Can she change daughters name

Darragh11

Hello everyone, my partner of 5 years an I broke up recently, we weren't married, we have a 16 month old daughter, when she was born my second name was giving to her but now she wants to change it to her name, can she do this? Will it affect me seeing my daughter or rights or anything? Can I stop her changing it?

Moonbeam

Apply for guardianship if you have not already.
You don't really have any rights as a single father in Ireland,despite your name being on the birth cert and the child having your name.

Darragh11

But can she change the name even without my consent

Cavehill Red

Darragh11 wrote: »

But can she change the name even without my consent

Not on the birth certificate, but seriously this is far from the most important matter. My child lives with me, and has the mother's surname. It's annoying insofar as I get phone calls from the school asking for Mr [Mother's Surname] and have to correct them every time, but that's the entirety of its relevance.
Ensuring you have regular access and guardianship (and preferably joint custody) of your kid is far more important imho.

Darragh11

Thanks for the info, she says she's not gona stop me seein my daughter but it's rare I get to see her, this country is so messed up fathers should have more rights

iguana

Darragh11 wrote: »

But can she change the name even without my consent

Yes. All she has to do is start calling the child by her surname and within two years that will be her default surname regardless of what is on her birth cert.

But the surname is completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of your rights to see your daughter. I understand that it is an extremely emotive issue for you but you need to let it go and focus on doing what you can to ensure your legal rights to be a father. Surely that's the most important thing? And if you get bogged down on something that has no legal relevance you may lose out on what really matters.

Your best bet is to follow Moonbeam's advice and apply for guardianship. Without that you essentially have no rights as a father at all.

Darragh11

Ok thanks for advice

silly

Darragh11 wrote: »

Ok thanks for advice

My daughter has both surnames on her birthcert but i have just been using my own for the last 8 years for doctor, school etc.

Her father has guardianship, but really he has very little rights.

As the others have said, the name on the birth cert is irrelevent to what you are intitled to.

Pay your maintenance and you shouldnt have any problems.

rolly1

iguana wrote: »

Yes. All she has to do is start calling the child by her surname and within two years that will be her default surname regardless of what is on her birth cert.

She may try the common usage route but when it comes to official documentation e.g. the child's passport etc. then the name on the birth cert is all that will be accepted. It is up to the father to insist on the child's proper name to be used at every occasion where it is not especially in an official public context; for example if the child is enrolled under the mother's name only at school it is then up to him to provide the school with a copy of the birth cert and state the child's proper name. The birth cert identifies the child's true legal identity. Changing the child's name is a denial of the child's rights as enshrined under article 7 (1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Changing her name is denying the child her true identity and familial heritage. It is also one of the first steps commonly used in parental alienation, a sign of things to come. A parent needs to be vigilant at every level against parental alienation, along with the denial of the child's rights. Defence of the daughter's identity is an ongoing responsibility that needs to be upheld throughout the child's childhood.

This can readily be done in tandem with seeking basic rights for both child and father such as guardianship and access.

iguana

rolly1 wrote: »

She may try the common usage route but when it comes to official documentation e.g. the child's passport etc. then the name on the birth cert is all that will be accepted. It is up to the father to insist on the child's proper name to be used at every occasion where it is not especially in an official public context; for example if the child is enrolled under the mother's name only at school it is then up to him to provide the school with a copy of the birth cert and state the child's proper name. The birth cert identifies the child's true legal identity. Changing the child's name is a denial of the child's rights as enshrined under article 7 (1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Changing her name is denying the child her true identity and familial heritage. It is also one of the first steps commonly used in parental alienation, a sign of things to come. A parent needs to be vigilant at every level against parental alienation, along with the denial of the child's rights. Defence of the daughter's identity is an ongoing responsibility that needs to be upheld throughout the child's childhood.

This can readily be done in tandem with seeking basic rights for both child and father such as guardianship and access.

Citizens information clearly states that a child's name can be changed legally by common usage. In this country your name is earned through use and repute and is not static if a different name is used.

James Jones

iguana wrote: »

Citizens information clearly states that a child's name can be changed legally by common usage. In this country your name is earned through use and repute and is not static if a different name is used.

