The person who is named as the father on the birth certificate is the father.
If no one is named on the birth certificate, the government may try to ascertain who is the father because there is law that insists that the father supports the child financially. (Google 'Child Support Agency' on that.)
The courts can decide whether the father has access to the child but, whether he does or not, he is still liable to support said child.
Okay, so even if he left (the way I planned it, he left money to his future ex-wife before leaving for the baby) if he is on the birth certificate, it's okay? Does he supposed to sign something or not? thank for your help anyway!
It doesn't matter what money he left. The CSA assesses how much money the father has to pay in support. If what he left isn't adequate they will chase him for it.
He doesn't have to sign anything for him to be regarded as the father. If he isn't, he can dispute it.
You would have more trouble if you wanted him not to have responsibility. He will have been legally required to contribute to the costs of bringing her up until she is 18, unless her mother remarried and her stepfather took responsibility.
You say "there is no possible doubt about paternity," which I assume means he is the genetic parent. Under these circumstances, he is legally her parent according to the book chapter you found.
Also, while I am not a lawyer in England, in the U.S. you have to do way, way more than just divorce the other parent in order to no longer legally be a parent. If that were the case, if you got divorced, you'd never have to support your genetic offspring who were conceived with your legal spouse and with your consent, which would obviously be Bad. I can't imagine that England would be different.
Oh sure, not being married doesn't give you a pass on child support in the US either, I was just trying to respond to the specific situation in the post. Sorry to give the wrong impression!
If he's named as the father on the birth certificate _and_ he was legally married to the mother at the time of the birth, then it would take a fairly prolonged and difficult court case to _stop_ him being legally recognised as the father. So yes, the dad is still the dad.
(I'm not sure there are any laws in the UK insisting that a live kidney donor must be related though; if they're willing, able, and compatible, I don't think they'd be refused.)
Yes, although as I understand it the approval process for altruistic donors is rather more complex than for directed donors (i.e. relations or those with a close attachment).
My grandparents got divorced shortly after my father was born on the grounds that she'd just had a baby, and hadn't seen her husband in eighteen months. Legally, her husband is still my grandfather.
Comments 23
If no one is named on the birth certificate, the government may try to ascertain who is the father because there is law that insists that the father supports the child financially. (Google 'Child Support Agency' on that.)
The courts can decide whether the father has access to the child but, whether he does or not, he is still liable to support said child.
Reply
Reply
He doesn't have to sign anything for him to be regarded as the father. If he isn't, he can dispute it.
Reply
Reply
Also, while I am not a lawyer in England, in the U.S. you have to do way, way more than just divorce the other parent in order to no longer legally be a parent. If that were the case, if you got divorced, you'd never have to support your genetic offspring who were conceived with your legal spouse and with your consent, which would obviously be Bad. I can't imagine that England would be different.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(I'm not sure there are any laws in the UK insisting that a live kidney donor must be related though; if they're willing, able, and compatible, I don't think they'd be refused.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment