It sounds to me as though you were planning to stick with tradition and give the baby the father's surname, but because of his actions you are changing your mind about this as a way of punishing him. You will know deep down if this is true.
I dare say some of the posters here think giving the baby your surname is some kind of victory for feminism as well.
Just think carefully about your decision and the longterm and don't start using your child as some kind of pawn in a game before it is even born.
What a load of rubbish - it's as if the past 100 odd years never existed!
What gives a man the automatic right to have their surname applied to a child they are not interested in?
Your thinking clearly comes from a very warped place - possibly a misogynistic place - but certainly one informed by ignorance, lack of sense and where women are to be put down.
IANAL, but he either has to be present for you to use his name, or you have to be married to register his surname without him being there. So unless he turns up on the day you register the birth, you've got no choice anyway.
No she can still use his surname or any name she wants but the father part of the certificate will be left blank it only gets filled in if he is present, if she chooses to she can call the child rainbow kitten
Use your own name. It'll stop awkward questions at airports if you share a surname, and she's your child.
It's not just questions really. I have a friend who didn't marry the father of her child, although they were all together. The son has his father's surname. However, her partner died when the child was a baby, and she often struggles to travel with her son - she has got into the habit of producing her partner's death certificate and her son's birth certificate to prove that she is his only legal guardian and that she isn't abducting him.
What a load of rubbish - it's as if the past 100 odd years never existed!
What gives a man the automatic right to have their surname applied to a child they are not interested in?
Your thinking clearly comes from a very warped place - possibly a misogynistic place - but certainly one informed by ignorance, lack of sense and where women are to be put down.
Just very weird!!
Oh, wind your neck in Mr or Mrs. Politically Correct Crusader.
My thinking comes from reading the OP's posts. It is the OP who is debating which surname the child should have, so the OP (a WOMAN) is clearly quite accepting of the tradition of children taking their father's surname - as are the majority of women.
The issue is the extent to which the father is likely to be involved in the child's life and whether the choice of surname should be decided by that. If the father does intend to play absolutely no part in the child's life, it stands to reason that the child should take the mother's name.
My original post was a cautionary one advising the OP not to make a decision based on animosity towards the father. Unlike everyone else, I didn't TELL her what to do.
I had a similar situation when I was pregnant. I gave my son my surname because I was unsure how he would be as a father and I wouldn't inflict his name on my child if he turned out to be worthless. So his birth certificate has my name. As it happened he was and is a great father, the best I could hope for. And so when my boy was a year old I changed his name by deed poll and now he has his dad's surname which is what I wanted originally. Even though we aren't together we are friends , and I don't regret changing his name, or giving him my name first. You always have the same option I did. Good luck with the birth and I hope your baby is happy and healthy
Oh, wind your neck in Mr or Mrs. Politically Correct Crusader.
My thinking comes from reading the OP's posts. It is the OP who is debating which surname the child should have, so the OP (a WOMAN) is clearly quite accepting of the tradition of children taking their father's surname - as are the majority of women.
The issue is the extent to which the father is likely to be involved in the child's life and whether the choice of surname should be decided by that. If the father does intend to play absolutely no part in the child's life, it stands to reason that the child should take the mother's name.
My original post was a cautionary one advising the OP not to make a decision based on animosity towards the father. Unlike everyone else, I didn't TELL her what to do.
Oh dear.
I seem to have touched a nerve there to have evoked such a rude and aggressive response after my reply to your ridiculous post.
You clearly display a lot of the traits of someone bound up by entrenched paternalism and intolerance. You also seem to be someone who sees political correctness - at least your wonky interpretation of it - at work whenever your strange views are challenged.
Am I detecting baggage??
If I had the inclination I'd go through your original post to highlight your sexism and warped viewpoint but I guess most people will see that for themselves.
Don't know if this has already been posted but if you are unmarried when you register the birth, you cannot name the father or give his name as the surname unless he goes with you to state that he is the father. Obviously this is to stop women naming anyone they like as the father of their child.
