Genealogy Chat

Jan I agree with your sentiments totally. That was one of the main reasons I decided to trace my birth mother. I'd always had very little interest in finding her to develop a relationship but I did want to know whether there was any family medical history that I needed to know about. I not only have myself to think about but 3 children who are a genetic link to them as well as to myself. I found ante natal appointments very frustrating when I was unable to provide them with even basic medical knowledge. Lou

My concern is ONLY for the children. I believe, and it is only my opinion, that whatever the circumstances surrounding a child's birth, they are entitled to know. With regard to our ancestors, unfortunately, what's past is past and if there is no-one still alive with any knowledge or the records are a tissue of lies that situation seems insurmountabe. I have a problem with my ancestors at present and I may not find a solution but I hope I do. I'm sorry if this upsets anybody it's not meant to - but in my opinion it's not about whether or not the parents see eye to eye, or money, or title or whether granny/grandad/auntie whoever thinks they have rights - it's about the child's rights, things like medical history just to name one and more importantly these days with sperm donors, so that in later life they don't get involved with a sibling. So much secrecy can be very damaging and a burden for those that have to keep the secrets and for what - not for the child, I'm sure. As I said, just my opinion. Jan

Andrew Brilliant idea - plus, they should also have a DNA swab! Also a space to list all the people that were listed on the previous census who have now died/changed their name/divorced/remarried/ etc. nell

Suzanne You're quite right! Automatic joint parental responsibility only applies to children born after 1st December 2003 who have BOTH parents named on the certificate. Lou

Maggie If your daughter and her partner were not married at the time of the birth of your grandchild...then the father will not have half of the parental responsibility...legally. I think that is even the case if he is named on the birth cert. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!!! If anything should happen to your daughter...he would not immediately get custody...unless she has stipulated this in her will. Guardianship is not automatic at the time of someones death...and minors should always be referred to in a will in order to ensure that the child lives with who the 'will maker' wants them to. Suzanne

LOL Lou, My grand daughter was born in 2002!! and daughter and child's father have split up - but he still looks after her on a very regular basis - whether he wants to or not! (when my daughter works!!) - she doesn't believe in paternal negligence. Nice to know where I stand though LOL maggie

Maggie We had a similar situation with our daughter who was born outside of marriage. Although her dad is named on her cert, he had no parental responsibility over her until we obtained a Parental Responsibility Agreement through a solicitor which was then witnessed by a magistrate. This gives him the same rights as I have over her. Prior to this, he would not have been able to, for example, give consent for vaccinations or surgery . When our son was born at the end of 2003, we didn't need to bother with the PRA as the law had just changed. All father's of children born after the 1st December 2003 who are named on the cert, regardless of marital status between the parents, have automatic joint PR without the need for additional legality Lou

I'm a bit confused about replies as to whether a father is a father or not. My daughter and her partner had a baby. Both were at the registration, the partner was named as father on the certificate. The child was named Forename father's surname-Mother's surname. They both were then meant to sign papers declaring his paternity, but didn't. This means that if anything happens to my daughter I have as much right - maybe even more- to look after my grandchild as the father does, as my grandmaternity isn't under question. maggie

Helen, Perhaps we should suggest that future censuses should include a photo of each person. This is becoming more and more possible with cheap digital technology today and I'm sure our descendants interested in genealogy 200 or more years from now will appreciate it. Imagine if we had photos on all the censuses accessible today, wouldn't that be good! Regards, Andy

Vikki I understand that it might make things easier for genealogists, but you can't have a system of naming POSSIBLE fathers. More than one name would automatically mean that one name at least is incorrect. You can't put knowingly incorrect information on a cert, and I am sure you couldn't do this without the man's consent. Not sure how many men would be happy about being listed with other men as a 'possible father'. I know it is deeply frustrating, but there are some things about our families that we may never know. I just wish I had photos of some of the people I suspect are in my tree to see if there's a family likeness! nell

i agree Christopher, makes it difficult to trace the family though, the inheritance, and allowance died with him off course!!

