Originally Posted by Kim_x:
“Bianca wasn't married at the time of Morgan's birth, so there was no presumption that the father was a particular person. I'd imagine they didn't take Morgan with them to register the birth, since the registrar would only have had to look at him to realise that Bianca and Tony were comitting fraud (putting a man's name down as the father when you know he can't be.)
It's what I heard, but the biological father would only have to go down the DNA route if it bothered him that he wasn't on the certificate. Had Alfie been on Tommy's, it wouldn't have been an issue, as Michael never gave a toss about Tommy except as a consolation prize when Janine took off with Scarlett, or when the rest of the family turned against him.
I can see the logic in a husband being listed until proved otherwise - what's to stop a woman estranged (but not divorced) from her husband taking her new partner along and saying he's the father when he isn't, cutting the real father off and denying him any rights in the process? DNA tests need the permission of the mother or a court I believe, so far easier for the mother's new partner to obtain one in this situation than an estranged husband.”
If you aren't married then the father has to be there when you register the baby to be added to the birth certificate. if you are married then you can add your husbands name without him being there wether he is the father or not.
DNA tests only come into play to prove/disprove who the father is. In the olden days women could put any tom dick or harry down without the father or who she wanted to be the father knowing.
in the alfie, michael kat scenario. if alfie had been put as the father, then michael could of had a test to. prove he was and have alfie removed and him added. its not a matter of course to have dna tests to prove the father unless you are the scummy ppl who belong on jeremy kyle