My advice to the OP would be to talk it over with the baby's father. If he is completely uninterested then he doesn't have to be named at all and the child can just have her surname.
I admit to having only skimmed some of the posts here. But what is the problem? The OP / mother is not married to the father of her baby - so how can she declare the baby's surname as the same as the father? Surely this would require DNA testing and the father's acknowledgement and consent.
In the meantime - register your baby under your surname - and make sure you get every penny from the father under child support.
Give your baby your surname, also get rid of the father from your life, or he will only cause you problems in the future.
It may also be advisable NOT to register him as the father.
I seem to have touched a nerve there to have evoked such a rude and aggressive response after my reply to your ridiculous post.
You clearly display a lot of the traits of someone bound up by entrenched paternalism and intolerance. You also seem to be someone who sees political correctness - at least your wonky interpretation of it - at work whenever your strange views are challenged.
Am I detecting baggage??
If I had the inclination I'd go through your original post to highlight your sexism and warped viewpoint but I guess most people will see that for themselves.
Go on then, pop back to my original post and point out the paternalism and intolerance my tediously PC friend.
No she can still use his surname or any name she wants but the father part of the certificate will be left blank it only gets filled in if he is present, if she chooses to she can call the child rainbow kitten
My neighbour was in hospital having an operation when his girlfriend went to register the birth of their child and he had his name on the birth certificate.
2. Who can register a birth
Married parents
The mother or father can register the birth on their own and include both parents’ details if they were married when the baby was born or conceived.
Unmarried parents
The details of both parents can be included on the birth certificate if they do one of the following:
sign the birth register together
one parent completes a statutory declaration of parentage form and the other takes the signed form to register the birth
one parent goes to register the birth with a document from the court (for example, a court order) giving the father parental responsibility
If he doesn't go with her to register the birth then she can't put his name on the certificate without a court document or signed form.
Don't know if this has already been posted but if you are unmarried when you register the birth, you cannot name the father or give his name as the surname unless he goes with you to state that he is the father. Obviously this is to stop women naming anyone they like as the father of their child.
My advice to the OP would be to talk it over with the baby's father. If he is completely uninterested then he doesn't have to be named at all and the child can just have her surname.
I admit to having only skimmed some of the posts here. But what is the problem? The OP / mother is not married to the father of her baby - so how can she declare the baby's surname as the same as the father? Surely this would require DNA testing and the father's acknowledgement and consent.
In the meantime - register your baby under your surname - and make sure you get every penny from the father under child support.
She can give whatever surname she chooses too... She can put her surname, the father's surname or any other surname she wants to; she could give her baby the surname Obama if she wanted to.
There is no legal requirement to prove who the surname came from.
Why would he not be on the birth certificate and why should he denied PR?
If they are not married, if he does not attend the registers office his name cannot go on the certificate therefore he does not get parental responsibility, no one is denying him it, it is how it works otherwise you could say brad Pitts the father and he is not there to back it up or deny it. There is a form that can be completed by the father some kind of parental declaration that can be presented in his absence.
If they are not married, if he does not attend the registers office his name cannot go on the certificate therefore he does not get parental responsibility, no one is denying him it, it is how it works otherwise you could say brad Pitts the father and he is not there to back it up or deny it. There is a form that can be completed by the father some kind of parental declaration that can be presented in his absence.
There have been a number of posts that have implied this. Some more blatant than others.
So, he doesn't have to be there to have his name on the certificate, that's all you had to say.
No he doesn't... But by the same token she can't just go and put his name on the birth certificate.
In the case of your neighbour I would guess that he if could have been there then he would have been, and so he would have happily signed the required forms in order for his girlfriend to put him on the birth certificate.
In the case of the OP it would be fair to assume that if the dad doesn't want to go to register the birth then he probably won't want to fill in the form to allow the OP to put him on the birth certificate.
Hopefully he'll man-up once the baby is here and they'll go to register the baby together, it was simply being pointed out to the OP that if he doesn't show up to the registration or if he doesn't want to be involved when their daughter is here then she can't put his name on the birth certificate.
