Dad refuses to register son’s birth over state control fears
- 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.
You may also want to watch:
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.
- 1 Poplar MP acquitted of Tower Hamlets housing fraud
- 2 'Vexatious charges': MP turns on accusers after acquittal in fraud trial
- 3 East London travel disruption round-up for the week ahead
- 4 Mum plans to use Raine's Foundation site for new East Park church school
- 5 Home Office pours £1m into tackling drug-related problems in East End
- 6 Apsana Begum's ex-husband may be behind housing bids, trial hears
- 7 Jury sent home for the day in MP Apsana Begum's trial on housing fraud charges
- 8 Unlocked rooms created 'radiation exposure risk' at hospital, inspectors report
- 9 Leyton Orient still looking to add one or two new signings
- 10 Dangerously overloaded vans leaving New Spitalfields Market taken off the road
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.