Dad refuses to register son’s birth over state control fears
The boy is currently in the care of Tower Hamlets Council. Picture: Mike Brooke. - Credit: Mike Brooke
A Tower Hamlets man who refused to register his son’s birth because he did not want the state to control the youngster has lost a High Court fight.
Social services bosses with responsibility for the baby's welfare had raised concerns after the man and his partner failed to register the birth, and asked a High Court judge to make a decision.
They said the boy's parents were in breach of legislation governing the registration of births.
Mr Justice Hayden has now decided that the council is an "institutional parent" and a member of staff can step in and register the birth.
The judge considered the issue at a private hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London and has outlined his decision in a written ruling. He said the baby, who is a few months old, cannot be identified.
The judge said the boy had been placed into temporary council care because of concerns about his parents.
He was told that the couple's parenting skills were being assessed before decisions about the boy's long term future were made.
Most Read
- 1 Guilty: Man murdered woman at bus stop and tried to kill another a day later
- 2 Archie Battersbee case to be reconsidered in High Court
- 3 £28k worth of illegal tobacco seized from containers and shops during raids
- 4 Jailed: 8 east London offenders put behind bars in June
- 5 Three stabbed in Chrisp Street chicken shop
- 6 Arrest of 'Ilford kingpin' sparked ‘biggest ever' Channel crossings crack down
- 7 Bethnal Green officers sacked over 'abhorrent and discriminatory' messages
- 8 1888 Match Girls’ Strike marked with blue plaque in east London
- 9 Police officer sacked for 'turning blind eye’ to criminal husband
- 10 DVLA issues urgent warning to drivers in UK
Mr Justice Hayden indicated that the couple's decision not to register the birth stemmed from the boy's father's "unusual and somewhat eccentric" beliefs about the concept of personal "sovereignty".
He said the boy's mother was "not prepared" to register the birth herself, but was "not opposed" to somebody else registering it.
Barrister Chris Barnes had outlined concerns on behalf of Tower Hamlets Council and the boy's father and mother aired their views.
"The essence of the father's objection is his belief that registration will cause his son to become controlled by a state which he perceives to be authoritarian and capricious," said the judge in his ruling.
"(The baby) has been given a name and surname but his father strenuously resists registration."
He said the 1953 Birth and Deaths Registration Act required a birth to be registered within 42 days of a child being born.
"In this case, the 42-day period for registration has ended," he added.
"It is manifestly in (the baby's) best interest for his birth to be registered, in order that he may be recognised as a citizen and entitled to the benefits of such citizenship."
He said the boy was in council care and, therefore, Tower Hamlets Council was an "institutional parent" and a representative could register the boy's birth.
