[COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED]
This is a post by “Annie”, one half of our Project Coordination team at the Transparency Project. Annie is a birth mum who has experienced several sets of public and private law proceedings including a new-born removal, and that baby’s rehabilitation home. Annie writes “Surviving Safeguarding: A parent’s guide to the child protection process”, is a Trainer and Consultant for several local authorities and organisations and is the Parent and Relatives Representative on the Family Justice Council.
Late last week, an article appeared in several news outlets about a case involving a father’s refusal to register his new-born baby’s birth. The Guardian article linked to the judgment in the case, heard by Mr Justice Hayden earlier this month.
The local authority, in this case Tower Hamlets, were already involved in public law proceedings with the family and that case itself is ongoing. The parents are undertaking residential assessments with the baby, born in Spring of this year, who is subject to an Interim Care Order. These are independent parenting assessments whereby a person is assessed and observed by professionals while living in a residential assessment unit.
The main issue here was that the father would not register the child’s birth as one does, normally shortly after giving birth. The 1953 Births and Deaths Registration Act requires a birth to be registered within 42 days of a child being born. After that time, a reminder notice is sent out to parents. Failure to register your child’s birth after 12 months has elapsed can result in a fine of up to £200.
It was the father’s firm belief that registering his baby’s birth was akin to an “entry into a ship’s manifest, in which the child becomes ‘an asset to the country which has boarded a vessel to sail on the high seas.’ ” He felt that registration will “cause his son to become controlled by a State which he perceives to be authoritarian and capricious.”
F has strong beliefs surrounding the concept of “sovereignty”. This is a very particular concept for him. It has nothing at all to do with contemporary debate. It is essentially a personal ideology. F believes that central to the concept is the power and writ of the individual. ‘We are each…’, he says, ‘our own sovereign. We come from the Earth, we are the creations of the universe. We are governed by a Common Law but only to the extent that we depart from three principles. These three imperatives are: to do no harm; to cause no loss; to inflict no injury.’ In circumstances where they are proved to have occurred, to the criminal standard of proof, F asserts that what he calls the Common Law is then triggered.
Hayden J.
This might sound like the stuff of nonsense; a nuanced interpretation of archaic law. One might be inclined to poke fun, or dismiss these beliefs as a bit bonkers. Some may feel that this is evidence of justification for intervention by the State and the commencement of care proceedings.
This is where it gets a bit tricky for me.
I was told, on the 24th of May 2013 that the local authority’s plan for my baby, due on the 30th of June, was removal and ultimately adoption on the basis of a “future risk of emotional harm”. I hadn’t harmed my baby and was taking the relevant steps to ensure I did all I could so that he would not be. I scoured the internet for advice on what to do. I was desperate, frightened, powerless. I didn’t know what I was dealing with; I didn’t understand the law, the systems and the processes in place.
I came across a number of social media groups, all titled as such to suggest that their members were going through similarly frightening times. I frantically joined everything I could and posted questions about the law, mainly asking how a baby could be removed on a “future risk of emotional harm” (that’s another post entirely!). A few responses said: Run – flee the country whilst you still can. Others told me to leave my local authority and go somewhere else where I might stand a better chance. Some said not to tell anyone nor seek help when I went into labour, and to give birth at home – with only my 16 year old son in the house – after baby was born I was advised to go into hiding.
A few other people said it was too late to run and that when I gave birth I should simply not name my child at all, nor register his birth. I was told that as soon as I did, he became “property of the State”. He was no longer “mine”. That way, the local authority could take him from me. If I didn’t name him, or register his birth – they couldn’t. I can recall, at the time, this sounding like a great option. I didn’t have to run (read: waddle) anywhere, and I didn’t risk staining my carpets and traumatising my 16 year old. I couldn’t believe more people just didn’t do this. It was so simple – and it made sense to me, in my heightened, vulnerable state where I would have done anything to keep my child.
I looked further into it and (after about 5 minutes) realised I was being rather poorly advised and that this claim had no basis in fact, nor in English law as it is today. I was pretty cross that I had been very nearly “led down the garden path” as it were, but, quite frankly, had bigger things on my mind at the time. In fact, I had all but forgotten about it, until I read this story last week.
I revisited the issue on researching this piece and a quick Google showed me that people are still giving out this advice on social media sites and parenting forums. Mostly, the advice is ridiculed or dismissed as crackpot by other readers and commenters. But, some parents genuinely do believe it. And my worry is that some of these parents who are embroiled in care proceedings are vulnerable and seeking alternative resolutions rather than looking at why they are in the position they are in.
However, to some parents, this is the way they choose to bring up their children. To some parents, it is felt that registering their children means they will become “property of the State”, and that the State will control how their children’s lives will play out. To many of us, this is eccentric, even paranoid, and a little worrying. But is it right that we judge this negatively?
