Putting husbands name on birth certificate - not the father

tori.k

Kate/Bob wrote: »

I cannot comment on the legal side of things with regard to adoption etc.

But someone made a comment about parental authority which is interesting, presumably if (heaven forbid) something happened to your SIL he would have no legal right to the child.

Could the biological father just swoop in and claim him (plus any inheritance), I would probably get this sorted soonest.

No he couldn't and talk like this is scare mongering to be honest, The child,family, courts and social sevices would decide at the time what was best for the child if the worse was ever to happen.

StickyNikki

OP I would also suggest the Adoption route also.

I went through the exact situation when I was little. Long story but when I was born my birth certificate had no fathers name registered, my mum had to go to the courts with blood test to prove who my natural father was ( and to get maintenance). After a year I had a new birth certificate with my natural fathers name (he then moved to Canada but still paid maintenance) my mum then remarried when I was 6 and at 7 my stepdad AND my mum adopted me under my step fathers name - I had an interview with the judge who asked me if had any problems with it. (obviously no) I then had another birth certificate issued with my adopted name on.

The main issue for the adoption route was for financial security if anything happened to my parents. It took out the risk/ possible legal battles regarding inheritance and parental responsibility.

I would also think it would work the other way regarding the natural father. Even though his name is not on the certificate if he died the child could still make a claim on his estate (by prvoving by DNA he is his fathers child) if the child is adopted the child loses claim on the natural fathers estate. Therefore it is also in the natural fathers interest to agree to the adoption.

GobbledyGook

tori.k wrote: »

No need to get PR, in fact most courts would only issue a PR order if it was in the child best interest as it would be removing the PR from the mother, a hospital would not refuse treatment because a step-parent gave consent in fact most kids can give consent for there own care and a doctor can give consent for emergency treatment if they feel the parents are not acting in the child best interest, there are thousands of children born in England with only one parent with PR, PR was only granted to unmarried but named Fathers since 2003, My DH has taken my lad several times to AE even a foster child that we didn't have a RO on and it's never been a issue, the hospital took the lads consent for xrays he was 14 at the time.

PR would not be removed from the mother if it was given to a step-child. Just as a father getting PR for a child he didn't have automatic PR too wouldn't. More than one person (or two people) can have PR for a child.

For someone to be given PR all those who already have it must agree (unless in exceptional circumstances)- in this case the mother and the biological father if he has PR.

More info on getting PR and step-parent adoption http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/7.html

FBaby

As already stated, it is illegal to put a father's name down on a birth certificate when you know for a fact that he isn't the father. I know someone who's been prosecuted for it, so that's definitely not the way to go. Adoption is an option, but the biological father would need to be approached and need to give his agreement, that even without PR.

I personally would suggest going for PR. It is cheaper, less troublesome, most likely that the biological father will agree and will give him some rights.

By the way PR does matter. My ex contacted my son's school about treatment, they picked up that he didn't have PR on the form and refused to discuss it with him. Not a big issue, we are not in conflict, but was a surprise to both of us!

dizziblonde

duchy wrote: »

Would the natural father be open to the step father adopting him (this would of course mean that maintaince would stop as the bio father would be giving up all parental rights)

If a blank space on a birth certificate that no-one sees (the child can use the short version which doesn't have the Mother/Father bit) means that much to your sister that she wants to pay solicitors fees and lose child support then it is possible but would need the bio father's agreement and legal consent.

I never saw the full version of my birth certificate until I was an adult (my birth details were amended when I was seven when my parents finally got married and my father was added to the certificate -something I knew nothing about until much later) and never had any problems getting a UK passport, getting married or anything else with the short version.

There's a cut-off year after which if you were born you can't give notice of marriage with the short form birth certificate (I know this one for a fact since I ONLY have a short-form one - need to order a long one - and they had to double-check my birth certificate was acceptable when we went)... plus the registrar when we went to register my daughter's birth said the short one now is only of any use for sending in with your child benefit basically (that was last month so relatively recent advice).

teeni

fawd1 wrote: »

I'm not saying your wrong because I really haven't got a clue , but how can it be possible that the mother would have to adopt him as welll??? I'm trying to imagine how that could ever work, would she have to give him up first and then what, adopt him back?

this used to be true but there has been a change, when my hubby adopted my natural children we both had to adopt them. on their new birth certificate i am named as thier adoptive mother .

Kids never really noticed until they applied to join the army and had to put me down twice once in my first married name in the natural mother section and then in the adopted mother under the name of my second marrage.

It really spun then out for a while, i beleive the thinking behind it was ( but could be wrong) that you have a different idfentity when you remarry so need to be identified seperately.

teeni

adouglasmhor wrote: »

He doesn't want to, I only found out because he went for a job interview where a birth cert was asked for, he didn't have one so took his adoption cert, the HR harridan gave him a row for not bringing his birth cert, the chairman of the charity he was applying to work for (who was on the interview panel) had to calm her down and explain why his adoption certificate was acceptable as a substitute. The demented bïtch then asked him what his surname was before he was adopted and went ballistic when he said “I don’t know I was a baby at the time”. I think he got the job because a national charity treating someone like that would have been bad publicity at the very least.

He has since found his real mum and dad and they are both adults with learning difficulties. He still doesn’t want or need a birth certificate.

when we adopted our kids the birth certificates were taken by the court and the adoption certificates issued to replace them we never had the original ones back.

My daughter used to use hers to get into pubs (before photo id was necessary) and the fact it was dated 6 years after she was born used to freak some doormen out good and proper.

daska

FBaby wrote: »

By the way PR does matter. My ex contacted my son's school about treatment, they picked up that he didn't have PR on the form and refused to discuss it with him. Not a big issue, we are not in conflict, but was a surprise to both of us!

Just to clarify: the official guidance, based on the Education Act, is that schools must treat anyone with day to day care of a child as a parent, regardless of whether they have PR.

Definition of parent

Section 576 of the Education Act 1996 defines 'parent' as

all natural parents, whether they are married or not

any person who, although not a natural parent, has parental responsibility for a child or young person

any person who, although not a natural parent, has care of a child or young person (having care of a child or young person means that a person with whom the child lives and who looks after the child, irrespective of what their relationship is with the child, is considered to be a parent in education law).

Re PR, applying for step parent PR wouldn't need the biological father's consent if he doesn't have PR himself. Only the mum and the stepdad would need to fill in the forms, they would then pay the fee and submit them to the court. It wouldn't remove any rights from the biological dad or affect inheritance, but it would be a tangible proof of the stepfather's commitment if the child ever needed reassurance (and if the worst happened).

kaya64

you can change his name through deed poll, my brother did the same thing for his step son, they changed it when the child was four and from that moment on he was known by that name, he is 25 now and his passport and everything is his sterp fathers name, this way the mother still has legal guardianship for the child until he is 18, its the cheapest and easiest way .

duchy

Thinking about it my ex husband was the same . When his mother remarried she had his name changed by deed poll to her new husband's name and nothing more.

For myself I was originally registered under my Mother's name as she and my father weren't married although she used his surname and they let everyone assume they were married (long story involving family disapproval and religion). Apparently she scratched out my legal surname on my medical card when I was a baby and wrote my father's name instead -and no-one batted an eyelid. I was even registered for school under that name so when they did wed seven years later nothing changed for me. I'm sure she wouldn't have got away with that nowdays -but then she probably wouldn't have felt the need as attitudes in the early sixties were very different towards unwed mothers compared to today.