What is RSS?

Working with the media

Joint registration of births risks reducing parental responsibility

9 October 2007

The Church of England has questioned Government plans to force both parents to register every birth, arguing that legislation could reduce rather than promote parental responsibility.

By linking the subject of joint birth registration so closely with child maintenance and financial accountability, the Government risks making this legislation less likely to be accepted by those who fear being chased for money at a later stage, argues the response of the Church’s Mission and Public Affairs Council to the Department of Work and Pensions’ consultation on Joint Birth registration: promoting parental responsibility.

“We believe that an active and positive approach to encourage both parents to nurture and care for their children through all services offered at birth (registration, health etc) is a better way forward than a legislative approach which may well be interpreted as oppressive and potentially punitive by those it seeks to support,” the response says.

It has always been the teaching of the Church of England that marriage continues to provide the best context for the raising of children, the response points out, but the need to act with compassion toward those who suffer as a result of other choices and actions is also central to Christian understanding.

“We agree that the young, the most socially excluded or poor are more likely to register the birth of their child on their own. However correlation does not imply causation and there is no evidence that joint registration will have any effect on poverty or the age profile of mothers, or that sole registration implies vulnerability,” said the Rt Revd Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark

“Children are a gift of God, not a right of the parents and we want to affirm the child’s right and need for a father and a mother, wherever possible, both of whom nurture and take responsibility for the children and that public policy should support and encourage that.  However, we do not consider that a legislative approach is proportionate to the ‘problem’ of sole registration. Indeed we believe that the cost of any legislation will be largely borne by the most vulnerable, including those mothers who have genuine reasons for exemption from joint registration, who would face additional bureaucracy.”

 

 

The Department for Work and Pensions 

JOINT BIRTH REGISTRATION: PROMOTING PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

A RESPONSE FROM THE MISSION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL

OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

1. The Church of England welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation paper on joint birth registration published by the Department for Work and Pensions as part of its desire to promote and support joint parental responsibility.

2. The Mission & Public Affairs Council of the Church of England is the body responsible for overseeing research and comment on social and political issues on behalf of the Church.  The Council comprises a representative group of bishops, clergy and lay people with interest and expertise in the relevant areas, and reports to the General Synod through the Archbishops’ Council.

Introduction

3. In approaching the subject of joint birth registration, we would wish to apply three Christian principles. First, children are a gift of God not a right for their parents; secondly, a stable, committed union, as best expressed through marriage and the different contributions to parenting of both mother and father, provide the best context for children’s flourishing and creation of identity; and, thirdly, that a pastoral concern for the well being of all people entails working with the consequences of human frailty. 

4. Our theological understanding of children is shaped by the example and teaching of Jesus who stood alongside those who have no voice, and explicitly supported the welfare of children. Therefore our response is shaped by the principle of putting children’s best interests first.

5. It has always been the teaching of the Church of England that marriage - that is, a faithful, committed, loving, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman - is central to the stability and health of human society. In our view it continues to provide the best context for the raising of children. 

6. Nevertheless, it is central to Christian understandings that a pastoral concern for the well being of all people means working with the consequences of human frailty. Christians are called to respond to human suffering however it is caused. Whilst the Church will always seek to promote its understanding of the best social order, it is also called to act with compassion toward those who suffer as a result of other choices and actions. The Church, therefore, affirms the duty of the government to respond to need and hardship whatever its cause, without drawing hard lines between the morally ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’. As was affirmed in a General Synod motion of February 2004, the Church of England recognises that there are some issues of hardship and vulnerability for families whose relationships are not formalised through marriage and that these need to be addressed. 

7. This is particularly true when considering the future well-being and protection of children. The ease and greater social acceptability of sexual unions outside marriage has resulted in a higher number of births outside marriage and a more widespread acceptance that parenting as a relationship can be independent of marriage. Whilst we support marriage as being the best context for the nurturing of children because we believe it has greater potential for creating a stable, committed and healthy environment for children and their identity, we also recognise that society has a duty to protect children whatever family structure they find themselves in. We particularly want to affirm the child’s right and need for a father and a mother, wherever possible, both of who nurture and take responsibility for them and that public policy should support and encourage that.

8. By becoming parents, people put themselves within the legitimate interest of both state and law.  Parents are responsible for their part in forming the identity of children and their future well-being. Furthermore it can be argued that, putting the best interests of children first means that when people consent to a sexual relationship they are potentially subordinating their own individual rights to the shared responsibilities of parenting and the needs of any potential children that might emerge from such a relationship- even if they have not consented to being a parent in the first place.  