‘The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature.’
Lord Templeman, in Re KD (A Minor Ward) (Termination of Access) [1988] 1 AC 806, [1988] 2 FLR 139, at 812 and 141 respectively
There are those who may regard that last sentence as controversial but undoubtedly it represents the present state of the law in determining the starting point. It follows inexorably from that, that the current legal starting point was that children were best brought up within natural families: it followed that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent, and that some children would experience disadvantage and harm, while others would flourish in atmospheres of loving security and motional stability. It was not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting; the compulsive powers of the state could only be exercised when the significant harm criteria in s31(2) of the Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) had been made out.”
It is clear from the judgment in Re T that this is a complex and ongoing case with a lot of history. The issues are far more wide-ranging than a father simply refusing to register his child’s birth because he believes in a set of laws that are outdated.
Indeed, Hayden J says:
Here I am concerned with parental obligation to comply with a statutory duty as required by law. This does not require, in my judgment, the oversight or approval of the Court. With respect to the father, it is a simple requirement in law. Nonetheless, in the light of the very disturbing history to this case and as there were various applications before the Court in any event, the Local Authority has chosen to seek the Court’s approval regarding the registration of T’s birth.
The issue that needs to be unpicked and looked at in further detail in my opinion is that so many vulnerable people turn to the internet in times of crisis, when it is awash with bad advice.
How do we, as practitioners in our field, try to help parents discriminate between “the good, the bad and the ugly” advice? How do we help parents to resolve their issues, whilst also respecting the individual way they choose to bring up their children? And who decides what’s “normal” anyway?
Much to think about.
Update from the TP Team Jan 2021 :
We’ve seen a few comments pop up on this post complaining that the question posed in the headline of this article isn’t answered. We think it’s pretty obvious from the article what the position is, but for anyone in doubt : No, registering your child’s birth does not make them the property of the state.
It is a legal obligation to register a child’s birth within 6 weeks of delivery and although it enables the government to know who has been born and when, and may be a gateway to access to services and rights, it does not change the fact that a child’s parents are responsible for his care and for decision making about him – until he is old enough to make his own decisions. If the state (social services) is going to intervene without your agreement in the lives of your child it will need to do so in accordance with the law. In broad terms this is only where there is a legitimate cause for thinking that your child has suffered significant harm or might be at risk of suffering significant harm. Social services have a duty to intervene to protect your child regardless of whether his birth has been registered – they may sometimes do so without justification, but not registering the birth is not going to have any impact on that, other than to make social services more worried about being able to work with you to keep your child safe (as explained by Annie above).
[COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED]
The other danger is self taught McKenzie friends offering so-called family law expertise on social media.
many of these people are not fit to be assisting parents going through the family courts as their professionalism can be very poor to say the least.
Hi, I’ve edited your comment for legal reasons. Project Coordinator.
I had my 1st child removed from birth and forcibly adopted, my 2nd child I had at home and never told anyone but social services found out after a few months and took her away and adopted her out, there reason was as I never went hospital to have her I put her life at risk. My 3rd child I tried doing everything right I had her in hospital they took her and adopted her out I never got to see her since she was 3 days old. My 4th and 5th children were born at home I never told anybody they are unregistered aged 6 and 4, I feel bad as they can’t go doctors or school, my youngest got sick as a toddler and I had to use a friend child birth certificate to take him to a doctor’s out the area. What can I do to register them without social services taking them away?
I am just curious as to the reason why they took your first child in the first place? And also did you get a solicitor for the reasons on your second child, as many people have babies at home, whereby it may have been inevitable or already chosen place for the birth, and if you can choose then their reasons are unfounded.. Also we’re all the previously taken children registered??
I personally would like to know how you get by and how you managed to keep your last 2 undetected for so long? I am a mum of 3 and personally feel I wouldn’t be able to cope with the fear of what could happen next..
That’s seriously a mess the system is created to steal children by using lies against people also it’s a business we as people fail to see this I hope you do get to reunite with your children 1 2 3 that’s ashame they make me sick taking people’s children and using lies to do it the system is corrupt
Ironically, this entire article doesn’t address the title or answer the question of whether registering a baby makes them property of the state.
Internet advice may be valid – considering this article is also ‘internet advice’ (…not without irony, may I add…).
After investing the time into reading this article, the question of whether registering a baby makes them property of the state remains completely unanswered.
“The issue that needs to be unpicked and looked at in further detail in my opinion is that so many vulnerable people turn to the internet in times of crisis, when it is awash with bad advice.” – I ask whether we should avoid your ‘advice’, given the above huge omission i.e failure to address the subject matter…
My point twice .
I thought that it was waffle and the person probably never was in the situation they proclaimed.
