Telegraph.
Fathers could be forced by law to be named on their baby’s birth certificate under plans being drawn up by ministers to boost their role in family life.Now I'm all for fathers paying their way for their kids, however i can see a whole raft of problems coming from this proposed legislation including the main one of the mother not knowing who the father is, or simply lying in the case of possible infidelity. After all, that's what happened in the past with all those milkman kids.
The controversial move is one of a range of options being considered by David Cameron, who is keen to help promote fathers’ feelings of responsibility for their infants.
At the moment, only the mother’s name must be officially registered. If there is no father’s name on the certificate, he will be described as “unknown”.
It is estimated that around 50,000 births are registered in Britain every year without the father’s name being recorded.
In an intervention to mark Fathers’ Day, coalition sources said enforcing the move by law was one of the options being studied, along with an alternative of tightening existing guidelines to “encourage” more fathers to sign birth certificates.
Also disconcerting is the method they intend to make use of...
Sources said that the requirement for fathers to be named could be introduced using a law which was passed under Labour but never brought into effect.Ah yes, how terribly apt that the coagulation should attempt an attack on the right to silence with a law introduced by the past masters of removing rights the Labour Party. Of course it will likely turn out that it's one rule for us and another rule for them...
The 2009 Welfare Reform Act contains a provision for requiring mothers to name fathers, threatening them with a £200 fine and seven days in prison for perjury if they gave a false answer.
Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, did not sign the birth certificate when his son Daniel was born in 2009 – claiming he had been “too busy”. His duties at the time included attending a climate change summit in Copenhagen as energy secretary.Climate change instead of proudly proclaiming you're the father of your son. Yes, that's Labour to the core as well.
This is simply another attack on our ancient rights by the powers that be. Instead of reducing the size of government, they seek to reduce their income by removing our rights.
6 annotations:
While I am generally in favour of keeping the long snout of the state of of the private lives of individuals, I tend to favour the requirement to name the fathers of the new born. This is because of the right of the baby, to know who his parents are.
There is also the responsibility of the father to support his offspring, instead of leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
Monty
Hmm, I wonder if this will come with a concurrent right for fathers to have access, a say and equal rights to involvement in their childs lives. No, I won't hold my breath either.
The main reason women refuse to name the father is not that they don't know, it's that they don't want the father to have any of the above (whilst of course wanting them to pay for not only the child but their social life, and probably the current boy-friends too).
The real issue with 'absentee fathers' is that women are actively rewarded for removing the father from their childs life (housing, benefits, etc.).
The fact that many either choose to have these children as a means of getting 'free' housing and never having to work, whilst the fathers (and yes it takes two to tango) are simply a 'means to an end'. Then there's the children of longer term relationships, here there's the 'benefit' of 'punishing' the father by preventing access (all supported by 'Childrens' Services, the courts, etc.) as a means for revenge. And let's be honest here, the main reason for separation/divorce are minor, spurious reasons (he's boring/doesn't have money/job, I found someone else with more..), not the violence or pedophilia they claim in the majority of cases (have a look at the figures of what women use as a rationale in family court to see how regularly those reasons are used).
Yes, fathers should provide for their children but would you be happy to do so knowing you weren't involved in the decision to have a child (womans choice only), will never be allowed any involvement, will be funding her lifestyle and social life, and will never be able to have a reasonable chance at a real relationship (as half your income goes to CSA)? Most men do so anyway (including me), but you can see why a large number don't.
It's not as 'cut and dried' as it is portrayed by the feminists - but when did truth, fairness or equality (let alone those 'what's best for the children' arguments) have anything to do with what they want?
Just Sayin'
They'd have trouble trying that on in Liverpool.
Trigger's was the best....
'Some soldiers'
Monty
Keeping the state out of private lives would mean no requirement to register births at all.
So what happens when you have a mother who was in a steady relationship all the time when the kid was conceived, but happened to have one extra-marital shag during that time? Scientific evidence shows that there are subconscious mechanisms in men that dramatically increase the numbers of sperm in such circumstances, to increase the chance of conception.
The official father might think it was his, the mother might think (indeed hope) that it was his kid, but in actual fact the kid was fathered by the one-night stand not by the steady relationship.
So, assuming you discover that the official father isn't the right man, what do you do? Have the mother up for perjury and bust up a family that would never have known about the infidelity otherwise? This is a bloody stupid law; all lose and no gain.
Post a Comment