When and if the Legal Requirement changed ???

[Sheila from Down Under]

I have been asked by my cousin , who thinks we are all very clever to help answer this question , :D She had a child back in the 1960's to another man, but she had to put her husbands name on the BC (she has divorced and re married )the child now in it 40's,wants to know why the Bio-logical could not be named on the BC?.We have tried to answer the question but it is no good.The Bio-Logical father has now " Turned up " wanting to claim his child . Has the law changed and if so when ? Me I think it's all daft but I was asked to ask you . :o:;)
Sheila

[Lyn A]

I don't know if the law is different in Oz, but here across the ditch, the biological father has to sign consent to have his name on the birth cert or he has to be present. If this is not done the baby is registered in her mother's name as it is on the day of the registration, ie her married name. I don't know that she would have to put her husband's name as the father. That should have been left empty.

It has always been like that and still is.

[Harrys mum]

No idea about now...but when mine were born between 1973 and 1981, I filled in the reg form in hospital and just put OH's name on it. He didn't have to sign it. He was away when one was born so couldn't have signed that one. The hospital sent the forms in to the reg office.

[Lyn A]

No idea about now...but when mine were born between 1973 and 1981, I filled in the reg form in hospital and just put OH's name on it. He didn't have to sign it. He was away when one was born so couldn't have signed that one. The hospital sent the forms in to the reg office.

Yeh, Libby but you were married to him....I meant if the biological father was different from the hubby.....sorry if I didn't make it clear.

[Sheila from Down Under]

Hi Libby and Lyn I should have said this was in England, My cousin lives in a village, and if she went a lawyer the whole place would know she had been there before she walked out the door, if you have a cousin in OZ and no FTF why not ask her (me) she has less stress
Sheila

[Jessbowbag]

If he didn't actually go along with her to reg the birth, then no, he wouldnt be on the cert, because they were not married.

her husband, because he was her husband , wouldnt have to have done that, it is assumed he is the father.

In reality, it should have been left blank.

[Sheila from Down Under]

Thank you Jess. There was a thought that every child from tha married couple had to have the husbands name whether or not it was his or nor ??
Sheila

[Kit]

I think all children are legally assumed to be the husband's if born while married. If that is not the case the mother has to admit it or a dna test has to be done or the husband prove it couldn't possibly be his.

I don't think the husband's name has to be used. I think it is just tradition.

[Olde Crone Holden]

The information can be amended now, if all parties wish it.

Natural father and natural mother need to approach the local Registrar to start with. They will then need to swear a declaration as to the true facts.

A replacement birth certificate will be issued with the correct facts on it and the original certificate will be suppressed. (In theory!)

There will be a fee of course.

The lady's husband's name is on the certificate by default - all children born to a married couple are the children of the legal husband unless anyone says different. No registrar would ever ask a married woman "and is your husband definitely the father of your child?" lol, so it is up to the woman to actually tell the registrar.

OC

[colin taylor]

I know of a child born to a married woman where the husband was not the father...the box where the fathers name should be is left blank...........I don't know if the husband was not aware of the child or if he refused permission to have his name used..this was wartime and he had been abroad for two years.
There must have been some discussion at the registrars to decide what should or shouldn't be done so not automatic that the husbands name is enterred

[Olde Crone Holden]

Colin

It IS automatic that a husband's name be entered on a child's birth cert UNLESS the woman says differently. She must have offered the information to the Registrar.

However, I know a chap who was born of a wartime affair. His birth cert states he is the child of his mother's husband.

When husband returned from the war, he kicked up a stink and the birth cert was amended and a new one issued with no father named. The child was later adopted and he says wryly that he is the only person who has two birth certs and an adoption cert!

OC

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

The lady's husband's name is on the certificate by default - all children born to a married couple are the children of the legal husband unless anyone says different.

"unless anyone says different" - and that includes the mother admitting that her husband isn't the father. If her husband isn't the father the box should be left blank or the biological father's details should be included with his consent. Unfortunately in the real world often the husband's name ends up in the father's details box when it shouldn't be there. A case in point is my OH who has his mother's 1st husband's name on his birth cert when she and everyone else knew her husband was not OH's father.

