Arguments with dp over names and surnames

Don't agree with you, but tired now!

Of course not. However in most cases the mother as main carer is inextricably linked to the children anyway, whereas the father, especially if non-resident is not as obviously linked to them, it is a symbolic thing that indicates the relationship to the outside world and redresses the balance. So it might be a comfort to them that even though their dad can't live at home with them anymore they are still linked by name.

The split of care will reflect the split of care before the break up.

You think anyone would want to see their kids more or less dependent on their surname?!

1 in 3 relationships might end but in most cases fathers do not disappear entirely and are still entitled to a relationship with their DCs, what is likely is that they will not be the main carer, so having the same surname at least gives them something more of a link with the DCs.

I get that - I just think it is a very negative viewpoint to take right from the start.

Because something like 1 in 3 relationships do end, and I doubt anyone in them thought they would either.

I agree, beavington. There is nothing wrong with having a strong preferences for a surname or wanting to share a surname with your child, but I don't understand why people suggest you should operate from the "I'll be left holding the baby" position. Particlarly if you're in a serious relationship and have decided to have a baby, then why would you plan for splitting up?

I completely understand why if you were in a shit or non existent relationship with dc father you would not compromise on surname. But if you are giving birth to your dc with partner in loving relationship then why would you think along the lines of 'ill be left holding the baby' etc. Seems so bizarre to me. I expect my dp to parent equally and so we discuss important matters regarding our dc.

That's a very good point. I suppose there's not,.because it has historically been the norm for women to take a man's name

I know, Thurlow. But I don't think there is a tradition of baby having father's surname that is independent of the wife having the husband's surname, IYSWIM.

I think the name the baby has in the hospital was to tie them to the patient, and isn't reflective of what their name is going to be? (As in DD was Baby Thurlow, not Baby DPSurname, on her incubator).

And you can't put him on the birth certificate unless he's there, since you are unmarried.

Anyway, I thought it was "traditional" for babies to have their mother 's surname; it's just that traditionally that was the father's surname. Certainly the NHS labels them as "Baby Hersurname" in the hospital.

I am married, but didn't take my husband's name. I never thought twice about the kids having his surname though, it was never an issue. I have no problem not sharing a surname with my kids, why should I? It doesn't make them any less mine, and I haven't run into any practical problems.
You should agree on a first name, though this does often involve compromise and there's no reason why you should make all the compromises if you don't like his choices!

I can see it your way too flowery - everyone's circumstances are different. We gave the DCs DH's surname because I was going to be the main carer and felt it gave him a bit of the closeness that a mother gets naturally by carrying the baby, giving birth, having maternity leave and in most cases being the main carer. It seemed only fair. If he ever clears off surnames will probably be the least of my concerns. I have no issue at all with having a different surname to the DCs. But I know many do.

Yeah that's a good point WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes, I hadn't thought of it like that.

My unmarried friend has a child that she has given her Mum's surname (the child's grandmother). The child's Mum has her Dad's surname as her Mum and Dad have divorced. So the child doesn't have the same surname as either his Mum or Dad. Doesn't make any sense!

The thing is, a question like this on a public forum is never going to get a.straightforward answer because different people have different concerns. Some people feel very strongly that they want to share a surname, others don't. You have to talk as a couple and find what you agree on and reach a compromise.

There's going to be a hell of lot of joint decisions to make in the future so see this as the first test of how you come together as a.couple, as a partnership, to make decisions for your DC.

I think it's only sensible for a child to share a surname with the resident parent, which is usually the mother. They may well have the father's surname too but they should definitely have the mother's.

What if you give the baby your surname and then get married? Would you change both your surnames? Or keep them as they are. If marriage and you changing your name is on the cards then it makes sense to give the baby his surname in the first place.

I think the opposite flowerygirl - in the event of a split it's likely that the mother will be the resident parent and have far more time with the children, so it redresses the balance a bit if they share a surname with their father.

Thanks Thurlow, couldn't remember what it was :)

I realise saying 'Mothers are left holding the baby' is very old fashioned and isn't an equal way of looking at parenting. It's just that I know plenty of people who have had babies with their partners, split up, Dad is off the scene and the child still has the Dad's surname. Not fair imho, should be honoured with Mother's surname.

You could double-barrel the surnames?

But the surname - no. That's up to you

Utter nonsense.

There's no legal issues nowadays to do with DC - as long as a man is on the birth.certificate. Just the legal issues to do with not being married re financial support

Name, not mane :)

I think you have an absolute right to insist the child has your surname.

No she doesn't. The fathers opinions and name are of equal importance. This also goes for the first names too. You both need to agree on the baby's whole mane. Anything else is unfair.