Genealogy Chat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

Oh Lou that must have been so very difficult for you. I hope you have managed to find out what you needed to know now. My concern has been medical history - it's only since we lost Mum and Dad and I started this research that things have come to light that no-one knew anything about, not even Mum otherwise she'd have perhaps been more aware about certain things than she was. Not only Mum either. I've been lying to Doctors all my life because I didn't know about these things. Both sides of my family these days are very, very open, perhaps something that's alien to other people but since I've found out I've discussed it with siblings and now everyone knows what they need to know. It's so important. Jan

Yes Christopher he was the first born son, guess his father didnt want any titles to go to the illegitamate child though hense why everything is tied up, as a child he was given his true fathers name Hill as a middle name, but was known as Mercer, when his father accepted him he dropped the Mercer bit

Jan It was a difficult journey to make but a pleasant ending. I now not only have a detailed medical knowledge from both sides (birth mother and father although no contact has been made with him and I have no desire to. I don't even know if he is still alive) but I've also acquired 2 brothers who have always known of my existance and the circumstances surrounding my adoption. And I'm forming a lovely relationship with my birth mother, D. We're meeting for the first time and having lunch next weekend!!! Lou

Lou that's great, that's just what my daughter and I do, go have lunch together. Less so now that the grandchildren are busy little bees but nevertheless, it's still something to look forward to. Wish you all the luck in the world with your new found family. J

I saw an item on the news, I think sometime last year. A maternity hospital had carried out a survey on the babies who were born there. They collected DNA from all consenting 'parents' and their babies. The individual results weren't given out to the parents but the conclusion was 11% of the men who thought they had just become Dads actually hadn't!

Helen I too saw either this, or a similar, survey - I think it was something like 20%!! However, what they did not say in the article was that this survey was done in a Maternity Unit which had a high proportion of Drug Abusing mothers. I kind of think this might have had something to do with the results! If your 2 x GGM was a flighty piece who lived in Tiger Bay Cardiff, say, and her husband was a seaman, then the possibility is higher that her children are not the children of her husband - but if she was the wife of a Vicar in rural Yorkshire, then the odds are that all her children are the children of her husband. But it is all only possibilities at the end of the day. We must also remember that an unknown number of children are and were, born of incest or rape - are you still so keen to insist that the mother names the true father?And is she likely to, in those circumstances? I can appreciate that if you do not know who your true biological father is, it must be a constant, nagging thought. But sperm donors were promised absolute anonimity and by the very nature of the thing, were declaring that they had no possible interest or claim on the child thus born. I think the new Law will have the undesired effect of drastically reducing the number of sperm donors - which leads to the next question: Do you, as an adult, have the RIGHT to choose to get pregnant by a means which may possibly cause untold psychological harm to your offspring - anonymous sperm donation - and a totally unforeseen and unwelcome burden to the Donor, some 30 years after he has done his 'good deed'. I don't think I have any firm views on this but am interested to hear what others think. Marjorie