9. Two other important principles are pertinent to the debate about birth registration. The first is the identity of a child and the second is clarity and transparency of relationships within the family.  These were set out in Personal Origins, a report by the MPA’s predecessor body, first published in 1985, which provided a considered response to and reflection on, the ethical and theological questions raised by contemporary developments in the creation of children. 

10. Personal Origins emphasises the importance of clarity about the identity of the child.

Our genetic life is part of what it means to be human and children are entitled therefore, to a clear understanding of their own origins and how they came to be the people they are in the family they are part of…The difficulties adults might have in articulating the truth must not be allowed to override the needs and care of children .

Whilst this was written in the context of adoption and IVF within marriage, it can also be applied to children conceived outside a formalised relationship such as marriage.

The Consultation Document

11.   We are concerned that the rationale of the Green Paper appears muddled in its description of the objectives of the proposed measures. For example:

- The correlation between sole registration and (e.g.) poverty is referred to frequently (for example, in paragraphs 2, 11, 40-44 and in the Ministerial Introduction) but it is not clear how this is supposed to inform the proposals. As we point out below, correlation does not imply causation and there is no evidence that joint registration will have any effect on poverty, the age profile of mothers etc. This is partially conceded in paragraph 44 – but the constant reiteration of the correlations continues to give a misleading impression that joint registration is a measure against social marginalisation.

- Whilst the declared focus on vulnerable women and children is to be welcomed, para.63 suggests that sole registration implies vulnerability. This is, again, to misunderstand the distinction between a correlation and causation.

- Paragraph 25 rightly notes the importance of a father’s involvement in the life of a child, but these measures are explicitly addressed to “resident and non-resident” fathers (paragraph 23), which makes it difficult to see in what way they are in fact designed to encourage the involvement of fathers.

- Paragraph 44 speaks of the “benefits” to parents of joint registration. However the whole thrust of the proposals is described in terms of enforcing parental responsibilities. The Green Paper requires a much clearer vocabulary of benefits, rights and responsibilities.

- There is a stated objective (para.12) to “even up rights and responsibilities between married and unmarried couples”, and yet, in the proposals (para.52) a married man is still assumed to be the father of his wife’s child whereas an unmarried male partner must have his paternity expressly declared. This creates a new distinction rather than an “evening up”.

- By paragraph 48, joint registration appears to be, in effect, the end in itself. This confirms our view that the rationale for the proposals is not clear.

12. We find it very hard to understand how the proposed measures can be explained in terms of their proportionality to the problem. On the document’s own figures, only 7% of births are registered solely by the mother. Of these, 45% are, in practice, in contact with the fathers. This means that only 20,250 children are solely registered and not in contact with their fathers. Given that the proposals are, to a great extent, concerned with legitimate exemptions to the requirement for joint registrations, the benefits of the legislation stand to affect an even smaller number. The cost of this will be borne, not only by registrars (64) and the courts (65) but also by those mothers who have genuine reasons for exemption from joint registration who will face considerable additional bureaucracy (in contradiction of the expressed aim of supporting vulnerable women).

13. The measures as proposed appear to be disproportionate to any problem, which they might conceivably address.

Questions

Question 1: 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?

14. This consultation paper has highlighted the inability of the current birth registration system to cope with the purposes now attached to it. Traditionally the birth registration in this country fulfilled two purposes, first, to be the principal method used by the state of recording the existence of a new being in relation to the state and, secondly, to be a record of a child’s identity and roots. This system was based on an assumption that most children were brought up in married couple families. Those who were not were smaller in number and could be contained within the system.

15. We now live a much more complex society, where due to the advances in scientific procedures and the increasing complexity of relationships, there are increasing number of children whose genetic, biological and/or social parenting may be experienced as separate relationships. Because these roles are not always located in the same person, our registration system strains to fulfil the purposes attached to it. 

16. Because birth registration, resulting in a birth certificate, is a public document, there is a danger that the need for clarity in a person’s origins becomes secondary to the need, and sometimes the right, to keep some information private. This was most obvious in the example of people who are transgendered and the pressure for them to be able to change their birth certificates. We would encourage the Government to consider giving parents the two certificates automatically, the shorter one that just gives the baby's names and surname, sex, date of birth and the name of the registration district and sub-district where the birth took place for public use and the longer one for family identity and records. . 

