Man who refuses to register son's birth to avoid 'state control' loses court battle

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/man-who-refuses-to-register-sons-birth-to-avoid-state-control-loses-court-battle/ar-AADiZMZ?ocid=spartanntp

Man who refuses to register son's birth to avoid 'state control' loses court battle

A man who is refusing to register the birth of his son because he doesn't want the state to have any control over his child has lost a High Court battle.
Council social services with responsibility for the baby's welfare raised concern when the man and his partner did not register the child's birth and asked a High Court judge to make a decision.
The authority said the boy's parents were breaking laws governing the registration of births.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice Hayden, decided the council involved is an "institutional parent" and a member of staff is now able step in and register the birth.

The case was heard in a private hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London. The judge's ruling has been written and published online.
He said the baby, who is just a few months old, cannot be identified by the media, but he did confirm Tower Hamlets Council in London is the local authority involved.
The judge added that the child has been placed into temporary council care due to concerns about his parents.
The couple's parenting skills are being assessed before any decisions about the boy's long term future are made.

Mr Justice Hayden stated that the couple's decision not to register the child's birth stemmed from the boy's father's "unusual and somewhat eccentric" beliefs about personal "sovereignty".
According to the judge, 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 the concerns of Tower Hamlets Council and the boy's father and mother aired their views.
Mr Justice Hayden said: "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.
"[The baby] has been given a name and surname but his father strenuously resists registration."
The judge added 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 currently in council care and, because Tower Hamlets Council was an "institutional parent," a representative could register the boy's birth.
The judge added: "I am satisfied that the local authority may intervene to assert its own parental responsibility to register the birth.
"In these circumstances the local authority is the institutional parent."

Council social services with responsibility for the baby's welfare raised concern when the man and his partner did not register the child's birth and asked a High Court judge to make a decision.

They have no rersponsibility as he is not registered and he remains the property of the parents and not the state, until he is registered the state have no control, or the authority to trespass on this parents chattels.

The presiding judge, Mr Justice Hayden, decided the council involved is an "institutional parent" and a member of staff is now able step in and register the birth.

Another play on words "institutional parent" only the lawful parents can register the child as it is a voluntary obligation.
Bring a case against the judge and watch his language change.

The judge added the 1953 Birth and Deaths Registration Act required a birth to be registered within 42 days of a child being born.

Its an act and consensual, therefore the judge is applying duress and the registration hasno meaning and cannot come into force.

"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."

Notice how he emphasises the benefits and totally ignores the numerous liabilities.

Man was poorly represented or did not plead his case adequately.

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 1953 CHAPTER 20 1 and 2 Eliz 2 wrote:
(2)The following persons shall be qualified to give information concerning a birth, that is to say—
(a)the father and mother of the child;
(b)the occupier of the house in which the child was to the knowledge of that occupier born;
(c)any person present at the birth;
(d)any person having charge of the child.
[F2(e)in the case of a still–born child found exposed, the person who found the child.]

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 1953 CHAPTER 20 1 and 2 Eliz 2 wrote:2 Information concerning birth to be given to registrar within forty–two days.
In the case of every birth it shall be the duty—
(a)of the father and mother of the child; and
(b)in the case of the death or inability of the father and mother, of each other qualified informant,

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 1953 CHAPTER 20 1 and 2 Eliz 2 wrote:3 Information concerning finding of new–born child to be given to registrar within forty–two days.
Where any [F3still–born child] is found exposed, it shall be the duty of the person finding the child,

3A Registration of births of abandoned children. - NOW THIS IS WHERE IT GETS SILLY. "ABANDONED" DENOTES OWNERSHIP. IF AN "OWNER" CHOOSES NOT TO REGISTER.....

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 1953 CHAPTER 20 1 and 2 Eliz 2 wrote:8 Penalty for improper registration after three months from date of birth.
Save as provided in the two last foregoing sections, a registrar shall not register the birth of any child after the expiration of three months from the date of birth . . . F14, from the date of the finding, and any person who registers any birth, or causes any birth to be registered, in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F15level 1 on the standard scale].

NOTICE IT DOES NOT SAY PENALTY FOR NON REGISTRATION

WHAT THE FATHER SHOULD HAVE DONE IS TO SAY CHILD NOT BORN IN ENGLAND AND WALES:

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 1953 CHAPTER 20 1 and 2 Eliz 2 wrote:]F63A Registration of births of abandoned children.
(3)The Registrar General shall not register a child’s birth under this section if—
(a)he is satisfied that the child was not born in England or Wales;