Can't agree on baby's surname

Double barrel is fair

I would do what you suggest- his surname as a middle name. I gave my dc my maiden name as a middle name (I'm double barrelled) and her dads as a surname

Give the baby your name. There’s every chance the father will fuck off after 5 minutes.

Your surname. There are people out there who are married and still have their mums surname. You’re not even together and you’re thinking of giving your son his name That’s all old hat now Kids have to have dads surname. My dd is in my name as will any subsequent children be.
There is always the option of double barrelling or meshing. Say if your name is Bradshaw and Jefferson. You could have something like Bradson

I think a way round it is to put his surname as a middle name but not double barrell it and then just not use it!

That doesn't sound like a bad compromise to me.
something like John Michael Smith Brown (obviously completely random names)?

Or has the father behaved badly?

Yours.
I wasn't even allowed to double barrel my dc's names . They have xp's name.

Definitely GIVE THE BABY YOUR NAME.

Give the baby your surname. Having your surname has nothing to do with parental responsibilities. There is no reason for any baby to automatically have the fathers surname.

For me the default would be: which family will this baby live as part of, and what name does that family have?

That would be YOU, op. The mum. The head of the family this baby will grow up LIVING with. The mum of, potentially, other children in the future who would also carry that surname, YOUR surname.

This father might stick around or he could do a complete disappearing act. Total unknown. So even giving a double barrel creates a situation where your child has a different surname to you, and definitely a different surname to any potential siblings, all for an unknown quantity.

Giving your surname alone also means that you effectively retain control of the family name for your children. You may have other children, with another partner. Making your surname the family name means that you can make sure that your children can all share a family name - yours.

Giving the baby your surname means that you

No brainer. Your surname.

Give the baby your surname. It's much easier if your not married to have the same name

Parental responsibility and name are two different issues

naming the father on birth certificate does not require you to use his surname you can still register John Smith with mother Mary smith and Father Fred Jones naming the Father doesn't mean kid has to have fathers surname

naming the Father on birth certificate does give parental responsibility bu t even if you don't name him it is simple for him to get PR and to be added to birth certificate so unless you have good grounds for him not having PR that is likely to stand up in court you may as well put him on birth certificate but he has to attend with you, ultimately he can't make you put his name as babies surname the registrar will not give the baby his surname against your will if you say no that will be the end of it.

To me the default would be double barreling unless there's a good reason not to. He is the father

Agreed. Mumsnet is super aggressive on this topic, and perhaps some with good reason due to so many experiences of shitty partners/dads, but there's very little information from OP in this thread.

The child has two parents. We've been given no reason to believe the father won't be a part of his/her life. So the default for me would be to double-barrel it unless for some reason you DON'T want him to be part of his/her life.

You've not given any context to the fact that you're not together. Is there a back story in which he's behaved badly?

To me the default would be double barreling unless there's a good reason not to. He is the father.

Some people seem to be getting confused between giving the baby his surname and putting him on the birth certificate as having parental responsibility. OP doesn't have to register him as the baby's father with PR, but he is legally able and entitled to apply for it and will get it if he does, at which point he would be able to do things like stop her changing the baby's name to her new husband's if she remarried (not that there would be any good reason to do so). However, in terms of the baby's actual name, she can give it her own surname without his consent and he wouldn't be able to unilaterally change it afterwards even if he did get PR, which is why she should do it now - she could change it to his in future if she wanted to, but she couldn't necessarily change it back to hers if she gave it his and regretted it.

why should he have to go through the courts?

It's a good indicator that he's serious about PR. And we've seen so many selfish fathers on here who, let's face it, at this stage have contributed nothing but a sperm cell, distressing mother and baby by demanding contact time alone in the very early stages. Quite frankly, no one needs that in their lives when trying to make it through the sleep-deprived early months as a new parent. As for surnames, I don't buy the idea that they should get equal say in anything at this stage. Currently, the baby has no need at all for interaction with its father. Also, when the father grows a human inside his body and then pushes the kid out through a tiny orifice, irreparably changing his body in the process, he can give the kid whatever surname he wants. At the moment, the mother's investment is far greater and she shouldn't be having to pussy-foot around the father when it comes to naming.

OP use your surname. His as a second middle is a good plan.

Just register on your own if he can't behave. Silly boy.

It has been proved by DNA that he is the father, so he does have parental rights.
If on birth the father had custody then his name, but since it's you, then definitely your name (but I understand why he wants you to do that)
For the person who says 'fuck him,' why? We don't know anything about him, fair enough if ok had said he's abusive or controlling then, yeah, fuck him, but otherwise he's the baby's father

@Topseyt why should he have to go through the courts?

I don't agree with PP saying "you're not together, your name". I am not with my DD's dad anymore but wouldn't dream of changing her name. As a parent the mother makes so many decisions that the father doesn't really get a look in.

I think double barrel and just not use his if you don't want to. My DD has a double barrelled first name, very unique not mae or rose for example, and nobody really uses it however it's nice for her official documents to use it

Difficult to say without knowing you and him but if you think he wants and will be a big part of your childs life for the long term, is supporting you and child emotionally and financially ie you have a wonderful relationship it just didn't work out romantically then personally I'd consider double barreling, it is his child and your bubba may want that name connection to him.

If none of that is the case or you have any doubts about his motive/intentions etc I'd go with just my surname. I liked a PP suggestion that if in 5 years he's around and a good dad you can always get him added. Good luck OP with everything and enjoy your lil one 💗

You don't need a way round this. It's your choice entirely. Choose the name that you want. If the father is bullying the mother of his child two weeks postpartum I wouldn't have his name anywhere near the child. Give him a name that makes you happy whenever you write it down.

DNA does not in itself give him automatic parental rights. You aren't even with him.

Don't put him on the birth certificate. Give the child your surname. He will have to challenge through the courts if he is serious.

Both names. The baby has a mother and a father.

firstly I think your idea to use Dads surname as second middle name is better so john james Smith Rkii rather than John James Smith-Rkii
so day to day he will be John Rkii but on full documents his fathers name will be there
if he is the father and DNA has already proved that he will have no difficulty getting parental responsibility whether on original birth certificate or not with DNA evidence he can get added to birth certificate too
however none of this changes OP right's to decide the name PR doesn't give right to chose a name or even insist on double barrelling OP doesn't have a veto on PR
if he is definitely the father he should be on birth certificate unless abuse involved