Family annoyed over sir-name

Lola92

James Jones wrote: »

The only thing permanent about marriage is Guardianship and I can see no better reason for getting married than to create a permanent legal relationship between father and child.

That is SO wrong. The mother has all of the rights and the father has none.

Bet your bloke has no idea that his relationship with his child is based on his relationship with her mother.

1) I personally think it is over the top to suggest to a couple to get married only for guardianship when, as I have already stated and you well know, this can be gotten through other means. Whether this is completely irrevocable or not is another matter.

2) The child is a product of the mother and father equally. They are both equal parents in my eyes. I am not talking about legal rights in the case of unmarried parents here, I am talking about the child being a part of both families equally. That part of my post was directed to the OP, not you as it says in the post. I was addressing a different matter.

3) My partner is more than well aware of his legal standing as a guardian of our daughter, not that it has anything to do with this conversation. Also on a somewhat off topic note, not all women are so vindictive as to immediately try to strip their childs other parent of guardianship in the event of a relationship breakdown as you seem to be alluding to.

That will be my last reply on this as I don't want to drag this thread further off topic. The OP asked about the surname of the child and and issue with his family, not guardianship or marriage.

OUTOFSYNC

I think you should consider putting your name in the birth cert - even as a middle name.

Treanor2011

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

thanks for the replies. ive been getting calls from my parents and my grandad, telling me how im direspecting the famiy by not giving him my name.
now im just feeling pressured in to making a change. very annoying

My little girl had both are names she can choose which one she wants to use or use both when she's older. You shouldn't be letting them bully you just be firm and politely telling them to mine there own business .

Shane-KornSpace

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

I think you should consider putting your name in the birth cert - even as a middle name.

My name, Shane, is my sons' middle name and I am listed as the Father. It is just the surname that my son was given is not my surname.

psychward

Grow some balls and give the child his rightful name by tradition Yeah tell them all to mind their own business

Congratulations by the way

qrrgprgua

Are you from Brazil or Portugal? Over there the kids take the mothers surname..

Its only a name. Does it make much difference.

OUTOFSYNC

It does make a difference.

You're probably going to love the baby like you've never loved anything before. You're going to want to protect it and make sure it is happy.

If the relationship with the mother turns sour - then you have zero rights.

Why do you and the other parent want to leave your name off the birth cert?

Whats wrong with (1) Name (2) Shane (3) fathers surname (4) mothers surname?

Its not double barreled - the baby still has the mothers surname.

If you are not married - what happens in a couple of years if you want to travel to europe for example with the kid and there is nothing on the kids passport to link him to yourself? A man and a child with Different names...

qrrgprgua

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

It does make a difference.

You're probably going to love the baby like you've never loved anything before. You're going to want to protect it and make sure it is happy.

If the relationship with the mother turns sour - then you have zero rights.

Why do you and the other parent want to leave your name off the birth cert?

Whats wrong with (1) Name (2) Shane (3) fathers surname (4) mothers surname?

Its not double barreled - the baby still has the mothers surname.

If you are not married - what happens in a couple of years if you want to travel to europe for example with the kid and there is nothing on the kids passport to link him to yourself? A man and a child with Different names...

My kids (I am a man) have my surname. The guy who started the thread is not objecting to not having his name used, His family is.

But I agree totally with your post. If I were him I would push to have at the very least both surnames. (the Spanish Style I suppose).

IF the father is not pushed.. Well what can be done?

ElleEm

bluewolf wrote: »

tell the family to sod off and mind their own business

seriously though do think about getting married, you currently have about 0 rights

James Jones wrote: »

The only thing permanent about marriage is Guardianship and I can see no better reason for getting married than to create a permanent legal relationship between father and child.

That is SO wrong. The mother has all of the rights and the father has none.

Bet your bloke has no idea that his relationship with his child is based on his relationship with her mother.

A father only has automatic gaurdianship over his child if him and the mother are married when the child is born.

He has to apply for gaurdianship to get it now, marrying his partner won't make a difference.

EGAR

My son has his father's surname although we are not married and never will be (by choice as we both see no need for it). It is a bit more paperwork to get the guardianship sorted etc.

We both decided to give him his father's surname as I am not Irish and did not want him to be bullied with a foreign sounding last name.

Only drawback is that it takes people ages to understand that I do not share my son's last name which he finds highly amusing.

January

James Jones and OUTOFSYNC, the op asked for help with how to stop his family pressuring him about his childs surname. Stay on topic. Final warning.

