there will be lots ; if he's not named the father. He can't do anything about me going for solecustody and such ; and even if he argued any fact in court ; he'd lose. But what he could fight would be being named father if i didn't put him down on the BC, which as i said, would just be unwanted drama and b.s.
Ugh ; why did i have to get involved with such a twisted individual.

 

[purpledahlia]

In the UK if you put him on, (well if he goes and is with you and is put on) then your handing over 50% parental responsibility, 50% rights. Just by allowing his name on it. I wouldnt do it. By allowing him to come and sign it and be on it is giving him a ledge to stand on imo. which he doesnt deserve,

 

[purpledahlia]

I'd say let him fight, he will have to pay for a dna and all the costs.. its not going to come out your pocket, and you have a completely valid reason so its not going to go against you,

 

[teal]

I'd say let him fight, he will have to pay for a dna and all the costs.. its not going to come out your pocket, and you have a completely valid reason so its not going to go against you,

I agree.

It's not something that's going to go against you because you have good reason for not wanting to have him on the birth certificate.

Does he not have to be present to be named on the birth certificate?

 

[karamel]

I'd say let him fight, he will have to pay for a dna and all the costs.. its not going to come out your pocket, and you have a completely valid reason so its not going to go against you,

I agree.

It's not something that's going to go against you because you have good reason for not wanting to have him on the birth certificate.

Does he not have to be present to be named on the birth certificate?

I have no idea if he has to be there or not. And if he does ;; well then that saves me lots of hassle, because he won't be there.

 

[purpledahlia]

check out your local registry office's rules online, im sure it will say if he has to be there, not sure about canadian law.

 

[FBbaby]

a birth certificate is not a document aiming at giving parents rights, it is a document for the child to know who his/her birth parents are. Personally, I find it unfair to decide to leave his name out, no matter what has happened until now. Yes, it sounds like he has some serious issues, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the biological father and your child has a right to have a document that makes it official.

Deciding whether he should have rights or not is a totally different matter. In the end, you don't have to hand over your baby if you are worried, whether he is on the birth certificate or not, and you can leave it to him to take you to court. The judge can then decide what is best for the child. In the end, if he is determine to have contact and takes you to court, the judge will automatically order the name to be added anyway. If he isn't bothered and disappear anyway, then you won't have to worry about it, but at least your child will have an official document knowing that she has a known dad.

 

[purpledahlia]

a birth certificate is not a document aiming at giving parents rights, it is a document for the child to know who his/her birth parents are. Personally, I find it unfair to decide to leave his name out, no matter what has happened until now. Yes, it sounds like he has some serious issues, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the biological father and your child has a right to have a document that makes it official.

Deciding whether he should have rights or not is a totally different matter. In the end, you don't have to hand over your baby if you are worried, whether he is on the birth certificate or not, and you can leave it to him to take you to court. The judge can then decide what is best for the child. In the end, if he is determine to have contact and takes you to court, the judge will automatically order the name to be added anyway. If he isn't bothered and disappear anyway, then you won't have to worry about it, but at least your child will have an official document knowing that she has a known dad.

Actually, if you google it and do some more reaserch you will see by putting the father on the BC DOES automatically give him 50% parental responsibility and rights to the childs life for the next 18 years.

He could stop you moving somewhere.. going on a long holiday abroad.. lots of things. The two are linked very closely.

The abbreviated BC doesnt have either parent on it anyway. only the full one has parents details and i for one am very glad the FOB is not on it. no way is he having control over simple things like where i choose to live, what school my child goes too, religion, etc.

 

[purpledahlia]

A DNA test can make it official without handing over rights

 

[purpledahlia]

some quotes on the topic found online




If your child has no name on the birth certificate it limits the father's automatic rights, so depending upon the current state of your relationship with him you may or may not wish to include his name. If it's a purely financial question, it's less likely he'll have to pay automatically if he's absent on the certificate, but if he's a cause for concern in other ways then you'll probably want to leave him off as it makes it much harder for him to cause difficulty to you later on. You can tell your child who their father is should you choose to, you really don't need to have it written on the birth certificate and if you are unmarried he'll have to be present and agree before his name can be included anyway.Think about all the pros and cons carefully before you decide as the wrong choice could make things very difficult for you either financially or in terms of personal freedom.

I think it's actually common sense. As nice as the ideal idea of having the father's name on the birth certifictae is theoretically, it could potentially lead to all sorts of trouble. If she has her baby and plans to look after it then clearly she is entitled to parental responsibility, but all too often there are indifferent or psychopathically jealous ex partners that would merely seek to destroy someone's personal happiness with that responsibility. If he's a nice guy fair enough but not everyone is ( male or female) and common sense dictates that if he's a pain in the backside prat then he shouldn't have it ( and I'm a man btw , so this isn't a feminist rant).

Putting a man's name on a birth certificate gives him legal rights which if his name is not present he does not have.The term "parental responsibility" simply means that he has an equal say in the childs upbringing with the childs mother.

https://www.separateddads.co.uk/SeparationRightsForFathers.html

Naming the father on a birth certificate

If the parents are married both have to have their names registered.

If the parents are not married the following points are important:-

* the mother does not have to give details of the father on the birth certificate. She can leave that part of the form blank
* the father cannot register his name unless the mother agrees
* when both the mother and father agree to the father’s name being registered they can go to the office together. However, if only one of the parents goes to the registrar’s office s/he has to have a document called a declaration, signed by the other parent, to prove that each agrees to the father’s name being added. There are special forms available at the Registrar’s office to make the declaration
* the mother can register the father as being the father if she has a court order declaring that he is the father.

From 4 May 2006, an unmarried father who jointly registers the birth of his child with the child’s mother will automatically acquire full parental responsibilities and rights towards the child and he will share these with the child’s mother. An unmarried father who jointly registered the birth of his child before that date will not suddenly acquire these rights. He would have to enter into a parental responsibilities agreement with the child’s mother or go to court to acquire these rights and responsibilities.

Registering a father on a child's birth certificate may also have the following effects:-

* the Child Support Agency or the courts could use the certificate as evidence of paternity for maintenance proceedings
* the courts could use the certificate as evidence of adultery
* the father could use the certificate as evidence if he wants to apply to the courts for parental rights and responsibilities
* the certificate gives very strong evidence that he is the father because his name can only be added if both the mother and father agree that he is the father or a court order states that he is
* the child will have information about who both parents are.

 

[purpledahlia]

double post

 

[rewizz]

well here in england the father has to go with you to have his name on bc ... so up to you .. i'm having that dilema too .. we only have 3 weeks to register .. and my plan is if he doesn't mention it .. then neither will i and his name will not be on ...
can't say fairer than that i'm not here to remind him of jack anymore and if he doesn't do his own reasearch why should i point these facts out to him !!! mmmmmmm
lalalalalalalalalalala
de
da !!!!!!!!

 

[purpledahlia]

yeah same in scotland rewizz.. he has to be there and only got 21 days to register her..
I had the same plan.. if he doesnt mention it neither will i! he didnt! (but then he would need to actually TALK to me to mention it, and he didnt.