Comments
What a load of rubbish - it's as if the past 100 odd years never existed!
What gives a man the automatic right to have their surname applied to a child they are not interested in?
Your thinking clearly comes from a very warped place - possibly a misogynistic place - but certainly one informed by ignorance, lack of sense and where women are to be put down.
Just very weird!!
No she can still use his surname or any name she wants but the father part of the certificate will be left blank it only gets filled in if he is present, if she chooses to she can call the child rainbow kitten
It's not just questions really. I have a friend who didn't marry the father of her child, although they were all together. The son has his father's surname. However, her partner died when the child was a baby, and she often struggles to travel with her son - she has got into the habit of producing her partner's death certificate and her son's birth certificate to prove that she is his only legal guardian and that she isn't abducting him.
Oh, wind your neck in Mr or Mrs. Politically Correct Crusader.
My thinking comes from reading the OP's posts. It is the OP who is debating which surname the child should have, so the OP (a WOMAN) is clearly quite accepting of the tradition of children taking their father's surname - as are the majority of women.
The issue is the extent to which the father is likely to be involved in the child's life and whether the choice of surname should be decided by that. If the father does intend to play absolutely no part in the child's life, it stands to reason that the child should take the mother's name.
My original post was a cautionary one advising the OP not to make a decision based on animosity towards the father. Unlike everyone else, I didn't TELL her what to do.
Oh dear.
I seem to have touched a nerve there to have evoked such a rude and aggressive response after my reply to your ridiculous post.
You clearly display a lot of the traits of someone bound up by entrenched paternalism and intolerance. You also seem to be someone who sees political correctness - at least your wonky interpretation of it - at work whenever your strange views are challenged.
Am I detecting baggage??
If I had the inclination I'd go through your original post to highlight your sexism and warped viewpoint but I guess most people will see that for themselves.
My advice to the OP would be to talk it over with the baby's father. If he is completely uninterested then he doesn't have to be named at all and the child can just have her surname.
In the meantime - register your baby under your surname - and make sure you get every penny from the father under child support.
Why on Earth not?
I am not sure that's how it works.
Why is that an issue?
Why would he not be on the birth certificate and why should he denied PR?
Go on then, pop back to my original post and point out the paternalism and intolerance my tediously PC friend.
I'll be here waiting for you.
My neighbour was in hospital having an operation when his girlfriend went to register the birth of their child and he had his name on the birth certificate.
https://www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-can-register-a-birth
If he doesn't go with her to register the birth then she can't put his name on the certificate without a court document or signed form.
She can give whatever surname she chooses too... She can put her surname, the father's surname or any other surname she wants to; she could give her baby the surname Obama if she wanted to.
There is no legal requirement to prove who the surname came from.
If they are not married, if he does not attend the registers office his name cannot go on the certificate therefore he does not get parental responsibility, no one is denying him it, it is how it works otherwise you could say brad Pitts the father and he is not there to back it up or deny it. There is a form that can be completed by the father some kind of parental declaration that can be presented in his absence.
I've done it twice:D so I have some knowledge in the area
So, he doesn't have to be there to have his name on the certificate, that's all you had to say.
And as we have established, he doesn't have to be there.
There have been a number of posts that have implied this. Some more blatant than others.
Not sure what you're getting at?
Again I'm not quite sure of the point you are trying to convey
No he doesn't... But by the same token she can't just go and put his name on the birth certificate.
In the case of your neighbour I would guess that he if could have been there then he would have been, and so he would have happily signed the required forms in order for his girlfriend to put him on the birth certificate.
In the case of the OP it would be fair to assume that if the dad doesn't want to go to register the birth then he probably won't want to fill in the form to allow the OP to put him on the birth certificate.
Hopefully he'll man-up once the baby is here and they'll go to register the baby together, it was simply being pointed out to the OP that if he doesn't show up to the registration or if he doesn't want to be involved when their daughter is here then she can't put his name on the birth certificate.