DAD.info
Forum - Ask questions. Get answers.
Welcome to the DAD.Info forum: Important Information – open to read:

Our forum aims to provide support and guidance where it can, however we may not always have the answer. The forum is not moderated 24 hours a day, so If you – or someone you know – are being harmed or in immediate danger of being harmed, call the police on 999.

Alternatively, if you are in crisis, please call Samaritans on 116 123.

If you are worried about you or someone you know is at risk of harm, please click here: How we can help

Notifications
Clear all

[Solved] PR

 
(@crocsarecrap)
Reputable Member Registered

Hello!

Quick question because I'm questioning myself now and I'm confused.

Have a bit of an argument going on where I've been told I don't have PR, I know I do because I'm a mother and as far as I'm aware this hasn't been revoked. Anyway, I've been looking online as to where he may have found this info and now I'm questioning his PR because of what I've read.

If child was born August 2002, parents unmarried but both present at registering the birth and both on the birth certificate this gives both PR doesn't it? Or does it? I know the new law came into effect from Oct 2003 so now I'm confused cause we weren't married at the time (although we did marry some years later)

Thanks

Quote
Topic starter Posted : 27/02/2016 6:15 pm
(@TheDaddy)
Estimable Member Registered

From what I know marriage doesn't come in to it, I can't see how that would give someone responsibility of a child. The way I understand it is that if you are the parent of the child then you have a responsibility to do do the best for that child and therefore you have parental responsibility but I could be wrong. I'm sure one of the more knowledgeable people will give you a better more ind epth reply,

ReplyQuote
Posted : 27/02/2016 6:29 pm
(@crocsarecrap)
Reputable Member Registered

I know what you're saying but before 2003 if you weren't married you didn't automatically get PR unless you were married. But I'm confused because we married after.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 27/02/2016 6:31 pm
 Mojo
(@Mojo)
Illustrious Member Registered

For children born before December 2003 if the parents weren't married, even though both parents are named on the BC the father won't have PR...unless they subsequently married, in that case the father would have PR at that point.

PR is automatic for mothers and the only way a mother can lose PR is if it is revoked by a court.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 27/02/2016 9:16 pm
(@crocsarecrap)
Reputable Member Registered

Wow! I've checked paperwork and PR isn't mentioned although it's always been assumed he has it. Mojo, does this make any difference to anything that has gone on / ongoing do you think?

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 27/02/2016 11:53 pm
 Mojo
(@Mojo)
Illustrious Member Registered

If you married after the child was born and he's named on BC then he has PR Crocs.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 28/02/2016 12:54 pm
Share:

Pin It on Pinterest