25 July 2006
The law could be changed to make it compulsory for mothers to register the names of the fathers of their children on birth certificates, ministers have announced.
The headline of this story sounded promising, some sort of plan to acknowledge that children have two parents, not one, and perhaps counteract the drive the British government is making to ensure us men are rendered entirely irrelevent in children’s lives.
Naturally, of course, this is not the idea. How silly of me to think the government was about to run contrary to feminism and do something in men’s favour for once.
From the outline of the plan and the comments from supporters and critics, I can conclude the following:
* 1 in 5 women and girls who give birth out of wedlock do not put a father’s name on the birth certificate, and given that they surely would do if they could, given that it would give them some lovely wads of Child Support, this would imply a fifth of them haven’t a clue who the father is.
* The only reason the plan is being suggested is to simply make it easier to track down fathers and extort them for child support. Never be fooled by the gender-neutral talk of “both parents” are required to support children. It always just means men have to financially support them. Women are, with few exceptional circumstances, never chased for Child Support. With taxpayer subsidised daycare and schools starting up Breakfast Clubs and After School Clubs, so those pesky rugrats can be kept out of mum’s way virtually every waking hour, women aren’t even obliged to look after them. That would be oppressing them, after all.
* Critics, most of them predictably feminists and manginas from Labour and The Liberal Democrats, are not keen on this plan because it might actually be seen as an attack on single mothers by potentially implying criticism of a woman who is “unsure of the biological father.” Aw, poor single mums, actually having to trawl through their memories of all the thugs and losers they’ve humped in the past and try and work out which one their baby most resembles.
Aides to Mr Hutton said details of the scheme had to be worked through, but admitted it would not work unless there was some form of penalty for mothers who refused to cooperate.
A penalty? Applied to women? And Almighty Pure single mothers at that? That’ll never happen.
Tory work and pensions spokesman Philip Hammond said: “Both parents have a clear obligation to support their children whether they are married and live together or not.
“Having both parents’ names on a birth certificate regardless of marital status would certainly help to positively identify an absent parent. However, this is not a foolproof solution as problems would arise if there was a paternity dispute at the time of birth.”
Here’s an idea, one I’ve agreed with for a long time; all children should have a father named on the birth certificate, but his name only goes on after a DNA test confirms he’s the dad. Then again, women’s groups and their political lackies have been against that for ages. There are laws going into effect across the West to prevent men from getting DNA paternity tests without the mother’s permission. Why ever could that be I wonder?
Here’s a cool comment from a guy in the know:
Given how vindictive some women can become after a relationship breaks down, I can see this naming of the father as an obvious opportunity for some of them to “get even”.
Whether or not a woman actually knows who the father is, it appears she can name anyone she likes and, where the poor sap is not the father, he will know nothing about it until the “baby police” come after him for support money.
One can rest assured, given the bias shown against men by “the Social” and the justice system in general, it will be no easy matter for him to prove he is not the father.
So we have yet another totally ridiculous and unworkable scheme dreamt up by some pointy head in an ivory tower. What are these people totally unable to logically think things through – is it part of the job description?
– Barry Mckay (Ex Pat), Ottawa, Canada
Give that man a blog!
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:06 PM
At 5:44 PM, Captain Zarmband said…
In Britain there is a reason why women do not name the child’s father and that is to fiddle the benefits system. I know of cases where this has happened. It works like this; a woman gets pregnant by her boyfriend and does a deal with him that she will not name him so that she can get single mother benefits. In return he pays her cash each week and continues their relationship as a visitor to her state financed new home. She gets all the government handouts and gets cash from the boyfriend. This is a nice little scam that gets her a good lifestyle by cheating the system. The boyfriend pays less money to the mother so he keeps quiet about it. This one reason why these women do not name the child’s father. Another reason is that the slapper sleeps with that many men she’s lost track of their names.
At 5:51 PM, Anonymous said…
“but his name only goes on after a DNA test confirms he’s the dad.”
And what if a man doesn’t want to do the DNA test because he doesn’t want to recognise the child?
At 6:33 PM, Tony Sclafani said…
RED ALERT! They did this in the USA in California and women started naming ANYONE they could get money from as the dad on their child’s birth certificate. The “father” got six months to deny paternity via DNA. But the state DOES NOT contact the father. Men’s advocate Glenn Sachs did a story on how one guy spend the better part of a decade and $50,000 extricating himself from this mess.
Good night, Britain.
