Adoption in difficult circumstances

[morg_monster]

Sorry I know this is a sensitive subject, I don't want to offend anyone, but I was just watching Eastenders where Billy is struggling to feel like a dad to Mo's baby Freddy, who was conceived as a result of rape.  I know in circumstances where a widow remarries, the new husband can adopt the children relatively hassle free as long as mum and kids (i guess) agree.  But in a case like this, where the rapist is alive and known, would it ever be possible for the woman's husband to adopt the child as his own?  Would the father / rapist always be able to veto it?  What rights (if any) does a rapist have over a child conceived in this way?

[Miss Zippy]

In the situation you describe, the father would have no rights whatsoever over the child (unless the birth was registered since Dec 2003 and the mother and father registered the birth together - see my last sentence).  However, this isn�t because the child is a result of rape (whether or not proven in the Courts) but because the father was not married to the mother. It�s been highlighted in the press recently and by action groups just how few rights unmarried fathers actually have over their children (they cannot even sign hospital Consent forms, for example).  To have the same legal rights as the mother, an unmarried father must enter into a Parental Responsibility Agreement (�PRA�).  Where the mother agrees to the PRA, this is a very straightforward procedure � a form is completed by the mother and father and  sworn by them and then registered with the Court.   However, where the mother opposes the PRA, the father would need to apply to the Court under the Children Act to have his case heard. His case will be judged on merit, so I can�t imagine that in the situation you describe a father would be granted parental responsibility. Where there is no PRA, the mother has sole discretion over all aspects of her child�s life,  including adoption by her new partner etc. However, for births registered since December 2003, where an unmarried mother and father have registered the birth together, the father will assume some parental rights.

[Emoire]

Hi Miss Zippy. Does this mean that if I were to register a birth this year for example, that if my partner wasn't physically present at the registration but was named as the father on the certificate that he would still have no rights over the child? Is this something you would get told about at the hospital after having a baby? Thanks.

[keen2learn]

Replying to Emoire, yes, Miss Zippy is right on all counts. An unmarried father has no automatic parental rights. And unless things have changed in the very recent past, this isn't something you'd be told about in hospital as a matter of routine, unless someone just happened to know.

[dirtyharriet]

If the parents aren't married and the father isn't there at the office when the mother registers the birth then the father cannot be named.

[Miss Zippy]

Emoire � As keen2learn says, I wouldn�t have thought that hospitals mention this to patients as a matter of course; it�s not their job to get involved in family matters.  Likewise, it�s not something that a Registrar would advise on as a matter of course when you go to register the birth.  If an unmarried father is unable to attend to register the birth for some reason e.g. ill-health, then he can produce a statutory declaration which would enable his details to be entered on the register.  But I suppose the point is, that many people simply aren�t aware of the position so they wouldn�t know what they need to do to ensure that an unmarried father has the same legal rights over his children as the mother.