Hello dear lawyers (again)

[lovingboth]

Just checking - section 111 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 finally came into force on the 1st December.

It gives unmarried fathers 'parental responsibility' iff they're named on the birth certificate (until now, you've needed a specific agreement with the mother or order made by a court).

But it only applies to (re-)registrations made on or after that date, doesn't it?

Comments

[snagglepat.livejournal.com]

And what rights do they have if they're not named on the birth crtificate?

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Very few indeed! Certainly no right to be involved in decisions about the child's education, medical treatment, religion, or where they live.

In practice most schools and medics will treat someone as the father if they're presented that way, but in crunch situations it can get difficult. And if the mother should die, an unmarried father (without parental responsibility) has no automatic right to be appointed the child's guardian.

I'm pretty sure it's still possible for a father to get PR (which gives them all these rights, and responsibilities) even if they're not named on the birth certificate - see comments below for how.

[snagglepat.livejournal.com]

The angle for me here is that fact that my (female) partner and I are planning to have a child through donor insemination at some point. She's going to be the birth Mum but we want a known donor who will be known, and a friend, but will not be a parent or have any parental rights. I will, of course, want full parental rights.

Known donors have successfully taken mothers to court to get parental responsibility for 'their' child after the child has been born. We do hope to secure ourselves from this by being very careful about who our donor ends up being and being very up front about what we all want, but even without putting his name on the birth certificate, he can get parental rights if he really wants them, regardless of prior agreements.

I just wonder what the new changes might mean to people in our circumstances. Any ideas?

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Dunno for sure (IANAL!), but my guess is that this most recent change won't make much difference in your case, unless you do get the donor to sign the birth certificate (which you probably don't want).

It's probably well worth getting a written agreement with the donor. Obviously, it wouldn't be cast iron since family courts can disregard any agreement and make any order they consider to be in the interests of the child. But it'd be useful proof of the intentions of everybody involved at the start. The donor couldn't start saying that they wanted to be involved all along (which would help a case for PR) if they've signed an agreement saying they don't. Plus the donor might be happy to have a piece of paper saying you won't pursue them for maintenance.

If you like causing trouble/blazing a trail, it might be worth having the argument out with the courts to be given parental responsibility yourself. It'll almost certainly be hassle, but it certainly seems to me that having a second parent (who is very much invested in the child's welfare) recognised formally as such would be in the best interests of the child. If you get a sympathetic beak and the donor doesn't contest it you could have a chance.

But all this is just guesswork - you'll get a better answer from people with experience of this!

[snagglepat.livejournal.com]

Yep, I can get (almost) parental responsibility through a residence order currently (which is close to, but not as good as full parental responsibility), but I do believe that at some point very soon (or maybe already) the law changes/has changed so that same-sex couples can adopt. If this is the case then I imagine it would be worth us pursuing that route, but I've been anable to find any info on that yet. Even the residence order is a trial to get, but it's not uncommon anymore and it shouldn't be too much of a problem to get sorted out, just a hassle.

There's also the civil partnership white paper that does say that couples who register as civil partners will be able to adopt their partner's children in the same way that heterosexual, married step-parents can currently. I'm not going to hold my breath on this one though, and it would mean we'd have to do the registration thing which we may or may not want to do.

Opinions are split on how useful a written agreement is, but it certainly won't do us any harm when the time comes. We will have to look into it. :)

[lovingboth]

Yep, this act says same sex couples can adopt. But the adoption process redefines hassle, even in cases where one of the couple is a parent of the child.

[lovingboth]

I don't think there are any changes. Without the mother's agreement, the father still needs a court to make a Parental Responsibility Order.

Once that is requested, you're into the Children Act's demand that the 'interests of the child' come first.