Here is a letter that I wrote today to Beverley Hughes MP, Children’s Minister, and to Kitty Ussher MP, Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions. It is a response to an attempt in Parliament to undermine the Government’s proposed new legislation on birth registration.
Dear Beverley and Kitty,
I am writing to express my alarm at the efforts of Liberal Democrat MP, Paul Rowen, backed by Gingerbread and NSPCC, to undermine the proposed legal changes to birth registration that would secure greater commitment to children by fathers unmarried at the time of the birth of their child.
Birth registration secures the right of the child, as specified in Article 7.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to be registered and know his or her parents. In the UK system, the registration of the birth by a parent also automatically confers Parental Responsibility, giving parents certain basic rights they need to be a parent. Where it is inappropriate for a parent who has registered the birth to have Parental Responsibility, family courts can restrict or remove it, based on an assessment of the child’s best interest.
An anomaly currently exists whereby unmarried fathers, unlike any other parent, can be prevented by their partner from registering a birth – thereby undermining the child’s right and providing a short cut to removal of Parental Responsibility without due consideration of the child’s best interests. Unmarried fathers can challenge this in court, but DWP research shows that most non-registrations take place in vulnerable families where fathers do not have the resources or knowledge to take this action.
The proposed amendment to the bill reverses the intended change to the law by retaining the right of unmarried mothers (but not married mothers or any father) to block the registration of the other parent if a risk to violence and/or abuse is alleged, without formal consideration of the child’s best interest.
The proposers of the amendment rightly prioritise the need to protect women and children from dangerous fathers and Government has already recognised the need to improve procedures to detect domestic violence around the birth of a child and refer cases to appropriate agencies. More can be done to develop effective and timely administrative safeguards to restrict the exercise of Parental Responsibility – measures that would work equally for all families irrespective of marital status. More could be done in particular to enable all vulnerable parents to access the legal processes available to them, such as Section 8 Orders from a family court.
But there is no evidence in this country or other countries where the system proposed for UK is already in operation, that prevention of birth registration and the resulting automatic removal of Parental Responsibility is among the tools that would convey greater safety. Meanwhile the costs of this measure, in terms of the impact on the rights of the child and the removal of fathers from registration and Parental Responsibility without due consideration of the child’s best interests, can be evidenced and are the basis on which Government has proposed the change in law.
Government is currently launching its Think Fathers Campaign, to raise awareness about the need to support father-child relationships with greater attention. How the Government stands up to this pressure to back down will, I believe, profoundly affect the impact of this campaign.
During today, I will be appealing to the Liberal Democrat leadership to reconsider their position. I will also talk to the Conservatives. I will also ask NSPCC to reconsider and talk to other national children’s charities. And finally, I believe that this is a story of public interest and needs public discussion; it is a good thing that open debate about the fundamentals can take place.
With best wishes, Duncan
