changing children's surnames. form c100

Georgiegirl256

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

You are doing this for selfish reasons to take away their surname link to their dad. It's a kind of punishment for your ex - you are using the children as a weapon and that's not good.

This isn't for them, this is for you.

Have you even tried to stay in contact or trace him?

Wow! Judgemental much?

The OP came on here asking for advice on a legal form but instead she gets posts like yours pouring scorn on her, telling her that she's a bad person.

I know when threads are posted on this forum they're open for all sort of abuse, but she asked for advice not judgement.

OP, I hope you get it sorted soon. Any man who walks out on his kids at 6 weeks doesn't deserve to be called a father. So as such, the kids shouldn't have to live with his name for the rest of their lives.

lulu_92

swingaloo wrote: »

Sorry to come in on this but I cant not post. Please re think this. It may seem a good idea now but for your children its a dreadful thing to do and they may not thank you for it in time. I speak from personal experience.

Why ever the father walked, he is still the father. He may be absent, pay nothing and not give a s--- but in time that may change. It would be the cruelest thing you can do and I mean for the children, not the father. Morally I think its wrong to change the name without the fathers consent as well.

I agree with this.

My dad walked out on my me and my sister and we took my step-dad's name (We made the decision, we were 6 and 8 at the time)

I don't regret it because in the 16 years since this my "real" dad hasn't attempted to make contact, he hasn't ever paid maintenance. A downright dead-beat.

Saying that, my mum remarried in 2008 and the question of whether my sister and I would change our last names again came up.

For us, it was a pain to get our first passports, bank accounts, etc because we would have to take the birth certificate and the deed poll and explain why our names were changed. It does get easier over time but ultimately we decided against changing our names again just because it's so much effort for the sake of a word.

Yes their father has probably been terrible and done some inexcusable things. However, for the sake of a passport? Not worth it. I say let them make the decision to change their name when they're older.

TBagpuss

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Some of this is such rubbish and I feel people's judgements or opinions, high horses, whatever are clouding their answers.

Op isn't asking your opinion. She's asking about the court form. As he's a dead beat dad, who has not bothered with his kids. She will get a name change through court no problem. PR or not.

No, she really won't.

The advise given is correct. She will need to serve the dad, if she doesn't know his address she would need to make a separate application to dispense with service and there is no guarantee that she would get it, and even if she did, it is still unlikely that the court would order the name change as the court has to make a decision based on the welfare of the child. There is long established case law which states that separation and lack of contact are *not* good reasons for a child's name to be changed, and that retaining their original name provides children with a link, however tenuous, to their origins.

Given that blended families, unmarried parents and divorced/remarried parents are increasingly common, the argument that a child is disadvantaged or stands out because they don't share a name with the parent they live with no longer carries any weight.

By all means sympathise with the OPs position, but don't mislead her.

tinkerbell28

TBagpuss wrote: »

No, she really won't.

The advise given is correct. She will need to serve the dad, if she doesn't know his address she would need to make a separate application to dispense with service and there is no guarantee that she would get it, and even if she did, it is still unlikely that the court would order the name change as the court has to make a decision based on the welfare of the child. There is long established case law which states that separation and lack of contact are *not* good reasons for a child's name to be changed, and that retaining their original name provides children with a link, however tenuous, to their origins.

Given that blended families, unmarried parents and divorced/remarried parents are increasingly common, the argument that a child is disadvantaged or stands out because they don't share a name with the parent they live with no longer carries any weight.

By all means sympathise with the OPs position, but don't mislead her.

Yes, she will. You don't have to serve the Dad at all. Have you ever had to do it? I'm guessing not.

alwaysskint96

Cant see why the kids would be bothered They must be very young and maybe dont even know their surnames yet

So glad my lot always had my surname from the start

Anatidaephobia

From the sounds of it, the OP's children are already using her own surname and have been for some time so it seems likely that this surname is the only surname they have ever known. It would surely be more confusing for them to be told that this surname is NOT your real surname, it never has been, and you now have to change to a new surname that you don't know.

Hope you find the advice you were looking for, OP.

lazer

bobbieg wrote: »

Confused and need help, I believe is more distressing for them to keep his name having a different name from me. By all having the same name we are all the same family, that's my decision, he hadn't been around he has no say. Please don't go down that route

Why don't you change your surname to match the children's? (Don't view it as your ex's name but view it as the children's name)


Legally you should not be calling the children by a different surname than that they were registered with without the permission of the Dad.

mgdavid

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Yes, she will. You don't have to serve the Dad at all. Have you ever had to do it? I'm guessing not.

you are posting like a troll - you will come across much better if you can back up your contrary statements.

tinkerbell28

mgdavid wrote: »

you are posting like a troll - you will come across much better if you can back up your contrary statements.

You mean by pretending to be some kind of legal eagle? Or talking the law, (or what they believe to be law) like others on this thread? When it's quite clear that people are quoting the internet and haven't actually been through the process or really do understand?

What exactly do you want me to back up? If you want a real life example, then that's not happening. I'd rather think you were a troll and utterly incorrect. However I know from real experience, most of the stuff in this thread is crap.

Or look for yourself. You will find that actually op can apply and be successful without serving the dad or getting his permission. Use google.

freshstart11

I know of two examples where this happened....one had to serve father with notice because he was on b.c and so had p.r and the second where the judge pushed through only because the father was in prison for assault on child and would never be allowed in life again. Name was changed and p.r removed.

I don't know if law changed but these are both recent examples, so I believe the op WOULD have to show at least reasonable effort made to contact father regarding this