Which name is now their legal surname?

Mojisola

shellsuit wrote: »

You don't need to do that at all.

I wasn't married when I had my youngest.

I was Miss C when I gave birth to him, not Mrs D and I'm quite happy for it to stay that way.

How does that work though, 'not legally products of the marriage' if there was no marriage when the child/ren was born?

It could cause problems with inheritance in the future. If a new certificate is issued or the father was named on the original one, there shouldn't be an problem.

If the father isn't named and he died intestate, his children would have to prove that they were his genetic children in order to inherit. The time following a death is bad enough without having to get dna samples taken from the body and the children in question.

thegirlintheattic

Send in the forms with her legal name now. If that then changes you can let the school know and they will change it.

shellsuit

peachyprice wrote: »

You do need to apparently, it's a legal requirement under the Legitimacy Act 1976.

Whay happen if you don't I'm yet to find out

I'll wait for them to take me away in cuffs then

I would fight if they tried to make me anyway, I wasn't married when I had my son and I don't want his birth cert to say otherwise.

Mojisola wrote: »

It could cause problems with inheritance in the future. If a new certificate is issued or the father was named on the original one, there shouldn't be an problem.

If the father isn't named and he died intestate, his children would have to prove that they were his genetic children in order to inherit. The time following a death is bad enough without having to get dna samples taken from the body and the children in question.

My husband's name is on the birth cert.

rachbc

peachyprice wrote: »

You do need to apparently, it's a legal requirement under the Legitimacy Act 1976.

Whay happen if you don't I'm yet to find out

what happens is that if the father dies intestate is that they won't inherit as they aren't legitimate

SS - I feel the smae as you - I don't want to re-reg my daughter like the fact we weren't married is a big dirty secret. I haven't done so but you just need to be aware of the inheritance issue

Mojisola

shellsuit wrote: »

My husband's name is on the birth cert.

The Legitimacy Act wouldn't apply in your case as the children's father is on the birth certificate.

If the parents are unmarried, the father has to attend (or fill in the relevant legal forms) for his name to be put on the BC. Not all unmarried fathers could or would do this. If the parents later married, the law makes provision for the BCs to be changed, making the children legitimate and therefore legal heirs of the father.

Incidentally, any children born while the woman is married are assumed to be children of the marriage (regardless of whether her husband was the father) and so his legitimate heirs, unless another man allows himself to be named on the BC.

If there was no father listed on the BCs, it would be worth getting the certs changed.

peachyprice

rachbc wrote: »

what happens is that if the father dies intestate is that they won't inherit as they aren't legitimate

OH has a will so that is a non-issue. He is also on the birth cert.

What I meant was how would 'they' enforce it. It's a legal requirement, with no way of the powers that be checking whether it has been carried out.

peachyprice

Mojisola wrote: »

The Legitimacy Act wouldn't apply in your case as the children's father is on the birth certificate.

If the parents are unmarried, the father has to attend (or fill in the relevant legal forms) for his name to be put on the BC. Not all unmarried fathers could or would do this. If the parents later married, the law makes provision for the BCs to be changed, making the children legitimate and therefore legal heirs of the father.

Incidentally, any children born while the woman is married are assumed to be children of the marriage (regardless of whether her husband was the father) and so his legitimate heirs, unless another man allows himself to be named on the BC.

If there was no father listed on the BCs, it would be worth getting the certs changed.

It makes no difference whether or not the father is on the birth cert. the child/ren still have to be re-registered after their parents marriage under the Legitimacy Act.

Madness, I know.

Mojisola

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/31

Re-registration of birth of legitimated person.

(1)It shall be the duty of the parents of a legitimated person or, in cases where re-registration can be effected on information furnished by one parent and one of the parents is dead, of the surviving parent to furnish to the Registrar General information with a view to obtaining the re-registration of the birth of that person within 3 months after the date of the marriage by virtue of which he was legitimated.

(2)The failure of the parents or either of them to furnish information as required by subjection (1) above in respect of any legitimated person shall not affect the legitimation of that person.

(3)This section does not apply in relation to a person who was legitimated otherwise than by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his parents.

(4)Any parent who fails to give information as required by this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £2.

As shellsuit's children have their father's name on their BCs, they are already legitimised.

Also worth reading - https://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Registeringlifeevents/Birthandadoptionrecords/Registeringorchangingabirthrecord/DG_175618

peachyprice

Mojisola wrote: »

(3)This section does not apply in relation to a person who was legitimated otherwise than by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his parents.


As shellsuit's children have their father's name on their BCs, they are already legitimised.

Also worth reading - www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Registeringlifeevents/Birthandadoptionrecords/Registeringorchangingabirthrecord/DG_175618

I read that to mean that if a child is legitimised my means other than marriage (don't what 'otherwise' would be, adoption perhaps) it doesn't apply.

I didn't think just putting a fathers name on the birth certificate made a child legitimate, does it? By the very definition of the word 'legitimate' until you are married a child will be illegitimate regardless of who is on the birth cert.

Mojisola

peachyprice wrote: »

I read that to mean that if a child is legitimised my means other than marriage (don't what 'otherwise' would be, adoption perhaps) it doesn't apply.

I didn't think just putting a fathers name on the birth certificate made a child legitimate, does it? By the very definition of the word 'legitimate' until you are married a child will be illegitimate regardless of who is on the birth cert.

It would be interesting to get a legal viewpoint - is there anyone on MSE who would know?

If the father's name is on the birth certificate then he has recognised the child as his. A new birth certificate registered after marriage would show exactly the same information, unless the parents wanted to show a change of surname but that can be done by other means.