Yesterday saw a case reported from the Tennessee Courts which involved 2 parents who
could not agree on their child’s surname and who, as a result, issued an
application for the Court to determine the matter.
Unfortunately
for the parents, in deciding the matter, the judge learnt of the child’s first
name (on which the parents did agree, presumably) being Messiah. The Court has
ordered that the child’s first name be changed to “Martin” and that both
parents’ surnames be used as the child’s surname, leaving the child’s name now
as Martin DeShawn McCullough.
Whether the mother’s appeal against the change of the
child’s first name will be successful remains to be seen, the mother alleging
that the judge took more account of her own religious beliefs than considering
the child’s interests or the parents’ right to choose a name for their child.
But what this case does highlight is just one of the
issues that might arise between parents of children who are separated and have
different views.
In this country, if both parents have Parental
Responsibility for their child (the mother gets that automatically on the
child’s birth and the father may obtain it either by being married to the
child’s mother, entering a Parental Responsibility Agreement or being named on
the child’s birth certificate post December 2003) then there are certain things
that cannot be done without both parties’ consent and several decisions in
which both parents should be consulted/have a say.
The changing of a child’s name is one action that cannot
be taken without the consent of all people with Parental Responsibility for
that child and, if parents cannot agree, then an application to the Court for a
“specific issue order” will be necessary.
The Court will have to have regard to the “Welfare
Checklist” as with all applications concerning children and balance the
following, taking into account that the child’s best interests are paramount in
these kinds of applications:
a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child
concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);
(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;
(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his
circumstances;
(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of
his which the court considers relevant;
(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of
suffering;
(f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person
in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of
meeting his needs;
(g) the range of powers available to the court under this
Act in the proceedings in question.
I have made several such applications on behalf of
clients over the years and whilst there are exceptions, notably where
association with a particular name is likely to cause the child distress or
harm or where change to incorporate a particular name is likely to be against
the child’s best interests, the Court has favoured the incorporation of both
parents’ surnames into the child’s name, sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not.
That appears to be because this allows the child’s link
with their biological parents to be kept intact – which in terms of a child
understanding its paternity and history can be very important, perhaps even
more so if a child is having limited or no contact with one parent.
It appears that the Court in Tennessee has come to the
same conclusion in this recently reported case.
No comments:
Post a Comment