Fine for the single mothers who do not name the father of their babies on birth certificate

[AB Asks]

The changes to the law were unveiled yesterday where mothers must include the name of their babies' fathers on birth certificates. It will give men who feel they are being excluded to be formally acknowledged on registers. It is hoped that the new changes will make children feel more secure as they will have been 'acknowledged by both parents'. Social workers and GPs will work together to make sure that claims that a child may be at harm if their father is named are true, also those women who say they do not know who the father is will have to persuade the registrar that this is the truth. If either mother or father refuses to cooperate they will be liable for a �200 fine. What do you think?

[Lakitu]

Having a name on a piece of paper doesn't automatically equal acknowledgement.

If I really felt strongly enough about not having the fathers name on the birth certificate, then �200 is a small price to pay.

[redcrx]

how can they prove that they dont know who the father is?

[ruby27]

It would seem as usual that the AB ask's is a little bit exaggerated.

" there is little that the proposed new law can do if the mother does not want to identify the father and he does not want to be named. ( So where is the GP and the social workers coming in to the scenario) Government sources said yesterday that they would not be expecting registrars to �do the impossible�. Registrars will be allowed to use their judgment and allow sole registrations if getting both parents� names would be �impossible, impractical or unreasonable�. That would cover cases where the father�s identify is unknown or the woman is a victim of abuse.

[Gromit]

All very laudable aims.

Wonder if it is just a coincidence that the 275,000 fathers who are currently omitted from the birth certificates will be expected to pay for their children's keep. Why do the government not state this as one of the aims of the new legislation.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-102366 4/Unmarried-mothers-forced-babys-father-birth- certificate.html

[Goodsoulette]

How does this work exactly then? Can we just name any old so and so? How would I have got my ex to the registry office, presuming he has to be there? What if they contest it?


Lots of questions surrounding this. Im not sure how practical it is.

[nedflanders]

I can just see it, Karen Matthews registers her next child at the registrars office
"So madam you dont know the fathers name?, you do realise this could cost you a �200 fine"
"well it could 'av been me cousin, or his brother, or me husband but he's in jail the now so it couldn't av bin i'm or his uncle cos he was in nick as well, might av been me brover tho"

[vehelpfulguy]

and as most of these mothers are probably on benefits they will either not pay the fine, or if they do then they will say they can only afford �5 a week.

Then they will go to the benefits people and say they are hard up because they have had to pay the fine so can they have some more money.

Yet another example of the crazy benefit riddled society we live in.

[jake-the-peg]

I think you have to look at this from the perspective of the child.

How would you feel if you had never known who your father was and your mother refused to tell you?

You might feel OK about it but you might well feel that it was your right to know

[ruby27]

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id =2008_0105

Explains the changes, which are hardly very dramatic.

Can not find any information about the �200 fine, could it be AB asks is making this up?

[tiggerblue10]

What if the fathers don't want anything to do with the baby. I know someone who has recently had a baby and the father of the child is denying its his. Will the mother get fined in this circumstance?

[jake-the-peg]

2. Father�s obligation to register

Where the mother wants joint registration, but the father does not, the mother can provide information that allows the registrar to contact the father, who will be obliged to take a paternity test. If he is proven to be the father then the child will be jointly registered.

[DarkMajes71c]

gd idea in theory but there are just way to many holes. i guess there trying to encourage women to only have a baby if they are with the father otherwise they will have to pay a �200 fine. small price for the benefits though.

[R1Geezer]

They could always put what Trigger's mum put.....

"Some soldiers"!

[joggerjayne]

Wotcha Geez.

I haven't seen you posting anything for a few days.

J x

[scorpious321]

I feel if a mother does not provide a fathers name on the birth certificate then she should not be allowed to get any child benefit. I have nown 3 mothers that have no fathers name on them and and seperated and are getting money from the fathers in one hand and money from the state in the other ?

[Goodsoulette]

and what about those of us, that got dumped whilst we were pregnant? TOo late to change your mind! and father disappears.

What makes other women more entitled to it? I know women who have done that and the fathers name is on the birth certificate so I say no child benefit for anyone!!!!!!!!!

[Dr-Legend]

I can see the point that a child has the right to know no matter how good or bad their father or their mothers wishes.Surely if the father was good enough to get into her pabts hes good enougfh to get on the certificate?If thats not the case then maybe birth control or self control would be a better idea?
As one user said earlier the likes of karen matthews seem to wander about like a bitch on heat getting pregnant by any tom dick or harry.
If theyve got such concernabout a name then they should be a bit choosier .

No?

[Dr-Legend]

Ooops should read into her pants.But im sure you worked that out eh ?

[Mully79]

So what happens if the baby was the result of a rape? Surely the "father's" name should be allowed to be omitted? Wouldn't it be traumatic enough for a woman without having to put the name on the birth certificate or face a fine?

I am sure there are many other reasons why this just wouldn't work, despite obviously good intentions for the children caught up in such circumstances.