brilliant news, minister wants names of dads on all birth certs

maninasia

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They are picking on easy targets

What a cop out! The target they should pick on is absent fathers or in many cases secretly co-habiting fathers..you are having a laugh now.

But I agree it would be an easy target if they actually made an effort and re-arranged things so that sole parents don't depend on the state's largesse first. You are the parents...your responsibility FIRST.

Ledger

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They are picking on easy targets

My sister works in lone parent family section of Social Welfare.

From what I've heard from her, because of some people taking advantage of the system, unfortunately something will have to be done to try to stop this group who try to squeeze the govt for every cent.

I know there are many lone parents out there who do not do this, but as usual you have to legislate for the whole because of a minority.

Attabear

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Unless the child was conceived during the course of a gangbang, the mother should be able to narrow it down to one or two candidates. She should then be provided with State assistance in tracking them down and DNA testing them.

You've never seen Maury Povich.

"Maury, I'm 300% certain that he is the father"

And Maury does the tracking and DNA testing. Great telly. Everyone wins.

slarkin123

I think this is a step in the right direction though im finding it hard on how it will be policed. Every child should have the right to know who their parents are. Obviously there will be exceptions in the cases of rape and incest.

Hopefully this will be a step towards fathers having more rights when it comes to the kids. Also it can be used to chase down the dead beat dads that refuse to pay a cent towards their kids.

Also in years to come, if the mother passed away and then the kids found out he/she had a hereditary disease from the fathers side. If the name wasn't on the birth cert there would be no way of tracing the father.

LittleBook

slarkin123 wrote: »

I think this is a step in the right direction though im finding it hard on how it will be policed.

Law Reform Commission Report wrote:

2.17 The Commission proposes the following system for a non-marital father to register his name on the birth certificate of a child in the absence of agreement with the mother. The father can make an application to the relevant Registrar of Births to be entered on the birth certificate as the father of the child. The Registrar would record the application and inform the mother of the child that the application has been made. The mother would then have 28 days to object to the name of the man being entered on the birth certificate as the father of the child. If no objection was made, a final entry of the father’s name would be entered on the birth certificate. If an objection was made by the mother the Registrar of Births would refer the matter to the District Court, whose only power would be to delete the entry if it was established by the mother that the man was not the father of the child.

2.18 The Commission recommends that in the absence of agreement with the mother a non-marital father can register his name on the birth certificate of the child in the following manner:

- An application to the Registrar of Births to be entered on the birth certificate as the father of the child. This may require a statutory declaration.

- A note of the application to be taken by the Registrar followed by a notice to the mother of the child that such an application has been made.

- A 28 day waiting period to allow for an objection by the mother to the name of the applicant being entered on the birth certificate as the father of the child.

- If no objection is forthcoming, an entry to be made in the Register of Births recording the applicant as the father of the child.

2.19 The Commission also recommends that there should be a similar process to enable the mother of a child to enter the name of a man on the birth certificate as the father of the child without agreement. The mother can inform the Registrar of the name of the alleged father of the child. The Registrar would then contact the man and he would have 28 days within which to raise an objection to his name being entered on the birth certificate. Again, the District Court would, on appeal, determine the issue if there was a dispute.

.

Biggins

slarkin123 wrote: »

...if the mother passed away and then the kids found out he/she had a hereditary disease from the fathers side. If the name wasn't on the birth cert there would be no way of tracing the father.

There you run into a problem with that point.

If a woman is raped...

1) if she tells of it by
(a) to a court, there will be records thus afterwards to allow further actions to be taken.
(b) to family/friends, etc, they can speak up and pass on the needed info if available and help start the process - even if then later the needed data is allowed to be accessed.

2. If the victim keeps it to herself...
- and she knows the victim by name, what the chance ANYWAY she is going to put the rapists name on a cert?
(Should we also now penalise all rape victims now for not wanting a rapists name on a childs cert?)

- If she don't know the rapists name - what the chance the rapists name will appear anyway?

drdeadlift

ScienceNerd wrote: »

While great news for unmarried fathers who want to be involved, what happens if the mother doesn't know who the father is?

