Legally speaking...

So, boy meets girl, a one night stand ensues, and 9 months later a baby is born. The parents aren't together but are sharing the responsibility of bringing up the child. However, the mother wants the baby to have her surname, whilst the father wants it to have his, and neither of them will budge.

Does anyone know where either of them stand legally regarding this?

(I'm posting this anonymously to protect the identities of the people involved).

Thanks in advance.

Reply 1

King For A Day

1

I'm not sure if its possible as they aren't married but they could see someone about having a hyphon in between both their surnames, however I'm not sure if they have to be married or not. But thats all I can think of, they should go see someone about it.

Reply 2

Scrubs

You are posting anon. because one of the people involved is you?

Reply 3

Cirsium

19

I'm fairly sure that the mother gets priority in the same way that she would in cases of custody

Reply 4

blissy

15

I always thought whoever took the baby to the registry office could name it whatever they wanted. I think the mother has to go but the father doesn't. So it would be up to the mother. But she might want to consider settling it amicably if she wants to maintain a relationship with her baby's father.

Reply 5

Scrubs

You are posting anon. because one of the people involved is you?

Fortunately not, but someone very close to me.

But how would that make any difference to your answer?

Reply 6

Love_Hearts

9

i always thought the fathers surname was used due to the fact if the mother decides to remarry the child will end up with neither of their surnames? mwehhh to be honest i havnt got a clue

Reply 7

lessthanthree

whoever has custody really.

DON'T let them give the kid a hyphenated name. Bane.of.life.

Yeah, that's what they're trying to avoid as it'd be a mouthful as well :rolleyes:

Reply 8

mangomaz

14

blissy

I always thought whoever took the baby to the registry office could name it whatever they wanted. I think the mother has to go but the father doesn't. So it would be up to the mother. But she might want to consider settling it amicably if she wants to maintain a relationship with her baby's father.

No the mother doesnt have to go; my mum didnt go when my brother was born. My dad added a middle name at the last minute hehe...

Reply 9

dogtanian

16

It could be that they both want him/her to have their name as they immediately have a strong connection in name, which could suggest that they both fear that the upbringing won't be as equal as they say it is. Perhaps if they work through that, the name thing would be less of an issue...

Reply 10

Love_Hearts

i always thought the fathers surname was used due to the fact if the mother decides to remarry the child will end up with neither of their surnames? mwehhh to be honest i havnt got a clue

Yeah that's what he's arguing, but I was just curious if there was a legal right either way which there doesn't appear to be. Complicated...

Reply 11

e11even

10

If the baby’s parents were not married to each other at the time of the birth then only the mother is the qualified informant. The father will not be able to register the birth on his own. If the father wishes his details to be included in the register then he will have to attend with the mother at the time of registration. If the father is not able to attend at the time of registration then the mother will not be able to include the fathers details at that time. However, it may be possible to enter his details at a later date. If the mother is not married to the baby’s father she is not normally obliged to include the father’s details in the register.

If the parents can't agree, the case has to be taken to court, and the matter will be left in the hands of the judge. A father establishing paternity of the child does not have an automatic right to have the child bear his name. The judge can decide, based on what is best for the child.

Reply 12

King For A Day

1

what's wrong with a hyphenated name.

Reply 13

dogtanian

It could be that they both want him/her to have their name as they immediately have a strong connection in name, which could suggest that they both fear that the upbringing won't be as equal as they say it is. Perhaps if they work through that, the name thing would be less of an issue...

Agreed, but getting them to achieve that is next to impossible sadly. The child will be spending most of its time with the mother, therefore she thinks it should have her name, whilst the father thinks it should have his name to give it a stronger link to his family.

Reply 14

blissy

15

mangomaz

No the mother doesnt have to go; my mum didnt go when my brother was born. My dad added a middle name at the last minute hehe...

But I assume your parents were married, which isn't the case here.

Reply 15

e11even

If the baby’s parents were not married to each other at the time of the birth then only the mother is the qualified informant. The father will not be able to register the birth on his own. If the father wishes his details to be included in the register then he will have to attend with the mother at the time of registration. If the father is not able to attend at the time of registration then the mother will not be able to include the fathers details at that time. However, it may be possible to enter his details at a later date. If the mother is not married to the baby’s father she is not normally obliged to include the father’s details in the register.

If the parents can't agree, the case has to go to be taken to court, and the matter will be left in the hands of the judge. A father establishing paternity of the child does not have an automatic right to have the child bear his name. The judge can decide, based on what is best for the child.

Thank you very much, that answers my questions :smile:

Thanks for your reply.

Reply 16

mangomaz

14

blissy

But I assume your parents were married, which isn't the case here.

Ah right ok I see what you mean.. Yeah that makes more sense!

Reply 17

e11even

10

Anonymous

Thank you very much, that answers my questions :smile:

Thanks for your reply.

Your welcome. Thank the search engine - I looked it up :smile:

Reply 18

Segat1

16

Kinslayer

what's wrong with a hyphenated name.

It's considered nouveau riche to do so. Unless you family's name has been hyphenated for years and hundreds of years e.g. Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville

Reply 19

sanelunatic

1

double barrell surname, aka ave both their surnames?

Legally speaking...

Related discussions

Articles for you