Registration of Births (Inclusion of Deceased Parents)

12:54:00

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of a parent’s details on a child’s birth certificate where that parent has died before the birth of the child; and for connected purposes. For the vast majority of parents, registering the birth of their child is a straightforward process. It is a simple piece of paperwork that marks a special moment and brings important recognition of their new family, along with notable legal rights. Yet, for a number of women every year, what should be an uncontroversial step in their journey as a parent becomes a protracted and traumatic legal battle. The law dictates that it is the duty of the parents to register the birth of a child within 42 days. For married couples, there is a presumption of paternity for the husband under the law. That means either parent may register the birth unaccompanied by the other, with both still recorded on the birth certificate. Therefore, in the terrible event that their husband dies before the child is born, a widowed mother can still ensure their name is on the birth certificate, which is common sense. However, if the couple are unmarried, the law does not recognise their relationship in the same way. The fact that the mother does not have a ring on her finger means there is no automatic recognition of paternity. If an unmarried woman experiences the unimaginable tragedy of losing her partner during pregnancy, there is no provision for her to register them on the child’s birth certificate. Unless both parents can be present, the registrar is deemed unable to verify the paternity of the father. While suffering the grief of losing a loved one and facing the new reality of parenthood alone, bereaved mothers leave the register office with a blank space on their child’s birth certificate, instead of their partner’s name. In order to amend the birth certificate, bereaved mothers have to seek a declaration of parentage through a lengthy, costly and traumatising legal process in the family courts. In some respects, this is a legal loophole—the effect of improper and outdated legislation that has failed to provide for a certain set of particularly tragic circumstances—but it speaks to a deeper inequality in the legal system: unmarried couples are held in lower regard. The law in this area has not kept pace with societal change. The charity Widowed and Young first brought this injustice to my attention. It is an organisation that provides fantastic support to those who have experienced widowhood earlier in life. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) who secured an Adjournment debate on this issue, and spoke powerfully and movingly of her own experience of bereavement, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who first exposed the shortcomings of the legal process in Parliament in 2016. The Bill seeks to legislate for Widowed and Young’s “Blank Space” campaign to come into existence, to provide a clear and simple process for unmarried and bereaved mothers to register their partner on their child’s birth certificate. Through the charity, I have heard the stories of brave and inspiring women, some of whom are in the Gallery today to watch the proceedings. I would like to share their experiences, which illustrate the emotional impact of this issue. When Kelly’s partner, Jordan, died suddenly in 2020, she went from planning their future to planning her fiancé’s funeral. Shortly after she gave birth to their daughter, Kelly’s battle began to prove that Jordan was the father. As Kelly said, he had wanted “nothing more out of his life than to have kids”, so she was determined that his name would be on Maisie’s birth certificate. Kelly used a C63 form to apply for a declaration of parentage through the family courts, which comes with an immediate cost of £365. While having to provide DNA from Jordan’s mother and paying out hundreds of pounds in legal fees, Kelly was also asked demeaning questions, such as whether she had had any other partners. After fighting for two years, Kelly received a birth certificate for her daughter Maisie with Jordan’s name on it. She now keeps 12 copies of it around the house and one in her purse at all times. Orlanda and her partner Julian were on holiday when he unexpectedly collapsed. Just a day after discovering they were expecting a baby girl, Julian died from a heart attack. When the registrar told Orlanda that Julian would not be named on her daughter’s birth certificate, she said it felt as if he had been “ripped from our history”. Her process through the courts took two years and four hearings. Many of the judges she encountered had never even come across a situation like hers, and she was often asked at hearings if Julian would be attending. As an ambassador for Widowed and Young, Orlanda says she is determined to make things easier for women who follow in her path. Let me turn to Sophie, who is still in the midst of this torturous process. The sudden death of her partner Lawrence while she was pregnant with their daughter Kinley turned her world upside down. Despite their having two children together, and Lawrence being legally registered as the father of both, Sophie was told that Lawrence would not be registered as Kinley’s father. She was devastated. Registering their son together in 2016 was one of Lawrence’s proudest moments. As Sophie said, “he will always be her dad”, and he should be recognised as such. Sophie entered the uphill battle of amending the birth certificate, and was bounced between Departments and advisers until someone at the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service intervened on her behalf. Her hearing is at the magistrates court on 3 July and will hopefully bring her some closure on this issue. Sophie said the experience has been “exhausting, confusing and emotionally draining.” I add my personal thanks to the women who join us today for sharing their brave stories, and for allowing me to share them with the House. Kelly, Orlanda and Sophie’s stories show how traumatic and unnecessarily complex the process is. Widowed and Young estimates that this issue affects as many as 200 women each year. While the women who join us today have persevered through the family courts, many mothers will give up out of frustration, leaving that blank space on their child’s birth certificate. The system for registering births is governed by section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, which make provision for those requiring a declaration of parentage. Neither of those Acts provide for the specific circumstances in which one parent is deceased and a child is born outside of marriage. A declaration of parentage is not intended to prove the paternity of a deceased partner, but rather to resolve disputed parenthood. This legal framework is unfit for purpose. When the Births and Deaths Registration Act became law in 1953, 95% of births registered in the UK were within a marriage. That figure has reduced steadily ever since, and only half of children are now born within marriage. Times have changed and society has moved on, yet the law has not kept pace. This Bill would drag the legislation into the 21st century, and provide a clear and simple process for registering a deceased partner’s name on a birth certificate. We can achieve that by placing greater reliance on a registrar’s professional judgement. With the right evidence, registrars are allowed to amend a birth certificate, so we can similarly empower them to correct the absence of a deceased parent, provided that they receive sufficient evidence of intended parenthood. Across Europe—in Switzerland, France and Germany—unmarried parents are encouraged to register their parentage at antenatal appointments. A similar system could be created here, and a declaration of intended parentage could be made during pregnancy. I do not contest the importance of having a rigorous process for proving intended parenthood, but that importance is an argument in support of a change in the law, not against it, because that process is currently non-existent. Officials are often unable to advise women on how to register their deceased partner as a parent, because there is no guidance. While there remains no clear route to proving intended parenthood, bereaved unmarried mothers are being denied a basic right. The anachronistic legal framework is causing immense trauma for mothers and children. This Bill would take direct action to address that injustice, providing a clear process for bereaved mothers to follow, and allowing the registrar to include a deceased partner on their child’s birth certificate. That small change in the law would make a huge difference. It would spare grieving women a needlessly painful legal process, and ensure that no mother or child has a blank space on their birth certificate where their parent’s name should rightly be. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ms Stella Creasy, Caroline Voaden, Alice Macdonald, John Grady, Chris Vince, Abtisam Mohamed, Kirith Entwistle, Dr Marie Tidball, David Burton-Sampson, Daniel Francis, Charlotte Nichols and Jen Craft present the Bill. Jen Craft accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 263). Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(9)), That the Order of 10 March 2025 (Crime and Policing Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted. (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. (3) Proceedings on Consideration— (a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and (b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings

First day
New clauses and new Schedules standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown; amendments to clauses 1 to 165 and Schedules 1 to 18, other than amendments relating to abortion.	Three hours before the moment of interruption on the first day.
New clauses and new Schedules relating to abortion; amendments relating to abortion.	The moment of interruption on the first day.
Second day
Remaining new clauses and new Schedules; amendments to clauses 166 to 172, other than amendments relating to abortion; remaining proceedings on Consideration.	One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Dame Diana Johnson.) Question agreed to.