A Spanish sailor

dpe

maninasia wrote: »

I don't care how they do it, just because the kid's father is absent doesn't mean he can't pay. The state has the records and ability to enforce it if they want, DNA testing is a piece of piss and extremely cheap compared to the state shouldering the burden. If the female or male parent left with a child need support then they should look to the child's other parent first, not the rest of society.

Except, they don't have the records, they don't have the ability to enforce anything, DNA testing costs a fortune in this instance because you're going to have to go through the courts every time an absent father says they contest parenthood. And for what? All a mother has to say if they don't want a father's name on the cert is "I don't know". Then what? Unless you're advocating a national DNA database (civil liberties nightmare - billions to run) and enforced DNA testing of babies, then its all pointless, and personally I don't want to live in that particular Orwellian hell thanks very much.

micropig

According to RTE 1 radio yesterday 4,000-4,500 children are registered every year with unknown father. Regardless of the details of conception, every child has a right to have their fathers name on the cert, for medical reasons if nothing else.

I wonder how many mothers the 4,000+ children have. Is there a trend of some people always registering unknown fathers for 2-3 different children?




Next step making the absent parent pay and cutting down state support.

maninasia

dpe wrote: »

Except, they don't have the records, they don't have the ability to enforce anything, DNA testing costs a fortune in this instance because you're going to have to go through the courts every time an absent father says they contest parenthood. And for what? All a mother has to say if they don't want a father's name on the cert is "I don't know". Then what? Unless you're advocating a national DNA database (civil liberties nightmare - billions to run) and enforced DNA testing of babies, then its all pointless, and personally I don't want to live in that particular Orwellian hell thanks very much.

Again completely exagerrated. The father must be known in 99% of cases, assuming he can be located (in most situations I would say not very difficult), take him to court and get the DNA test done. A huge saving for society at large and people have to look after their own progeny.

The mother won't say 'I don't know' if they are entitled to more from the actual father (or mother in rare cases) than the state allowance. The system does not incentivise women to chase the father for child allowance. A lot of bleeting but I don't see the difference between never married or divorced people...what's the difference tell me?

They can't track people, that's a joke too. If they are not working they are claiming the dole, don't see the difficulty myself. If they don't pay take it straight from their dole first.

Gmol

Smithey88 wrote: »

You sound like you have such hatred for unmarried mothers.

But anyways this doesnt change anything. A woman could say it was a drunken one night stand. All she knows is his name was Jim and he said he worked Eircom.

FYP

dpe

maninasia wrote: »

Again completely exagerrated. The father must be known in 99% of cases, assuming he can be located (in most situations I would say not very difficult), take him to court and get the DNA test done. A huge saving for society at large and people have to look after their own progeny.

The father is known in 99.99% of cases where the mother doesn't put his name on the birth cert? Is that a fact? How on Earth do you come to that conclusion? The reality is, if the mother doesn't put a name down, you have 0.00% information on who the father is. I'll say it again, the mother can't be compelled to put a name down, and without that, the State has nothing to go on unless it wants to carry out its own investigations (and carry the cost)

maninasia wrote: »

The mother won't say 'I don't know' if they are entitled to more from the actual father (or mother in rare cases) than the state allowance. The system does not incentivise women to chase the father for child allowance. A lot of bleeting but I don't see the difference between never married or divorced people...what's the difference tell me?

And yet, this is already the case, but thousands of women don't put a name down. Just because a mother is entitled to more from the father, doesn't mean the mother has any confidence they're going to get it. If the father is some skanger who's never done a day's work in his life, how is he going to pay? Out of his dole? And even if the father does have money, chasing deliquent dads for money every week get's pretty tedious pretty quickly. Then you're back into the idea of setting up bureacracy to put a lein on the father's earnings etc. the costs of which will probably end up costing the state damn near as much as just paying the mothers their allowance.

maninasia wrote: »

They can't track people, that's a joke too. If they are not working they are claiming the dole, don't see the difficulty myself. If they don't pay take it straight from their dole first.