Moonbeam

Out of interest...what name do you really want the child to have?

I am a friend

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

thanks for the replies. ive been getting calls from my parents and my grandad, telling me how im direspecting the famiy by not giving him my name.
now im just feeling pressured in to making a change. very annoying

I dont understand why you dont want him to have your name? Our DS has both names on his birth cert but they are not hyphenated. He will use his Dads name on a day to day basis but he has both names registered.

eviltwin

Maybe go double barrell? I had my first child out of wedlock, we just went with a double barrell name but no hyphen. That child is now 14 and has chosen the name she wants day to day although her official name is still both.

Its worked well. We're married now and our second in marriage child has both names to for the same reason. I didn't change my name. I think its nice we both get recognised and I like giving them the option to choose.

Re the family just tell them to butt out but please do otherwise you will be driven mad with them sticking their nose in to your business in the future.

scholar007

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

No, we're not. We're only 23 and 24.

You're not married :eek: - OMG! - Surely you wern't, please say you weren't, oh my god you were FORNICATING!

Seriously - Tell herself that you're the Daddy and what you say goes and junior is gonna have your name and that you won't entertain any further discussion on the matter.

eviltwin

scholar007 wrote: »

You're not married :eek: - OMG! - Surely you wern't, please say you weren't, oh my god you were FORNICATING!

Seriously - Tell herself that you're the Daddy and what you say goes and junior is gonna have your name and that you won't entertain any further discussion on the matter.

Seriously? I can see that working

Moonbeam

scholar007 wrote: »

You're not married :eek: - OMG! - Surely you wern't, please say you weren't, oh my god you were FORNICATING!

Seriously - Tell herself that you're the Daddy and what you say goes and junior is gonna have your name and that you won't entertain any further discussion on the matter.

Your trolling is not appreciated here.
This is a warning

edellc

OP I think its best to ignore them, we have a baby boy and he has his dads name we are not married, I did want my surname included and it is as his middle name which is fine with me...I think at the end of the day its a traditional thing for the man to pass on his surname to the offspring (I know it was in my case) but fare play to you for letting your little one have mamas surname.

Dont worry about your family just tell them it was a joint decision and end of its none of their actual business

Congratulations and best of luck with the christening I hope it is not an eventful day

bennyineire

Why not just give your child a double barerled sirname,ie. John Smith-Byrne, simples, My miss'es and I gave our first born my sirname when he was born,at the time we were not married at the time and there was no bothers

tfitzgerald

If ye are not married then he should keep the mothers name . IMHO

Big Bag of Chips

I might have missed it somewhere, but giving the child a name at baptism means nothing.

Has the child's birth been registered? Does he have a birthcert?

If so, THAT is his birthcert and his official registered name, and can only be changed on marriage of his parents, when you would have to re-register his birth.

Outside of that his name can be changed by "common usage" which means you start using whatever name you want for him (it doesn't actually have to be EITHER of your surnames!) Register him with the doctor, school etc with that name and then after 2 years that name becomes his, and can be used on his passport.

Otherwise you have to change his name by deed poll.

But if you're happy with the decision you originally made, then don't let pressure from your family make you change your mind. At the end of the day, it doesn't really have anything to do with them, and it's certainly not a decision they get to make on your behalf.

Edit: just as an aside, I wonder would they be AS annoyed if the baby had been a girl?

ElleEm

bennyineire wrote: »

Why not just give your child a double barerled sirname,ie. John Smith-Byrne, simples, My miss'es and I gave our first born my sirname when he was born,at the time we were not married at the time and there was no bothers

Cos he doesn't want to, and neither does his partner.

unkel

EGAR wrote: »

We both decided to give him his father's surname as I am not Irish and did not want him to be bullied with a foreign sounding last name.

Only drawback is that it takes people ages to understand that I do not share my son's last name

I'm surprised at that. Many Irish girls / women do not change the surname they are known by (their maiden name) once they get married. They renew their passport / driving license in their own name, keep their maiden name on their bank accounts, etc. And why not? Why change?

notsobusy

It's a funny one alright. Tell your family to buzz off and mind their own. I will be giving our child my OH's name. Have considered putting myu own in but I'm not that bothered. We do have plans to get married and the funny this is I probably won't change my surname but if people want to call me Mrs Oh that's ok too.

