Joint birth registration: promoting parental responsibility

DWP consultation

September 2007

1.  Introduction

1.1 Law Centre (NI) is a public interest law non-governmental organisation.  We work to promote social justice and provide specialist legal services to advice organisations and disadvantaged individuals through our advice line and our casework services from our two regional offices in Northern Ireland.  It provides a specialist legal service (advice, representation, training, information and policy comment) in five areas of law: immigration, social security, community care, mental health and employment.  

1.2 Our services are provided to almost 500 member agencies.  Members include local Citizen Advice Bureaux, independent advice agencies, local solicitors, trade unions, social services, probation offices, constituency associations of local political parties, libraries and other civic organisations. 

1.3 Law Centre (NI) made submissions in respect of the consultation on The Redesign of Child Support in September 2006 and on the New System of Child Maintenance in March 2007.  We are pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this further consultation.     

2. General Comments

2.1 We generally agree with the proposal to encourage joint registration of birth but have some concerns about the administration and enforcement of such a policy.  We welcome further information on certain key proposals outlined within the consultation document including the potential impact on the courts of an increase in cases regarding paternity and establishing parental responsibility and the possible adverse impact on the mother or alleged father of having to meet any costs associated with court cases of this nature.

2.2 It is disappointing that joint birth registration despite being such a key aspect of the reform of child maintenance was not considered in conjunction with the Child Maintenance White Paper and therefore has not been taken forward as part of the Child Maintenance Bill.  While we welcome the consultation on this issue we are concerned that a separate and distinct consultation process on the joint registration of births could have serious implications for the timeframe of implementing the proposed changes to the child maintenance system. 

3.  Specific Questions

Q1  Do you agree with the underpinning principles that the Government has developed for birth registration?  Are they sufficient for a system that proposes to require joint birth registration?

3.1 We agree with the principles proposed by the consultation.  These principles have worked well in the past and there does not seem to be any immediate need to alter them.  The principles cover the main scenarios of birth registration.  We look forward to receiving further information regarding the ability for same sex couples to be recognised as parents in the draft Bill referred to within the consultation document.   This is an important issue and one which needs to be addressed as soon as possible to ensure equality in the recognition of the joint parental responsibility of same sex couples.  We believe the underpinning principles are sufficient for a system that proposes to require joint birth registration, provided the principles appropriately recognise same sex couples as parents. 

Q2  Is making parents jointly responsible for registration the right approach?

3.2 The benefits of joint registration are clear.  It would greatly increase the ability to trace non-resident parents and may also have the knock on effect of encouraging fathers to become more involved in their children’s lives. Such a change would also help to ensure a greater protection of the rights of fathers by ensuring that they are named on the birth certificate alongside the mother, therefore going some way to certify a father’s status and rights in effect of their child/children.  It is of note that Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of sole registration in the United Kingdom, at around 9 per cent, compared to around 7 per cent in England and Wales and around 6 per cent in Scotland.[1] 

Q3  Do you agree that we have identified the appropriate exemptions?  Are there any other circumstances in which parents should be exempt from joint responsibility to register a birth?

3.3 It is important that clear exemptions exist to protect vulnerable mothers and men who may be incorrectly identified as the father of a child.  Careful consideration needs to be given to how these exemptions are applied and what the burden of proof is in order to obtain an exemption from registration.  We welcome further information regarding the potential use and acceptance of the exemptions and whether any proof other than the mother or alleged father’s word is required in order for an exemption to be accepted. 

3.4  Consideration should also be given to the inclusion of a further exemption clause to allow for other mitigating circumstances not currently detailed in the consultation document to be taken into consideration.  It will be impossible to detail all possible scenarios that may justify a mother or alleged father being exempt from joint registration.  We would recommend, therefore, the inclusion of a further exemption of ‘just cause’ which would allow for a level of discretion on the part of authorities and/or the courts in alternative circumstances.

3.5 Given the delicate nature of many of the exemption criteria considerable care will need to be taken to ensure that no further distress is caused to the mother or alleged father during the registration process.  We also welcome information regarding whether specific training on dealing with exemption cases will be given to those dealing with birth registrations to ensure that the mother and/or alleged father is dealt with in an appropriate and sensitive way.  It will also be important to ensure that mothers in such circumstances are fully informed of their rights and any possible implications of not having the father named on the birth certificate. 

Q4  Does the approach set out strike the right balance between the new right of both parents to register the birth of their child and the need to protect children and vulnerable women?

3.6 The legislative approach set out in the consultation document does provide a good balance between rights and protection.  As previously stated there are clear benefits to father, mother and child of further increasing the rate of joint registration.  Joint registration allows both parents to confirm their responsibility towards the child and gives both parents enforceable rights regarding the child.  While this recognition of parental rights and responsibilities is important, equally important is the awareness that in some circumstances it is not appropriate to recognise a child’s father in order to protect the child and mother from potential harm.  

3.7  We are concerned by the potential impact on the courts of an increased involvement in paternity or parental disputes and the costs associated with cases of this nature.  We welcome further information regarding whether legal aid will be available to participants in court cases regarding joint birth registration.  We note that more work is to be undertaken in this area with local authorities, HM Court Service and the Legal Services Commission.  We trust that this work will extend to Northern Ireland to ensure the impact of any changes in Northern Ireland is taken into account. 

3.8  In consideration of the potential adverse impact on the courts of the new proposals for joint registration it may be prudent to consider other options.  For instance rather than referring cases to the courts it may be more effective to refer cases to an existing Tribunal or to establish a new Tribunal to deal with joint registration cases.   Referral to a Tribunal may prove to be less stressful, adversarial and a more efficient and timely way to resolve potential disputes.  We would welcome further comment on this proposal.

Q5  Do you consider a fine to be an adequate penalty for a father who accepts paternity but refuses to be registered on his child’s birth certificate?

3.9  A fine is an appropriate penalty, however, if paternity is clear and the mother wishes the father to be named on the child’s birth certificate there should be an element of compulsion to ensure that the father is named on the certificate.  A mother is unable to avoid inclusion on a child’s birth certificate and if a father can be identified and is not in an exempt category he too should be named and therefore clearly responsible, whether actively or not, for the child concerned. 

Q6  Do you agree with the registration service developing a proactive signposting role for potentially vulnerable mothers?

3.10  We welcome proposals to provide more support to potentially vulnerable mothers and father who may experience problems with his/her partner or parenting.  We agree that it is essential that the registration system develop a more effective approach to signposting families in need towards appropriate assistance. 

Q7  Do you think that the non-legislative initiatives identified above would promote joint birth registration?  Do you think that there should be any further initiatives in this area?

3.11 The non-legislative initiatives are a vital support to the proposed legislative changes.  It will be important that there is a widespread publicity campaign to ensure that people are aware of the benefits of joint birth registration and the importance of securing parental responsibility for the future through joint registration.  Again, we await with interest the outcome of further consultation with registrars and the Office of National Statistics project on registration modernisation for further possible initiatives in this area. 

Q8  Should we work to promote joint registration within the existing legislative framework, or should we use non-legislative measures to compliment the legislative approach set out in chapter 3?

3.12  The existing legislative framework is not sufficient to protect vulnerable women and children, nor is it able to adequately protect the rights of fathers.  It is important that any changes as significant as those proposed are recognised within a new legislative framework, however, the non-legislative measures are also vital to ensure the success of the legislative changes. 

4.  Conclusion

4.1 Law Centre (NI) welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation document.  If there is any further way in which we could contribute to this process we would welcome the opportunity to do so.

Notes