All comes back to that first piece of information on the birth cert. Without that the state has nowhere to start, but even if it does have it, there are no free lunches, no way to compel someone who's abroad etc.

maninasia

Well the mothers will put the name down when the state allowance goes down compared to the father's contribution, all things considered. Anyway yes we are talking about a fraction of the births but 4,000 a year who don't know who the father is but go ahead and have the kid..well it's not very believable is it.

Camusky

Biggins,

I doubt many people disagree with your views on rape and rapists but I believe the proposed law as it stands will allow for exceptions in such cases. In any case, having the father of the child named on the birth cert does NOT give him any new rights over the child. This is currently the case and it will not change with this new legislation. Despite claims to the contray, it is clear that the intention of this legislation is solely to reduce the cost to the state of children in single parent households. This is the reason that this bill is being proposed by Joan Burton and not by Alan Shatter. This bill has cherry picked the recommendations of the 2010 Law Reform Commision's, Report on Legal Aspects of Family Law. To describe this bill in terms of children's rights is a joke. There are much better recommendations from the LRC which would improve the lives of children in such situations but these have not been implemented.

A lot of the postings here today refer to deadbeat Dads. I don't have access to any statistics to back me up here but I reckon that the number of seperated unmarried fathers willing to assume the financial and emotional responsibilities of fatherhood far, far outnumbers the number of deadbeat Dads and rapists.

I wonder how many seperated unmarried fathers obliged to take the legal route to have access to their kids because of a situation of conflict with the mother have fallen by the wayside? Are they considered deadbeat Dads also? The law as it stands in relation to custody, access and guardianship, leads to more conflict rather than less because it gives one person, complete power over the other.

Disadvantaging the children of fathers who desperately want to be involved in their child's life (in my opinion, the vast majority) because of the possible actions or non-actions of deadbeat Dads or rapists is not right in my opinion.

Exceptions make for bad law.

Pedant

What if the child was cloned?

mrsdewinter

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I know a family with four kids, 2 girls, 2 boys, none of the children have their fathers name on their birth certificate despite the fact they have the same father and he has lived with them their entire lives. This was done so that the mother could collect lone parent.

I have seen the birth certificates and i think it is so sad that they couldn't have their fathers name on it or take their fathers name simply because their parents wanted more money. Im delighted at this news.

Wow. Isn't this family lucky to have a trusted friend like you - someone who will inspect the kids' birth certs and then take to the internet to decry their fatherless status.

You know, thinking about it, I feel kinda sad for them too...

Biggins

Camusky wrote: »

Biggins,

I doubt many people disagree with your views on rape and rapists but I believe the proposed law as it stands will allow for exceptions in such cases. In any case, having the father of the child named on the birth cert does NOT give him any new rights over the child. This is currently the case and it will not change with this new legislation.

Your right - it does not award any additional ownership rights to the child.
That was not my point however but my words were open to mis-interpenetration which I did not help with my wording.

I stated:

Allowing a rapist to automatically have their name on a birth cert (and thus have possible right to the child gained thru a terrible act) means that the state (you!) would be telling every other possible rapist that, hey... ok so you want kids, rape away and if the victims gets pregnant, guess what? We will award you each time, the privilage of being attached to every one of those children irrespective of the feelings and rights too of all the victims! Stuff them! Just rape away and each time we will put your name in print, every time you lucky chap, you get them up the duff!
Hey... you can even see it as an official score card!

To clarify:
In other words where I said "(and thus have possible right to the child gained thru a terrible act)" - what I should have stated better was that the rapist would have a (ill-moral, I feel personally) right to claim (brag, if he was further sick enough) that a child was his by biological blood, not just in attempting to claim ownership rights.
Additionally, when I said "attached" - I meant "attached in print" to the child.
I hope that is somewhat clearer. Apologies for any mis-understanding from my words previous.

I have fought in fact for fathers rights for over a decade now, and been connected/associated with www.fathers.ie and www.solo.ie - to name two.
I have often (to the point of being pain here) posted on Boards.ie about how badly fathers rights are in general in Ireland (they are disgrace!) and I'm sure you might find some of those posts here with a bit of searching.

