Who’s my Daddy?
The Irish government is proposing to make it mandatory to put the father’s name on a child’s birth certificate. I wasn’t sure if I should write about this, because I’m not a single parent, and Little Man was born two years after Charlie and I got married, so both parents’ names went on his birth certificate automatically when we registered his birth.
But then I heard Minister Joan Burton being interviewed about the issue and she said approximately 4000 children a year are registered with no father’s name on the birth certificate. Reading the commentary online today, there were quite a few arguments defending this practice citing abusive partners and rape cases. Fine…but 4000 of them a year??? If those are really the main reasons for refusing to name the father on the birth certificate then we have a far bigger problem than this legislation on our hands, because clearly we have a national epidemic of abuse cases. I’d like the see the statistics to back that up, because I just don’t believe those are the true motivations for most women who choose not to register the father’s name.
It seems to me – and here I’m going on stories I’ve personally heard or cases I’ve encountered – that there are other more likely reasons for this refusal to register a father’s name. The most controversial reason of course is a fear of losing an entitlement to Lone Parents’ Allowance. That’s probably worth a blog post in its own right, but briefly, I refuse to accept this as a sufficient reason for denying your child the right to their father’s name on their birth certificate, and denying a man his right to be acknowledged as the father of his own child. You’re either entitled to Lone Parent’s Allowance or you’re not, and recognizing the name of the child’s father shouldn’t change that.
I would also imagine there are cases where the mother chooses not to name the father on the birth certificate because she doesn’t want him to be involved – perhaps they’re no longer together, or she didn’t know him very well, or it was a brief fling that she regrets and she doesn’t want to be tied to him for the next 18 years, or maybe she wanted a baby but not an interfering father. Who knows? Maybe she did want the father involved, but he denied the paternity of the baby when she told him and she doesn’t see why he should be named if he won’t even acknowledge the child. Or of course she may not know who he is at all.
In many cases, the concerns of the mother may be perfectly valid. But I would argue that these concerns are not sufficient to deny a child the right to know who his or her biological father is. This legislation is about the child after all. A birth certificate is a legal document and the only reason Unknown should ever be recorded in place of the father’s name is when the father is truly unknown and a serious effort has been made to determine his identity. I know every so often an ad shows up online or in a newspaper from a woman looking to get in touch with a man she met on such a night in such a club or at such a house party. At least she’s trying to find the father and inform him he has a child (or an STD – but that’s another story…).
I don’t think this legislation should be introduced without the inclusion of a provision for paternity tests, however. If a woman names a man as the father of a child, and he denies or doubts her word, he should be entitled to a paternity test to confirm. Likewise, if a man claims a child is his, but the mother denies it, he should be entitled to a test. And if it’s positive, he should be entitled to have his name added to the birth certificate retrospectively.
More than that, I strongly believe that this legislation should only be a starting point. I believe a child should have the right to know both of his or her parents. Right now, we have a bizarre system where a mother has automatic parental rights – but a father has no such rights unless he is married to the mother. Where is the equality in that? Where is the fairness – for the father or for the child?
If the father poses a threat, or if his presence in the child’s life would be detrimental to the child, then apply to have the father’s rights removed. But do not deny those rights by default, and force fathers to have to fight for the most basic of rights like access.
For far too long, it’s been a case of guilty until proven innocent for fathers in this country. If a mother decides to deny a father access to his child, unless he is married to the mother, or has specifically sought guardianship of the child, there is little the father can do. Why is this?
The only reason I can see why we tolerate this situation is that our society undervalues the role of the father in a child’s life. How often do discussions of parenting turn into discussions about motherhood, completely ignoring fatherhood? It’s time we started to recognise that although fathers may parent differently to mothers, their parenting is still valid, it’s still important, and it should still be respected. It’s time that the decision as to whether or not a father should be acknowledged and allowed access to his child was decided based on his relationship with the child, and the benefit to the child of growing that relationship, and not on his relationship with the mother.
And so I was glad to hear of this proposed legislation, and I hope it’s just the first step in recognising that children deserve to know who their father is, and they deserve the opportunity to build a relationship with that father.
Edited to add: A commenter on Facebook has pointed out that I have not accounted for cases where the father refuses to accompany the mother to sign the birth registration form and therefore his name cannot be registered. And because of that I have unfairly put all of the blame on the mother. She is right – I hadn’t considered this situation and I should have. But I hope very much that in this situation the legislation provides support for those women and children and includes a method to deal with registering the father’s name in these cases. Thanks for pointing this out Tanya.
Lisa, while I agree with you broadly on a number of points (that the rights of the child are paramount, the need to improve the rights of fathers, the need for better enforcement of fathers’ responsibilities) I do think you are too quick to dismiss the dangerous and violent situations some women find themselves in.