Can you give a link to show that Citizens Information supersedes article 7(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the
right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as
far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her
parents

Unrealistic

James Jones wrote: »

Can you give a link to show that Citizens Information supersedes article 7(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

The two do not seem contradictory. "shall have the right from birth to a name" seems to be to be saying a right not to be left without any name at all rather than saying the name is unchangeable. It sounds like the most obvious interpretation unless you've got a reference to the standard interpretation being a prohibition on changing the name.

iguana

James Jones wrote: »

Can you give a link to show that Citizens Information supersedes article 7(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

What? Citizen's Information isn't a law, what are you on about. What it is, is a government body where legal experts on the laws of this country present our rights and entitlements in a way that can be easily understood. Signing up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not mean that those articles become articles of our law, that's not how such conventions work and I'm surprised that anyone thinks they work so simplistically.

What it means is that our laws, where necessary, were written in order to adopt the convention, but nothing in our laws that names are earned through use and repute contravenes article 7. Children are registered with a name shortly after birth but that does not have to be the name the child is known by. If it did nobody registered as Christopher would be known as Chris. And if for two years he has been known as Chris, that can be what is put on his passport if after that point his parents apply for a passport, regardless of what is on his birth cert.

rolly1

iguana wrote: »

Citizens information clearly states that a child's name can be changed legally by common usage. In this country your name is earned through use and repute and is not static if a different name is used.

If there is a dispute about the child's name, as is clear there is in the op here, then the final legal abitrator of the child's name is the birth certificate. If the mother insists on the child having her surname only, while the father insists on the child having her true identity then the birth cert will always trump common usage in a court of law. No father need settle, as advocated by many here, for the child's surname to be obliterated. He can allow it to be obliterated, by not insisting on the child's proper name when the common usage parental alienation trick is used. But reading the responses here and your own, no one would ever guess that the father can do anything about it.

In effect the mother can only change the child's surname in common usage if she is allowed to get away with it by the father.

I believe obliterating one of the child's parents from the surname is a denial of the child's right to the identity they were born with, a denial of their familial heritage and also an insidious form of parental alienation that is commonly accepted in this country; as seen by most of the responses here.

Also obliterating the surname of one parent while retaining the other is not the same as calling "Christopher" "Chris"; the first name does not(usually) tie the child to it's familial heritage whereas the surname does. As per this Law Reform Commision report (section 2.04) the importance of the the birth cert is recognised in helping to develop the child's sense of identity, which is in the best interests of the child.

The two do not seem contradictory. "shall have the right from birth to a name" seems to be to be saying a right not to be left without any name at all rather than saying the name is unchangeable. It sounds like the most obvious interpretation unless you've got a reference to the standard interpretation being a prohibition on changing the name.

Yes it does when you lift the words out of context of the whole article. When the article is read in full its obvious that the child's identity is intrinsically linked with it's parents and nationality:

“The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.”

But then if you want to take your interpretation (that it is only about not leaving a child without a name) to it's logical conclusion then whats the point in having a surname? Children could only have a first name(or a number!), which, according to you, can of itself become a moveable feast over time through common usage etc. But somehow I don't think that's going to do much to inform the child of his/her identity.

Do you?

Interesting to see how people try lots of different angles to deny children basic human rights here.

eviltwin

Just to give my experience on this. My 15 yr old has both surnames on her birth cert but has only ever gone by mine. She has had to get a passport in both names though, we were told as Rolly says that it takes precedent.

I do think OP though that you have bigger fish to fry. Surely the surname, while obviously important to you is not the main concern here? Don't you think you should focus on the issue of guardianship, access etc first? Plenty of kids in single parent families go by one surname only, I doubt it cause "alienation" as suggested below if both parents are taking an active interest in the child.

pickarooney

OP, has she said she wants to do it for the sake of convenience or spite? Assuming it's the former, in the grand scheme of things it's not a huge price to pay once you have shared custody and will mean less hassle for both your daughter and ex partner.

For example, when a woman changes her name after getting married it doesn't negatively affect her relationship with her father's family or alter her history in any way, so I think the underlying reason for the wish to change the name is really the important issue here.

silly

eviltwin wrote: »

Just to give my experience on this. My 15 yr old has both surnames on her birth cert but has only ever gone by mine. She has had to get a passport in both names though, we were told as Rolly says that it takes precedent.
.

when i got my daughters passport - i was able to get it in just my surname despite both surnames on her birthcert.
In the "name to appear on passport" section i just put my own surname in.