That siad, I still think that in exceptional circumstances that the victim of a rapist should have the right to not have the rapist named on a cert for previously mentioned reasons.
I hope these exceptions continue.

It is a somewhat obvious thing to do - and most of us know it (and I was slated in this thread for stating the somewhat obvious) - however in such important matters such as this latest law change, sometimes the obvious needs to be stated yet again if ONLY to refresh the minds of the current law makers and those that might not beware of other considerations.
As I already stated here in this thread:

Its an obvious thing to allow for but the legal section that will deal with this eventually mustn't be allowed get complacent or lax in their efforts to ensure fairness.
After all, it wouldn't be the first time laws have been put forward/rushed through that frankly have been a bit of a farce for allowing some stuff and/or forgetting about other related areas that need to be address or allowed for.

Isn't that right Mr Sherlock!

I should also mention that since my twenties and younger (many decades ago) I have been connected with The Rape Crises Centre in Lesson St, Dublin.
Thats why I feel so strongly over these issues. Talking to the victims and hearing their words would impassion any decent human.

goat2

Biggins wrote: »

There is a number of ways to look at the matter.

1.
(a) The law espouses that a criminal should not gain reward from their illegal actions. After a child is born because of a rapists actions, in retrospect, having the name of rapist upon a legal document confirming the maternity, awards the sick person possible right's to the child.

(b) THINK about it!!! Allowing a rapist to automatically have their name on a birth cert (and thus have possible right to the child gained thru a terrible act) means that the state (you!) would be telling every other possible rapist that, hey... ok so you want kids, rape away and if the victims gets pregnant, guess what? We will award you each time, the privilage of being attached to every one of those children irrespective of the feelings and rights too of all the victims! Stuff them! Just rape away and each time we will put your name in print, every time you lucky chap, you get them up the duff!
Hey... you can even see it as an official score card!

Then there is the victim....

2.
You held against your will, stripped of your clothes, your dignity and right to say "No",
To add insult to very injury, then you get pregnant by the sick scum - guess what, its not over even then!
Whats more, the state (if some folk got their way) then awards the sick scum their name in print on a state paper that will forever more be there, every time a mother/victim looks at their child birth cert and be reminded that they were abused terribly - and who actually did it each time.

A lot of bodies/departments/governments elsewhere also do NOT accept short versions of birth certs at times.
They only ask for the long version.
As hard as the poor victim might try to forget their rapists name, there it is in print on a cert (a cert handed over to strangers many times in life, for I.D. reasons, for a passport, school application, etc - yes, lets expose/hint that I was raped and left preggers! Never mind the emotional aspect of having to see THAT name every time one wishes to do something more normal in life and put the rape act behind a person in life!).

No matter how hard they might have tried to put it behind them (also having to hand over the name of my rapist to people every time) and try recover from the terrible act, there it is in print on their childs birth cert to dig up the terror of the act, the name of their rapist staring up at the victim, striking them again with the memory of the previous horror...


You don't understand the law then to begin with. Never mind not having a further expanded clue of the involved emotional aspect and why after the abuse a victim has gotten, the said victim should be at least gain back some dignity, chance of regaining mental stability and their rights take precedence AT ALL TIMES over the rights of the rapist!

I TOTALLY disagree with your above opinion.
VERY STRONGLY!

...And we haven't even gotten to the emotional aspects/effects upon yet the child later in life!

what percentage of unplanned pregnancies are a result of rape, how many people are in prision or were up in court that got girls pregnant through rape,
i agree with you wholeheartly, that where a person has been raped or beaten by the person who is the father of the child, there should not be a name,

but i know a few girls who were going out with guys, as soon as they got pregnant these heartless men just ran, changed numbers and in alot of cases addresses,
of course if these men did not love the woman enough to live with her for the rest of their lives, they should not have unprotected sex with them, instead the went off in their own selfish way,
i have helped a girl that was left in such a way in the past six yrs, she is a great friend of my daughter, and now she is doing fine and her child is doing great also, the childs father helps financially, and his parents are brilliant with the little child,
there are thousands of these cases out there.