17. In addition since Dec 2003, another purpose has been added to birth registration, the automatic giving of parental responsibility to those named on the birth certificate.   In consequence, to be recorded as the parent of a child in this ways means making a declaration of willingness to take on responsibility for that child.

18. This aspect has caused confusion within the system and conflict between the purposes. For example, it may be important that a child has a sense of who he or she is and to know the identity of both their genetic or biological parents but it is not clear that this must invariably entail that such information should be in the public domain (as on a birth certificate) or that this should imply parental responsibility. However, if we assume (as this consultation paper does) that the primary purpose of birth registration is to establish and support parental responsibility, then the purpose of recording a child’s identity can be lost (for example in egg or sperm donation, or where the genetic father does not wish to take parental responsibility). 

19. For the purposes of clarity and recording of a child’s identity and roots, we agree that, wherever possible, the two people named at registration should be the biological parents. However, we also agree that a husband should be presumed to be the father of his wife’s child, whilst recognising that, unless compulsory DNA testing takes place, registration as father does not necessarily imply biological parenthood. There will be situations where a husband knowingly takes on responsibility for a child even if the child is not his own, out of love for his wife and care for the child .

20. Policy and legislation towards unmarried parents are more complex, simply because of the diversity of relationships thus represented. We are not convinced that it is necessary to ‘even up rights and responsibilities between married and unmarried couples to reflect the variety of modern day relationships’ . We do not see why the assumption of paternity cannot, in principle, be extended to an unmarried man in a stable relationship with the mother. It is important not to legislate on the basis that all unmarried parents are in the same sort of unmarried relationship.

21. As joint parental responsibility is now automatically granted to those named on a certificate, registration is now as much an act of intent to be the father of the child (in terms of taking on responsibility for that child) as a biological record of fathering the child. If the couple are not joined together in marriage, then it would be in the best interests of the child for society to recognise and support other opportunities for commitment and (social as well as biological) identity. Birth registration has become one such sign, a modern day symbol of intent and responsibility.   The implication is that the birth certificate is a public expression of commitment to the child on the part of the adults whose names appear on the certificate.

22. Whilst we agree this is important, we would wish to point out that what is proposed elevates that purpose above the purpose of recording identity and roots. This is even more the case when considering sperm donation or same sex couples. In our evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill,  we raised concern about removing the need of a child for a father for same sex couples (or single mothers) who want to have a child using IVF. We believe children are entitled to a clear understanding of their own origins and how they came to be the people they are. Therefore it is important that same sex couples are encouraged to be honest about the child’s origins and that the child has access to a father figure. We continue to be concerned about legislation which would allow same sex couples to decide in advance to use IVF technology to bring into the world a child who will, ‘by design’, never have a father (or mother, in the case of gay men commissioning a child by IVF surrogacy). It sends the signal that everyone has a right to a child and this ‘right’ over-rules consideration of that child’s welfare. In recent years the Government has stated that they believe that it is better for a child to have both a father and a mother , that ‘the single most important factor is the welfare of the child’  and that ‘the welfare of children cannot always be adequately protected by concern for the interests of the adults involved’. We are concerned that the Government now appears to have abandoned these views in deciding to remove the ‘need of a child for a father’ clause and in shifting the emphasis from the welfare of the child to the desires and supposed rights of adults to be able to have a child using IVF. We urge the Government to retain the ‘need of a child for a father’ clause.

23. There is confusion in the proposed principle about same sex couples because it reflects an assumption that the only purpose of the registration process is to establish parental responsibility for the child rather than to record its identity and roots. Although we accept that it could be in the best interests of the child for both members of a same sex couple to share legal parental responsibility (whilst recognising the need for a child to a father figure), we are not convinced that the birth registration should be the way of doing this or that every same sex couple will want to jointly register the birth of the child of the family - it is properly a matter for each family to resolve in the light of its unique circumstances. It may well be that the couple, while wanting to have joint parental responsibility for their child, will want the father of the child to be recorded on the birth certificate.

Question 2: Is making parents jointly responsible for registration the right approach?

24. We agree that parents and the home environment they create are important factors in shaping children’s well-being and future. Children flourish when they have parents who nurture and care for them and are jointly responsible for their welfare and, as we have indicated above, joint registration could be an important symbol of that joint parenting role, particularly when the parents are not married to each other. We agree that joint registration should be made as easy and accessible for all parents as possible and that, through every educative means possible, parents should be encouraged to share that nurturing and caring role in the widest possible way. 

