That is why, if you are not married and the father skips out before birth, do not put him on, the courts can look, but surely the mother either has to confirm the identity of the father or allow DNA testing of the child. And if the father doesn't agree, can his name be put on the certificate, surely he would refuse a DNA test too.
I meant that if the parent is on the birth certificate, do they not have automatic rights and responsibilities of a parent, and can they not challenge the custody etc in court whether married or not? Seems from Mélusine's post, that the courts are involved already..... so surely adjustments are possible.
Yes, court is involved immediately for a child born out of wedlock, conversely to a married situation, where it is not until/unless there's a divorce.
If you want to put a father on a birth certificate but he refuses, the judge will start a procedure to see if he's the father or not. Same if the father wants to recognise the child but the mother doesn't wish to let him to.
However, if neither mother nor father want to put the father's name on the birth certificate, there is not court involvement.
Tom
Not exactly. After the birth of a child out of wedlock, you are contacted by the Juge de Paix, whether you want it or not. And if no father is forthcoming and you refuse to name one, the judge's allowed to start a procedure to uncover who the father might be, supposedly to protect the mother and the newborn.
Law is quite paternalist in CH!
That didn't happen last year with my wife's daughter.
Tom
The judge can do it, it doesn't mean he will. Some are more modern than others!
I'm afraid that it does happen. Sometimes it's as a form of revenge for the father ending the relationship. Sometimes it's because the mother has a new man on the scene and wants him to replace the father. Sometimes it's for other reasons again.
Point is, it does happen, just as some fathers do a runner, never to be seen again. Both parents are human, at the end of the day, and thus each may be flawed.
Are you're joking? You do understand that the reason that 'mothers' don't typically 'abandon' their children is that they get to abort them (or put up for adoption) instead?
As has been mooted, I suspect this law will make absolutely no difference to any man who does not want the cost or responsibility of being a father - it makes absolutely no sense that they would invite this in after having abandoned their child to avoid it in the first place.
The only one's who may take an interest are those fathers who do or did want the cost or responsibility of being a father but lacked the legal rights to pursue such a goal and were blocked from doing so.
Even then, it appears this new law really gives what in Ireland is referred to as guardian rights, and in practical terms, they're unenforcible most of the time.
Your two statements would be correct as such, BUT
> unless mother and father agree out-of-court,
>> they BOTH will have to appear in court
>> the father has to pay "Alimente" for all those years, which means very considerable sums, sums a clear majority of fathers who quit, do not have
Sure, unmarried women always can declare NOT to know the father. BUT at the time of birth of the child do not yet know that the father is to quit