It’s all misleading propaganda
Read all above and like someone else has said you clearly do not and your own question so reading all info was a complete waste of my time , did not help me in any way at all.
I agree with the above two comment this rubbish article awash with nothing but waffle and arrogance of parents desperation does not answer the question, is pathetic waste of valuable reading time and needs to be taken down since you are hypocritical I’m the fact that you are also giving our the same bad internet advice that you are mocking in this pathetic, ridiculous excuse for an article.
No actual advise on the subject. Seem they are justifying the actions of the courts, disregarding the fathers questions and trying to belittle freethinking and self learning/advice sharing from a none legal standpoint. These laws are not made for you or your children’s benefit but for the benefit of the state.
I suspect the writer of this article is part of the narrative being pushed. No real answers on the matter of law. Simply more internet waffle, which it is, ironically, trying to refute.
Agreed this needs to be abated, also very interesting subject. I’m sure there’s many good reasons for registering but do you have the right not too
No. It is a legal obligation to register your child. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/20/section/2
I agree this topic has been left completely unanswered and wasted my time, the comments should be at the top before more people waste their time or the title of the article changed
No, it’s not law it is legislation and only becomes law if you consent.
the legislation is not law.
Keith, The law is the law and it does not require consent. The suggestion that law has no effect unless you consent is a fallacy.
Keith it is “law” as in, it IS part of the agreement between the parties.
The legal obligation to register is a part the existing contract between the citizen (parents of the child) and the government (ultimate legal parents-in-effect of the citizen).
It most certainly is law if you understand “how this stuff works”. For want of a better phrasing.
The government (the parents) have legislated that you (the children) have six weeks to register new live births.
If you do not properly understand your position you my be subject to fines and imprisonment.
If you do, you would probably still register your child anyway so that your child has an interface with the public.
You’d want your child to have that. You’d just administer the arrangement like not-a-pleb…
So where does the so-called Legal Obligation come from?
Where did this faceless dictatorship obtain its Authority over ME?
Are we not Governed by Consent?
Has there ever been an open public debate on this matter or are we simply expected to believe everything the Private BAR tells us?
Why are Judges not selected and elected by the Public? Is it a closed Shop
I think the point anyone with the believe that registering your child’s birth is handing them over to the state is making is that:
There is a massive difference between legal and lawful. Legislation is not law, it is an ‘act of parliament’, parliament is a corporation that can be found on ‘companies house’ i.e United Kingdom LTD.
Legislation is contract law and by registering a child’s birth, you as the parent are signing a contract to say that child is an employee of the state and therefore must follow the company’s rules and regulations and can be penalised if they do not, those rules and regulations being the acts of that company (legislation).
The opinion being that if you do not register the child, they are not a company employee and are not bound by legislation, only the law of the land which is, do no harm, cause no loss.
It is reasonable to believe that these 2 laws can cover every eventuality as I challenge anyone to come up with a situation in which they are not sufficient to make a ruling.
If this is the case then all legislation is irrelevant and unnecessary and is only there to enslave an ignorant population and provide a means of financial extraction if they step out of line, this creating fear of loss and an uncertainty of true freedom, I would class this as terrorism.
This opinion could be countered by saying that these corporations are voted into power, however the vote is not on which system the nation runs under, only which representative is fronting the company, the company stays the same regardless of the vote of who runs it and the rules of it remain constant.
Please point out any inaccuracies in my comment and state what is instead correct.
You have asked for us to point out any inaccuracies in your comment. It is pretty much all inaccurate. Legislation is not contract law. Registering a birth is not a contract. A child is not an employee. You are still bound by legislation even if you don’t agree with it. etc etc.
This is freemen on the land ‘theory’ and it is wrong. You cannot make yourself immune to the law by simply saying you don’t agree or sign up to it.
The LAST sentence in your comment is correct. The rest…. nonsense.
It IS all contract and each and every citizen is presumed to be operating under the terms of the contract.
So much so the in any public notice that uses the word “law”, one could substitute the word “law” with “the contract” or “contract”.
Hi, Moderators.
Would you mind telling me why you deleted all of my comments.
They were all made in good faith. Were they not factually correct?
Kind regards
Just slow moderating S.
In broad terms this is only where there is a legitimate cause for thinking that your child has suffered significant harm or might be at risk of suffering significant harm.
What constitutes significant harm or at “risk” of suffering significant harm ?
Where is this stipulated within the legal framework and it’s definition clarified ?
Do not speak of your own opinion but from the legal documents that you go off on.
So, if a parent does not register, it is a fine of £200 (unless that has changed) and having paid the fine, what is the situation then? Does paying the fine admit the power of the State to further enforce it? Or having payed the fine is that the end of it? I can see that without the Certificate then the child will have difficulty getting a passport etc, and the child, when adult, may wish to change the situation and register.