At 6:37 PM, Playboy said…
In some USA states, the woman is required to list a ‘daddy’ to get assistance benefits (ie, free money, rent, and food). They can and do list anybody they want and the government goes after the guy. Some guys spend years fighting this false charge and lose professional licenses, drivers licenses, dock pay, seized bank accounts, and jail time because some women falsely listed his name on the form. Sometimes the women list an old boyfriend and sometimes they just make up a name – and some guy with that name in the county gets picked. Of course, it isn’t a crime for a woman to falsely list somebody as the father.
At 7:06 PM, Anonymous said…
In the US if a man signs the birth certificate he has to pay child support even if he finds out later the kid is not his.
At 7:50 PM, Anonymous said…
“1 in 5 women and girls who give birth out of wedlock do not put a father’s name on the birth certificate, and given that they surely would do if they could, given that it would give them some lovely wads of Child Support, this would imply a fifth of them haven’t a clue who the father is.”
It’s a bit more complicated.
* You can be done for child support regardless of whether your names on the certificate. You just have to be judged to be the father by the courts.
* I think the only effect re. child support is that if the mother makes a claim, and you’re not on the certificate, you start paying only when a court judges you to be the father. If you are on the certificate you’re *presumed* to be the father and start paying from the moment the claim goes in. (You can get the money back if you contest fathership and later demonstrate you’re not the daddy. Interestingly, the money is paid back by the taxpayer, not the mother – I know of no case where mother has had to pay back the money she has illegitimately gotten in this fashion or been done for fraud.)
* This is the big thing. Fathers whose names are on the certificate get parental rights – those whose aren’t don’t. That’s the big incentive for a woman not to put the fathers name on. The father will have even less of a say in the child’s life that fathers with parental rights. (Note you can have to pay child support, but not be on the certificate and have parental rights).
I think this is a pretty good thing. Since it will give more men parental responsibility by being on the birth certificate. Though I appreciate that’s just an unanticipated side effect of what the government’s pushing this for.
At 8:02 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…
In the US, any professional licence can be suspended for failure to pay CS. Passports revoked, commercial driver’s licence revoked, bank accounts, stocks, real estate assets all can be seized. There is virtually no limit to the extent of persecution that is allowed, and all constitutional rights are suspended once a man comes into the clutches of the family courts.
At 8:16 PM, nevo said…
What happens when a woman gets pregnant on a whirlwind Holiday romance somewhere in Greece?
Will she then name the Duke of Westminster as the Father?
After all she has several millions to one chances the DNA will match.
At 8:21 PM, Duncan Idaho said…
In the US, any professional licence can be suspended for failure to pay CS.
This will soon be the case here in the UK. The Child Support Agency is being scrapped but only because it’s not good enough at taking money from men (loads of CSA staff staged a walkout today; all the predominantly female staff care about is their jobs and their gravy train.)
The replacement will be an even more vicious CSA (although the government will dress it up in a different name) that can take passports and driving licences from men who are unable to pay.
At 9:09 PM, Anonymous said…
Women will also shop around for the guy with the deepest pockets.
“He! Moneybags over there! He’s the father!”
At 9:29 PM, Playboy said…
At 11:11 AM, The Phantom said…
This is so obviously wrong.
No man’s name should go on a birth certificate without his consent.
No man should be forced to pay child support unless he has already consented to being a father.
* Having sex with a woman is *not* consent to be a father, any more than the woman has consented to be a mother.
But single women have options that are unavailable to men:
1. Abortion. LINK
2. Abandoning a newborn. The chances are that she’ll never be found. If she does, she’ll probably get sympathy from everyone who knows (see examples below)
3. She can give up the child for adoption legally, and have no further responsibilities towards the child. LINK
A man being chased by the CSA, has never had any of these options.
He doesn’t even have to be informed about the pregnancy, or a baby until the mother wants his money.
Abanoned babies 1
“Appeals to the parents are made as sensitively as possible, as they are often in a traumatised state and need help. According to research, society judges people who have abandoned newborn babies in a much more sympathetic way than those who leave older children.”
Abandoned babies 2
“Shirley isn’t angry with her real mum for abandoning her. despite the heartache it’s caused her.
“I’ve never felt angry, that’s the strange part of it,” says Shirley.
“I just get this gut feeling that she was a very frightened girl.”
“She must have been going through quite a lot of different emotions when she did it.”
At 10:02 PM, Paul Parmenter said…
We should start a campaign to encourage these women to name Tony Blair, or any other male government minister, as the father. Then you will see the quickest reversal of legislation in history.
At 5:40 AM, Anonymous said…
“The law could be changed to make it compulsory for mothers to register the names of the fathers of their children on birth certificates, ministers have announced.”
Always assuming that the mother got around to asking the father what his name was, of course.