secretambition

Aren't we confusing two issues - (i) putting a name on a birth cert (ii) granting access rights? Just because a child would know the name if their father if he were a rapist, doesn't mean for a second that he should be allowed to see the child or have contact. I think the child has a right to truthful information about where they come from, even if it isn't a very nice story.

goat2

secretambition wrote: »

Aren't we confusing two issues - (i) putting a name on a birth cert (ii) granting access rights? Just because a child would know the name if their father if he were a rapist, doesn't mean for a second that he should be allowed to see the child or have contact. I think the child has a right to truthful information about where they come from, even if it isn't a very nice story.

i know that if someone in my family had a child as a result of rape, i would not like for that child to know that he/she were concived by forceful or criminal means against their mother,
i dont know how the child would deal with it,
it is a very fragile subject,
hard enough for the mother, but the child it would hurt very badly.
it is a hard subject to discuss really.

christmas2012

once they turn 18 they should have a right to know anyway regardless of the circumstances,as they are old enough to know

MarkR

Georgie Fúcking Burgess?

goat2

who is george f burgess

Biggins

goat2 wrote: »

what percentage of unplanned pregnancies are a result of rape, how many people are in prision or were up in court that got girls pregnant through rape,
i agree with you wholeheartly, that where a person has been raped or beaten by the person who is the father of the child, there should not be a name,

but i know a few girls who were going out with guys, as soon as they got pregnant these heartless men just ran, changed numbers and in alot of cases addresses,
of course if these men did not love the woman enough to live with her for the rest of their lives, they should not have unprotected sex with them, instead the went off in their own selfish way,
i have helped a girl that was left in such a way in the past six yrs, she is a great friend of my daughter, and now she is doing fine and her child is doing great also, the childs father helps financially, and his parents are brilliant with the little child,
there are thousands of these cases out there.

I am in agreement with you.

In most cases, its only right that the father is named, if only for the son/daughters sake and for all responsible, are seen to be held responsible and aiding if they can, some way to assisting what they helped bring into the world.

KindOfIrish

goat2 wrote: »

now the minister joan burton wants fathers names on all birth certs, and looking at fathers having the same rights,
also she wants all dads to support children they father,
i beleive lots of unmarried mothers do not put a fathers name on cert, now they have to.
i also hope she will go back and ask those who already do not have the fathers name on, to put it in,
anyway the child also has rights. to know both sides of their family.

the next step is to abolish divorce and those girls, who can't name the father of a child send to magdalene laundries :mad:

goat2

KindOfIrish wrote: »

the next step is to abolish divorce and those girls, who can't name the father of a child send to magdalene laundries :mad:

in divorce the children would have access to their father if only for a small time, and as for those who cannot remember the names of the fathers, should not have had sex with them in the first place if they did not know their names, never mind the fact that they did not know if they carried disease, magdeline laundry is in the past where it belongs, but a bit of cop on would go a long way if people are having sex willy nilly with people they dont know

Scanlas The 2nd

maninasia wrote: »

Again completely exagerrated. The father must be known in 99% of cases, assuming he can be located (in most situations I would say not very difficult).

Not true, you don't even know who your father is with certainty. Roughly 5 - 10% of people have biological fathers who are not t one on the birth cert as a result of infidelity.

goat2

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Not true, you don't even know who your father is with certainty. Roughly 5 - 10% of people have biological fathers who are not t one on the birth cert as a result of infidelity.

which means that it is still only the mother who know the true identity of the father in these cases

Scanlas The 2nd

goat2 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Not true, you don't even know who your father is with certainty. Roughly 5 - 10% of people have biological fathers who are not t one on the birth cert as a result of infidelity.

which means that it is still only the mother who know the true identity of the father in these cases

Not necessarily, if she is having sex with her partner and also sex with another man on the side she wouldn't know whose it is.

goat2

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Not necessarily, if she is having sex with her partner and also sex with another man on the side she wouldn't know whose it is.