My husbands gg grandfather wasnt named on the birth certificate, as his gg grandmother wasnt good enough to marry, she was a servant and he was some lord of the manor she married someone else and there name is on the certificate, however in later life his true father recognised him, gave him an allowance, and he changed his name by deed poll, however all the legal papers are held in a trust not to be released until a hundred years after the true fathers death, so it will be 2017 when they get released, mad or what

I started a thread similar to this last week as a well known lady genealogist here in Aust. wrote in her book 'Follow your female line as you always know who your mother is ' and I wondered how people felt about this as in even in royalty we don't know who is the father of some of them , and now with sperm donors etc it will be a nightmare for our descendants to trace their real ancestors as when they marry or have children they won't know who their partners parents are, let a lone grandparents because I feel every child has the right to know their parents and somewhere it needs to be recorded and at 21 years of age they should be able to access this info and if their 'Mum and Dad ' have explained to them that they were a little different to other children in the manner they were made in a caring sensitive way it should not be a problem what do you all think please Lara

Cheers for that Lizloojay I think if birth parents were made to name a POSSIBLE father/s as a statement to relevant birth certificates (except in extreme circumstances) it would make things so much easier for people, but, then again it could also make things ten times worse - people would probably lie anyway and that may confuse the person searching! Cant win really..... Vikki xx

Does this mean that because my birth father isnt named on my birth certificate, he must have made a declaration about being my father? He knows I exist but we have never met each other. He also knows I am his daughter. Would his family have had to make a declaration as my mother was only 16 at the time (1968) and my father was either the same age or a few years older? Vikki xx

Chris I think you're right about the Bio-Fathers. I'm sure...unless someone can correct me...that after April 2005...sperm donors will no longer have complete anonymity. The child conceived via sperm donation will have the right...from aged 16yrs...I think...to obtain details of their origin. They will be able to check future partners in order that they do not marry unknown siblings. Subsequently have access to the details of the donor. Personally for me, I think it is better than the current system. As an illegitimate child myself...I have spent 20 years trying to find my father...only have a name, address in 1970 and some work history......and I still CAN'T get anywhere. lol Not going to give up though!!! But sometimes, I think if I had been the product of a donor.....I may have more chance in finding out where my roots are!!! :o) Suzanne***

Kim Different circumstances evoke different feelings, thats all. To ME the man that did put the plasters on and held me when i Cried was dad, not the man whose sperm was introduced to my mothers egg. There is no right and wrong. I Hope your dad does come forward,as i know is your wish, and that what comes out if it is what you hope it will be. ~Jess~

jess I TOTALLY disagree with you saying that a father is then man who helped you to bring you into the world and the man who brought you up and looked after you is dad. My Father was not allowed to see me as that was my mothers wish, and my dad who brought me up as a child is my dad. My father so to speak will always be a dad to me even though he never brought me up doesnt mean that I have never loved him as much as my dad, from the day I found out that my 'dad' was infact was not my dad made no differance, everyone has different opinions and I will always love my faher like a dad i never had

Christopher As far as I know, nobody, illegitimate OR legitimate, has a RIGHT to inherit anything, except a title, of course. You can make a Will and leave all your worldly etc to the Cat's Home if you so wish. The point at which this becomes an issue is where there is no Will - then the Estate is divided up according to legal rules, depending on which County the deceased lived in. Illegitimate children only get a look-in here in certain cases. It was of course, the Law for centuries for Landowners to inherit Father to Oldest son and in those cases, an illegitimate son could not inherit, especially where there was a Title involved (neither could a daughter, legitimate or not, unless the deceased had made provision in his Will to this effect - likely to be successfully challenged if there was a remaining son). As for never being sure of your father, that seems to be a typical male worry, and one which women rarely worry about! The only way you will ever have 100% proof is by a DNA test - but that comes under the heading of Genetics and not Family History. Marjorie

When my son's daughter was born in 1997 he was named on her birth certificate even though he was not married to the child's mother because he was present at the registration. The baby was given her mother's maiden surname (which she had reverted to when she was divorced). The registrar said that when my son and the child's mother married he would have to adopt the baby in order for the child to have my son's surname. In the event, my son had to sign a declaration and her name was changed - no adoption needed. When my daughter's daughter was born in 1998 she was registered in her father's name even though her parents weren't married. When they did marry in 2000, there was no problem as the baby already had her father's name. Sue xx I just re read this - it sounds so impersonal - I am of course talking about my beloved grandaughters who I love to bits!