In response to Egar's post. I can understand that, I think it's partly down to assuming you're married or that perhaps if they don't know Mrs Egar's name they just say Mrs son's name because maybe it's just easier that way!

The Corinthian

First of all, let me agree that it is ultimately up to the parents what the child is named.

However, I do think that some of these cries of "it's none of their business" are a tad harsh. The surname may mean nothing to the OP and his partner, but that does not mean that it does not mean something to the grandparents, and while they may not have a 'say' in the matter, I don't think it is right either to simply dismiss their feelings either.

After all, the child may not be theirs but it is still their grandchild, and thus part of their own legacy. And different people see that legacy in different ways; be it a surname (or chosen names), religion, following in the footsteps of a family tradition and so on - failing to follow this can be at the very least a disappointment for them and in some cases even seen as a betrayal as the child has failed to carry out a family duty that was carried out for them.

This is not to say the OP should accede to the grandparents' wishes. However a belligerent "it's none of your business" response to them is not exactly going to win any favours and there will likely be consequences to this down the line, even if it is never openly spoken of.

So a more diplomatic approach to dealing with their disappointment is almost certainly merited.

McTigs

In the nicest but sternest possible way, tell them it's not their place to interfere in decisions made by yourself and the childs mother regarding the child.

My own parents started this kind of ****e even before our daughter was born. We didn't get her baptised but they presumed to include themselves in other matters until i told them in no uncertain terms that any decisions regarding the child will be made by me and her mother (now my wife), without consultation and without unwelcome interference, because at the end of the day we have to do what we feel is best because we are the ones that will live with those decisions, not them.

I suggest you have this chat with yours otherwise where does it end? Picking daycare? What food to feed them? Selecting a school?

They were deeply offended of course but that only lasted a couple of weeks and they were grand again and we all enjoy a much better relationship since

eviltwin

The Corinthian wrote: »

First of all, let me agree that it is ultimately up to the parents what the child is named.

However, I do think that some of these cries of "it's none of their business" are a tad harsh. The surname may mean nothing to the OP and his partner, but that does not mean that it does not mean something to the grandparents, and while they may not have a 'say' in the matter, I don't think it is right either to simply dismiss their feelings either.

After all, the child may not be theirs but it is still their grandchild, and thus part of their own legacy. And different people see that legacy in different ways; be it a surname (or chosen names), religion, following in the footsteps of a family tradition and so on - failing to follow this can be at the very least a disappointment for them and in some cases even seen as a betrayal as the child has failed to carry out a family duty that was carried out for them.

This is not to say the OP should accede to the grandparents' wishes. However a belligerent "it's none of your business" response to them is not exactly going to win any favours and there will likely be consequences to this down the line, even if it is never openly spoken of.

So a more diplomatic approach to dealing with their disappointment is almost certainly merited.

No it won't win any favours but sometimes you have to say what needs to be said in a very blunt way. If you don't you might end up with these people having opinions on everything to do with the child. Been there, put up with it for longer than I needed to because I was too polite, finally grew balls and told them where to go, never had a problem since

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

No it won't win any favours but sometimes you have to say what needs to be said in a very blunt way. If you don't you might end up with these people having opinions on everything to do with the child.

There's a difference between being blunt and being firm though.

I can understand that you don't want to be nagged continually about these things, and that it is ultimately the parent's choice, but you do have to also balance this out with the fact that they're the grandparents and even if you disagree with their opinions, they're still entitled to have some.

Diplomacy is all I am recommending.

Been there, put up with it for longer than I needed to because I was too polite, finally grew balls and told them where to go, never had a problem since

I can't speak for your experience any more than I can speak for the OP's, as how (grand)parents react and how important these things are to them varies.

Sometimes it all works out and you don't have a problem in the long term. Other times you think you don't have a problem until they die and the will is read out - happened to someone I know.

McTigs

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sometimes it all works out and you don't have a problem in the long term. Other times you think you don't have a problem until they die and the will is read out - happened to someone I know.

Jaysus, what kind of parent would pretend to be okay with a dispute resolution but then secretly plot to stick it to them in the will. That's just pure badness.

Tell you what, if that happened to me i'd dig them up and kick them around the graveyard.

AskJives

I can understand why his family has an issue.
A name can be a heritage to people. Wanting their son to pass on the name. It is a bit harsh for people to say "tell them to sod off op!!"


I'm curious tho, what was the reason to break the norm by giving the mothers name? ... I know you state you are fine with that, op. thats ok. But whos idea was it, yours or hers?