<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Wife wins suit to name hubby as baby's dad
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>Man refused to hand over IC to register son's birth; illegitimate status would mean no child perks </TR><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->A BABY, about a year old now, will no longer need to go through life branded as illegitimate.
When he was born, his father refused to be named on the birth certificate. This would have deprived the child of benefits lawful offspring get, such as the baby bonus, priority in enrolment for school and other perks. His mother, believing the child should not have to suffer the fallout from her failed relationship with the baby's father, took her case to court.
Yesterday, she won.
What makes this case unusual is that it was no fallout between unmarried teen parents. The couple had been married for 21/2 years. But the union had soured to the point of no return from before the baby's birth.
The father, a 30-year-old insurance executive, has not seen his son and wants nothing to do with him. He refused to hand over his identity card for his name to be entered on the child's birth certificate.
The woman, a 28-year-old bank officer, took her case to a lawyer.
The couple have separated but are not yet divorced. They cannot be named to protect the child's identity.
Yesterday, the High Court allowed her to declare her estranged husband as the father and for the birth to be re-registered with the father's name on the certificate.
Family lawyer Rajan Chettiar, commenting on the case, said: 'Such a case involving married parties is very rare, but the concern should be how it will affect their future lives and how it will impact on the inevitable divorce proceedings.'
That the couple had to go to court just to settle the boy's parentage 'shows the unsettling, underlying emotional turmoil', he added.
Last month, a DNA test the husband agreed to take proved he was the father of the child.
By the woman's account, difficulties surfaced about a year into the 2006 marriage. This was when she flew to Britain, where he had gone for a job interview.
While there, she was accused by his family of having stolen his money.
Depressed and angry, she returned here alone, moved in with her mother and did not contact him. She was already pregnant by then, but he continued to abuse and harass her on his return, to the extent, she claimed, that she lost her job in a bank. Matters came to a head in October 2007, when she obtained a personal protection order against him, which she later dropped.
Her lawyer Roy Yeo, when contacted yesterday, said: 'The case affirms the court's concern for the child's welfare as the prime focus of attention.
'While my client will face some serious issues ahead, a major hurdle has been cleared and she can look ahead with some comfort and confidence.' [email protected]
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>Man refused to hand over IC to register son's birth; illegitimate status would mean no child perks </TR><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->A BABY, about a year old now, will no longer need to go through life branded as illegitimate.
When he was born, his father refused to be named on the birth certificate. This would have deprived the child of benefits lawful offspring get, such as the baby bonus, priority in enrolment for school and other perks. His mother, believing the child should not have to suffer the fallout from her failed relationship with the baby's father, took her case to court.
Yesterday, she won.
What makes this case unusual is that it was no fallout between unmarried teen parents. The couple had been married for 21/2 years. But the union had soured to the point of no return from before the baby's birth.
The father, a 30-year-old insurance executive, has not seen his son and wants nothing to do with him. He refused to hand over his identity card for his name to be entered on the child's birth certificate.
The woman, a 28-year-old bank officer, took her case to a lawyer.
The couple have separated but are not yet divorced. They cannot be named to protect the child's identity.
Yesterday, the High Court allowed her to declare her estranged husband as the father and for the birth to be re-registered with the father's name on the certificate.
Family lawyer Rajan Chettiar, commenting on the case, said: 'Such a case involving married parties is very rare, but the concern should be how it will affect their future lives and how it will impact on the inevitable divorce proceedings.'
That the couple had to go to court just to settle the boy's parentage 'shows the unsettling, underlying emotional turmoil', he added.
Last month, a DNA test the husband agreed to take proved he was the father of the child.
By the woman's account, difficulties surfaced about a year into the 2006 marriage. This was when she flew to Britain, where he had gone for a job interview.
While there, she was accused by his family of having stolen his money.
Depressed and angry, she returned here alone, moved in with her mother and did not contact him. She was already pregnant by then, but he continued to abuse and harass her on his return, to the extent, she claimed, that she lost her job in a bank. Matters came to a head in October 2007, when she obtained a personal protection order against him, which she later dropped.
Her lawyer Roy Yeo, when contacted yesterday, said: 'The case affirms the court's concern for the child's welfare as the prime focus of attention.
'While my client will face some serious issues ahead, a major hurdle has been cleared and she can look ahead with some comfort and confidence.' [email protected]
That feels good.