[KiteRunner]

I thought that legally the mother's husband was the father, though, at least until fairly recently?

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I thought that legally the mother's husband was the father, though, at least until fairly recently?

I'm not sure Kite. I do know that if you are a married man, once your name goes on a birth cert for a child born to your wife, that child is your responsibility regardless of discovering (however soon afterwards) that the child isn't yours. The child is classed as "a child of the family". However, if the mother tells the truth at the registrars and no father's name goes on the cert, then I would have thought that is a different matter, though maybe not???

[claretaylor22]

If the "father" maintains and supports the child through his life on his death if no provision is made for the child in his will (or under the rules of intestacy if it is acknowledged the child isn't his) then the child could bring a claim against the estate of the "father" as they were financially dependent on him as "child of the family" Is this was you were thinking of?

[KiteRunner]

Oh yes, Merry, I'm sure that's different - I was just quibbling about you saying, "If her husband isn't the father the box should be left blank or the biological father's details should be included with his consent". As far as I know, it was perfectly legal to put the husband's name in if he was agreeing to be the legal father although not the biological one.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I'm not sure how many married men actually realise they are not the father of their child though!

Yes, it would be legally acceptable to put the husband's name down, as by being married he is automatically accepting the legal responsibility of being a parent to his wife's children. However, I'm not sure it's morally right for a woman to say her husband is the father of a child when she knowns he isn't. What happens when a husband comes back from the war (for instance) and his name is on a series of birth certs when he hasn't seen his wife for several years??!! Likely he would want a divorce, but would he be responsible for supporting those children? I don't know, but it seems likely he would seeing as even a DNA test "proving" he isn't the father is not enough to save him from paying to support "his" children.

[tinkerbe]

I'm not sure how many married men actually realise they are not the father of their child though!

. However, I'm not sure it's morally right for a woman to say her husband is the father of a child when she knowns he isn't. What happens when a husband comes back from the war (for instance) and his name is on a series of birth certs when he hasn't seen his wife for several years??!! .

but how many children could he have fathered in the time away from his wife ?

[Olde Crone Holden]

The rules for registration are not moral ones, they are legal ones.

It has always been the case that a married man is the LEGAL father of the children born to his wife during their marriage, even if he has been 3000 miles away for the last five years.

If a man returned from war (say) and found three children he knew nothing about, with his name on the birth certs, unless he goes to the Registrar and disputes the facts (and proves them) then he is tacitly accepting legal responsibility for that child and all that legal responsibility entails.

Yes, I am quite sure many women lied by omission when they registered their children. But think of this - in wartime, you have a fling and have a baby. You don't know if your husband will ever come back alive and you want to keep the baby.

If your husband doesn't return alive then no-one will be any the wiser (except nosey parkers like us, who can do sums, lol) and you will have saved your child from the disgrace of illegitimacy (still a very serious thing in the 1940s). If your husband DOES return alive, you can renegotiate - he may take on the child as his own or he may not.

There is a warning up in all Registration offices - tell the truth or there is a fine. It is not the job of the registrar to close question anyone - where would they stop?

Hpowever, the Rgistrar General isn't stupid either. He well knows that people lie about "delicate matters" and despite the awful warnings to tell the truth, no one is ever prosecuted for this kind of lie - what would be the point?

OC

[Guy]

The rules for registration are not moral ones, they are legal ones.

It has always been the case that a married man is the LEGAL father of the children born to his wife during their marriage, even if he has been 3000 miles away for the last five years.

Wrong!

The Complete English Lawyer, 1820, page 385-

"So if the husband be out of the kingdom (or, as the law somewhat loosly phrases it, extra quatuor maria) above nine months, so that no accessto his wife can be presumed, her issue during that period will be bastards. So if from circumstances a natural impossibility can be shewn that the husband could be the father of the child of which his wife is delivered, whether arising from his being under the age of puberty, or from his labouring under disability occasioned by natural infirmity, or from length of time elapsed since his death, these are grounds on which illegitimacy, of the child may be founded. And the courts have held, that the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child of a married woman living in a notorius state of adultery is a question for a jury to determine."

Cheers
Guy