you got me , then only god knows

christmas2012

i feckin cannot stand joan burton or her attitude,she seems to think she knows whats the best decision for the people of ireland,1)she advocated slashing the dole 2) she set up (an even more expensive social welfare system)-that quango jobbridge,internships that have tesco on board to look for free labour with a poor hiring rate..naming fathers is all very well but how is this going to be enforced thats what i want to know..

goat2

you will have to ask joan, i cannot answer that

little swift

its just the big guns putting ideas in them dimwit heads of this goverment to kick the poor where it aready hurts AGAIN!!! . can you sheeple not bloody see whats going on, its been said before. EASY TARGETS, that money is there to feed,dress and educate them chrildren if thats gone there will be alot of homeless chrildren on our streets in the future. another mess this goverment will make.

secretambition

goat2 wrote: »

i know that if someone in my family had a child as a result of rape, i would not like for that child to know that he/she were concived by forceful or criminal means against their mother,
i dont know how the child would deal with it,
it is a very fragile subject,
hard enough for the mother, but the child it would hurt very badly.
it is a hard subject to discuss really.

Obviously, the amount of information you would give a child would be age appropriate. You don't discuss rape with a seven year old. But once an adult, that person has a right to know regardless of whether it is difficult to discuss or not. Bringing a child who results from a rape into the world is a very hard thing to do, and this is part of that hard task which cannot be neglected. What do you do otherwise - lie? The mother has to tell the child she doesn't know who the father is? Or make up the name of a random man? Or potentially worse, a real man?

DonQuay1

kerry4sam wrote: »

Do you have a link for this goat2 please?

....... ......maybe the details would be on a linky if you can provide one for me please?

Any chance of you getting off your fat arse and using google?

If any woman does not 'want' to put her childs father on a birth cert - then she's just encouraging 'deadbeat daddy'ism. And if she doesn't know which of her sexual partners could be the father - then for the rights of the child - she should be compelled (by legislation and tariff if necessary) to help the relevant authorities find him.

DonQuay1

DublinWriter wrote: »

That's all fair enough, but surely it must be subject to a enforced process of DNA testing for it to work when a man denies being the father.

A thought.

That's all very well - but ...
.... supposing the DNA test says that the man is NOT daddykins? What then?
Most women who have sex with multiple partners - are not 'roiding' every man that comes into their view. So they have a reasonable idea who daddy is - '... it's my regular boyfriend ... or that drunken mistake a while back'.

So whether she's shagging everything that moves or even has a drunken mistake - and then picks out one or other candidate (or maybe more than one candidate!!!) for a DNA test .... and it proves false - who picks up the €700 bill? The taxpayer? Another bill from an mother without a partner??

DonQuay1

dpe wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Presentable
If she doesn't know, she gets no support. If she can't conduct herself in a responsible manner why should the State be responsible?

QUOTE=dpe;
Because you're penalising the child for the actions of the mother.

Then DPE, give a medical card that can only be used for the child.
Vouchers that can only be used for child clothes,
Vouchers for price of a child holiday.

etc, etc.

Why should mammy get the state to support her when SHE is the irresponsible one - and not the state?

DonQuay1

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Its great to see the State repeatedly going after single mothers since the economic crash:rolleyes:

It's about time. No more featherbedding for ANYONE.

That includes private sector, Pensioners, public sector, etc, etc.

DonQuay1

secretambition wrote: »

Aren't we confusing two issues - (i) putting a name on a birth cert (ii) granting access rights? Just because a child would know the name if their father if he were a rapist, doesn't mean for a second that he should be allowed to see the child or have contact. I think the child has a right to truthful information about where they come from, even if it isn't a very nice story.

Actually - the rapist theme is overly simplistic. There's a helluva lot more

1) unmarried mothers which may or may not want to put daddys name on a birth cert

than there are

2) raped women who want to keep the child and object to the rapists name on the cert.

Lets stick to the - by far - major figure (1) - and not be sidetracked by the very minor figure (2).

maiden

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I know a family with four kids, 2 girls, 2 boys, none of the children have their fathers name on their birth certificate despite the fact they have the same father and he has lived with them their entire lives. This was done so that the mother could collect lone parent.

I have seen the birth certificates and i think it is so sad that they couldn't have their fathers name on it or take their fathers name simply because their parents wanted more money. Im delighted at this news.