25. However, it is of concern to us from the start that the subject of joint birth registration and parental responsibility is, in the context of this consultation, so closely linked with questions about child maintenance and financial accountability. We do not believe that the certificate’s purpose should be used coercively to pursue financial commitment from fathers who do not demonstrate wider social commitment to the child. The rights of any child for parents who nurture and care for them are in danger of being confused with utilitarian arguments about who should support the children in cases where parents do not live together or ways of reducing social exclusion for parents. Although it has been shown that sole registration is linked to social exclusion, we should not assume that persuading those who would otherwise register their baby alone to register with the baby’s father is going to reduce social exclusion.  In other words, the correlation of sole registration and social exclusion does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.

26. Because joint registration brings with it certain responsibilities, as well as benefits (such as being able to claim paternity benefit) and because this idea has come out of the review of child maintenance which implies enforced financial responsibility, it signals mixed messages about Government’s real intentions in engaging with fathers in particular. Again we feel this makes legislation less likely to be accepted.    

Question 3: 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?

Question 4: 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?

27. We strongly agree that society has an obligation to protect the vulnerable. This is particularly true in the case of birth registration. We accept that the exemptions outlined in paragraphs 57 and 58 are proportionate. We also agree that a parent should have the right to appeal to the courts if either parent contests this decision. We are not, however, convinced by the argument that a mother should have the right to veto the father being entered onto the register because of his likely failure to live up to her expectations of being a good father. We agree that it would be in the best interests of the child in some cases (such as rape and incest) that registration’s purposes in providing a record of a child’s origin should be put to one side. This reinforces our view that the various functions that a birth certificate currently fulfils should be kept clearly separate when considering changes to legislation.

28. Our concern in this area, particularly if joint registration is to be enforced, is about the level of proof needed and how a consistent system can be developed without a lot of cost either to the parents or the state. We fear that the burden of proof will rest unacceptably on the mother. The Green Paper rightly notes the increased vulnerability of (sometimes already vulnerable) mothers in the period immediately after birth. We believe that the proposals risk unacceptably burdening the most vulnerable at this time.  Paragraph 69 notes the desire to avoid introducing a new deterrent to registration, but we fail to see how the proposals will avoid this in the case of vulnerable mothers who, for whatever reason, wish to register the birth in their name alone.

Question 5: Do you consider a fine to be an adequate penalty for a father who accepts paternity but refuses to be registered on this child’s birth certificate?

29. We do not agree with an approach that involves coercion or penalties for non-compliance, and believe such measures to be in contradiction of the stated objective of encouraging birth registration among the most vulnerable mothers.

Question 6: Do you agree with the registration service developing a proactive signposting role for potentially vulnerable mothers?

Question 7: Do you think that the non-legislative initiatives identified above would promote joint birth registration? Do you think there should be any further initiatives in this area?

30. In our response to changes in civil registration in 2002/2003 we emphasised the importance of people being able to register in person rather than doing it online and we went on to express our belief that the ritual of registration in a certain place and the receiving of a certificate is still highly significant for a large number of people, particularly fathers at the time of birth. We consider the registration service could develop a significant signposting service for all parents, in partnership with midwives, health visitors and community support at the time of registration and particularly those most at risk.  However, if the Government pursued its policy of online registration, this signposting role would be more difficult to fulfil.

31. In identifying initiatives to promote joint parenting and registration we would strongly recommend studying pilot initiatives by agencies such as One plus One but also many smaller groups, some of which can be found in faith communities, who are working with parents at the time of the child’s birth to encourage and support positive relationships and parenting skills.

 

Question 8: 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? 

32. We do not consider that a legislative approach is likely to achieve the aims of the Government in promoting the well being and flourishing of children. We are concerned that the proposals in this Green Paper are disproportionate to the problems it sets out to address. We believe an active positive approach to encourage both parents to nurture and care for their children in a holistic way through all services offered is a better way forward than a legislative approach which may well be interpreted as oppressive and potentially punitive by those it seeks to support

 

The Rt Rev Tom Butler

Bishop of Southwark

Vice-Chair: Mission and Public Affairs Council

of the Church of England

Church House

Great Smith Street

London SW1P 3NZ

September 2007

 

feedback | contact us | links | site map | copyright & disclaimer | privacy | site help
Supported by Ecclesiastical Insurance Group
Site developed by ILRT