The CSO reports 480 rapes in 2010 (male and female). The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre estimates that 83% of those raped are female, with around 80% being of childbearing age. This would give rise to a figure of 319 women of childbearing age who were raped in 2010. The DRRC alone supported 25 women who became pregnant following rape in 2010. That is only the Dublin area, so the figure could probably be doubled for the rest of the country.
Now consider that rape is one of the most under reported crimes there is. The Gardaí estimate that only 1 in 4 crimes is reported. For rape, it is estimated that anything up to 95% go unreported. Which suggests that there could be anywhere from 200 to 1000 children born each year in Ireland as a result of rape.*
In your blog, you mention the estimated number of children who do not have fathers named on their birth certs is around 4000. I do not doubt that some fathers are not named in order to benefit the mother and father. This violates the rights of the child, although those rights are not as yet recognised in the law. However, it must be recognised that a significant number of fathers will not be named because they are unknown, whether that is due to rape or casual relationships. And another significant number will remain unnamed in order to protect the child from potential harm.
It is this last group, potentially 25% of the ‘problem group’ in question, who must be prioritised when this proposed legislation is being discussed. Only 7% of rape cases result in convictions. This is 7% of possibly only 5% of all rapes. Some women do not know who the father of their child is, some do and live in fear of repeat attacks or of the father attempting to lay claim to a resulting child. I would not want a rapist having any claim to my child. I doubt anyone would.
This law could potentially criminalise women who either do not know who the father is or who fear naming the father. It is a misogynistic piece of legislation and much of the debate surrounding it harks back to a time not so distant when single mothers were locked up in laundries for the sin of falling pregnant.
Those who debate the laws and who form legislation tend to do so from a position of privilege. It is essential that our privilege does not obliterate our empathy for those in situations much harsher than our own. There is too much demonisation of the powerless in this country. Welfare fraud is spoken of as a drain on public finances when it has been proven that fraud is actually quite insignificant in comparison to the mistakes and wastages caused by SW administrators, and is nothing at all compared to the tax fraud perpetuated by the wealthy in society.
I know you hesitated before writing this post and I apologise for this comment being so long, but I would hope to cause you to pause once more before writing off all 4000 women with ‘fatherless’ children as cheats or frauds. Each one has a story to tell and has a reason for leaving that form blank. Some reasons may be dishonest, but many will be heartbreaking. Legislating those reasons into criminal acts is simply wrong.
*I can’t post the links but all of these figures are available from the 2010 reports on the websites of the CSO, the DRCC and the Gardaí.
Hi Emma. Thank you so much for your comment. Certainly a lot of food for thought in there. It was my understanding that the new legislation is to include a provision for women to refuse to name the father in the cases of rape or violence that you mention. Likewise, according to the interview with Joan Burton that I listened to, it will be possible for a woman to make a sworn statement that the father is unknown. While obviously this isn’t a perfect solution for a number of reasons, I am at a loss to think what alternative solution there might be.
I agree with you that I am speaking from a position of privilege, but it is that privilege that has allowed me to learn firsthand just how important the role of the father is in a child’s life. And I think every child deserves the chance to know their father if it is possible for them to do so.
I don’t see the proposed legislation as misogynistic – but perhaps that’s because I feel so strongly that family law is misandristic in so many ways. And even though I wouldn’t have started with birth certs as a place for change, I am glad to see some change being made.
Great blogpost. At present whether or not his name is on the birth cert a father has to apply for guardianship of his child. This right (of the child & father) is automatic for the mother. Father’s rights are important but it is far more important to recognise children’s rights.
The current system just seems so deeply flawed to me Caitriona. I cannot imagine how I would feel if someone told me I had to apply for guardianship of my own son. Thanks for your comment.
Well done for tackling such a difficult, emotive topic. Sometimes we avoid writing about these things because it’s hard to even know where to start, never mind opening yourself up to whatever criticism may ensue. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a definite need for change in a number of areas. From a rights point of view I think the Govt are probably going at it ass about face but their narrow focus here is on benefit fraud rather than the wider aspect of both parental and children’s rights. It is ridiculous how unequal the status of unmarried parents is (and that includes parents in homosexual relationships/civil partnerships where one is not a biological mother) in this country. Fundamentally we need to start by cementing the rights of the child in the constitution and I think if this is done properly, then this should automatically improve the rights of fathers and non-biological parents because as you said in your post, every child has the right to know their father and the right to be parented in a loving, supportive home.
From a rights point of view, the place NOT to start first, is a piece of paper, for many reasons including the ones that Emma refers to in her post. Another skeleton is the closet on this topic is children who have the incorrect father named on their birth cert for whatever reason but that’s a whole other kettle of fish…
mindthebaby recently posted..Treat Yo Self
Thanks mindthebaby. I don’t think this was the right place to start either – I think guardianship is a much more pressing issue. I just hope that will be tackled soon too.