This doesnt make sense, there are plenty of people who claim the lone parent allowance and the dads name is on the birth cert, u can be a single parent with or without the name on the cert, it goes on circumstance not a piece of paper!!!

3ndahalfof6

in a lot of cases it would be just father.

Tomk1

It takes two to tango, the fact is the biological next of kin, if the mother died, is the father not 'blank'.

If the lad doesn't want to take responsibility for sprawning new life, then they should of spent a few € on protection rather than another volka & redbull, responsibillity goes both ways. Hate this Simpsons' expression but 'won't someone think of the children !!' comes to mind.

Many have brought up 'the unknown one night stand' which I speculate really is in the minority of cases.

secretambition

DonQuay1 wrote: »

Actually - the rapist theme is overly simplistic. There's a helluva lot more

1) unmarried mothers which may or may not want to put daddys name on a birth cert

than there are

2) raped women who want to keep the child and object to the rapists name on the cert.

Lets stick to the - by far - major figure (1) - and not be sidetracked by the very minor figure (2).

Of course only a tiny number of cases involve rapists. I was addressing the point made about whether there should be exceptions or not. I am free to do that. Why do you think you can police other peoples comments?

goat2

when fathers name is not on birth cert, as is a case in our town, where i fellow has four children with different women, i cannot say whether his name is on cert or not, then this same geezer move on to another town and get someone elses daughter pregnant and maybe a few daughters pregnant, when these children turn into adults, there is a big possibility that they could end up meeting their sisters or brothers in a romantic way not knowing that they may be siblings or first or second cousins of one another,
it is very hard to dispell the arguement that there should not be a proper name of father on cert, the problem here is, most of the time the mom rear the child, and father could have fathered many children with many partners, these children could innocently end up marrying and having children with their sibling.

B.A._Baracus

RTE News:

The Government has approved the drafting of new legislation that will require the inclusion of the name of the father on birth certificates for non-marital births.

The new rule follows a recommendation from the Law Reform Commission.

Smidge

Example:

Young girl with boy from young age.
From the same area.

Lads family very "rough" indeed but her folks hope its just a "stage" and that if the push her to get away from him(sound familiar to any parents of teenagers out there???)she will just want him more.

A year and a half goes by, they are still together but the daughter is increasingly withdrawn with her family and has shown minor signs of "injury" but when questioned by her family refutes any wrongdoing by boyfriend. His family are becoming more involed with illegal activities as time goes on. There are rumours that the boyfriend is following in his brothers activities. It is also rumoured that he is with other girls, but not proven.

Two months later, she tells her mother she is pregnant and that she wants to leave him as he has been beating her for months.
She tells him she is pregnant and at first he thinks its great as all of those idiot lads do, it's like having a staffie, a baby is a status symbol to them. When she tells him she no longer wants to be with him, he, to say the least, is not happy.
Neither is his family, "cause its our blood too"

He torments her throughout the pregnancy, with himself and his family becoming increasingly aggressive with her family. Threats on the family and home and "unexplained property damage" occuring. The gardai are now a daily presence at the lads house due to family activity.

The girl is returning to her old self now that she is away from him and her family is supportive but not financially well off.

She is 17 when she has the baby.
Him and his brothers turn up locked to the hospital and have to be taken away by the gardai.

This is a genuine question(so don't bother with"little slut should have kept her legs closed, unmarried mothers ramble ramble;))

If she could stay with her family and get some payment to help with the expense of the baby(and we all know its not cheap) to allow her stay with her family, return to education and make something of her life, would society be a better place?

Or should we force her to have his name on the birth cert that he has rights to torment her, her family and more importantly, the child for the rest of their life? For the great contribution I'm sure he would make:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If there any any parents who could put themselves in this position(and we all know as parents we are not infalible) would you want this for your daughter and grandchild?
For a mistake she made at 16 that will haunt them forever?

B.A._Baracus

As said earlier in the thread. This legislation doesnt change a thing.

People will just say they met the father in a bar and didnt catch his full name. Was a one night stand.