to not use his surname for baby

[notenoughtimeagain]

When me and DP met we both discussed our wants for the future. I knew he wanted another child and he knew I wanted to get married, have the big day etc. 2 years down the line and we are pregnant. DP has started to say he doesn't want a big day and has shown no interest in asking me to marry him anytime soon. I feel a little bit like he is getting his own way and I've been tricked. DP has a child from a previous relationship who has his surname. I have two DC who have mine and my ex partners surnames double barrelled. We never married. TBH if I had known what a pain double barrelled names are I would have thought twice. Filling in forms and there is never enough room , searching for appts, prescriptions etc. Both DC tend to just be known as my surname at school as it is easier. Their choice and both me and EXP don't mind as it genuinely is a mouthful of a name and a pain. They use the full name for official stuff obviously.
With the new arrival I am seriously thinking about only using my surname. I really don't want to have a different name to the baby and my experience of double barrelled is not great ( although it wouldn't be quite as long as my other children's). Of course DP will be on the birth certificate but just not using his surname. And if he ever gets around to marrying me we could change babies name to our married name. DP is adamant that we should use his surname, double barrelled as a minimum but preferably just his name. AIBU to want to use just my surname? If he is that traditional he should be marrying me. He surely can't pick and choose the bits he wants to do properly?!

Has he even said he doesn't want to get married? Or just that he doesn't want the "big day"?

Years ago, the dad's surname was an indication that the child was legitimate. If an unmarried woman had a child, the child would take the mother's surname and this indicated illegitimacy.

See, the way I look at that is that children have always taken their mother's name - it's just that usually that was also their father's name.

I understand why you want baby to have the same name as you, it is in his power to make sure that is his name so I would leave it to him.

To some extent we can pick and choose the bits we want to do traditionally.

Giving the baby your surname is more than reasonable IMO, the more debatable bit to me is that you seem so keen to change your name to his if you do get married. Call the baby by your name, keep your name on marriage.

I admit to being a bit biased in this because I did change my surname on marriage, and I now regret giving "in" so easily. But your DH is being no less biased I'd say way mote biased actually in assuming you and the baby should take his name because he's the one with the willy.

*more easily

Fourormore. Originally we were on the same page. It's only now that I am hearing grumbling about not being bothered about marriage. The "big day" bit I suppose makes sense that he is against, it's not his cup of tea to be centre of attention. However he managed to be up front and present for his sisters ridiculously large wedding. So in my mind if he can step out of his comfort zone for his sister, surely he can for me. If he wanted to. I don't want to talk to him about it as it seems like I am pressuring him. Then if he did propose I still wouldn't be happy as it wouldn't feel genuine. So I can't win. He however is win win as a PP said. I suppose I am thinking worst case scenario and planning on us not finding a way forward. And that means baby having my name only. I have mentioned it this evening and he has said he would be devastated to not have his name. But I would be if baby didn't have mine. So we would both be hurt and I don't feel like subjecting baby to double barrelled given my experience.

Give the child both names then you can just use one name if you want.

If you would end your relationship over not getting a "big day", and you're unwilling to even compromise on the baby having both names, then I can't see how it's your DP who is being unreasonable here.

Attending a large wedding is not the same as being the groom at a large wedding.

Dailymailfodder, if I do that then it would end up with me using my surname and DP using his surname. That would just confuse baby as get older.

he has said he would be devastated to not have his name. But I would be if baby didn't have mine.

How do you plan to move forward? I can't see how you avoid double barrelling unless you give the baby a totally new surname.

YANBU. Choice is yours-your OH has absolutely no legal rights over your child until you have both signed the register. Register your baby with your name at first then re-register under section 14 of the registration act if and when you marry, changing the surname to his at that point. If you don't marry, sounds like you're going to be on your own anyway, so all is well in the world.

These surname debates seem to resurface continually. When I married, I had no intention of taking (now ex) H's name and it didn't bother him at all. My sister and sister-in-law both kept their own names too. When DD was born many years later, and it was obvious that ex H was not sticking around, it was so simple for DD to have my name - if he'd been around, I would have suggested double-barrelling which is what most of my friends have done. My own parents, who married in 1952, chose a new family name (admittedly so it was English-sounding).

OP, I see no reason why your baby should have DP's name nor really why you would automatically change your if you do marry him in the future. With your three DCs and you having the same name, it would be less hassle for him to change his.

So he would be "devastated" if the baby didn't have his name. He doesn't want to marry you so why should the baby have his name? He doesn't sound like he wants to commit to you. You are better off using your name as it will be easier to travel etc in the future.

I don't think the DP has said he doesn't want to marry the OP - just that he doesn't want a "big day" wedding.

It is interesting that he is "not bothered" about getting married but at the same time would be devastated if his child doesn't have his name. Doesn't he realise that by not being married he actually has no say in what his child is called (if you don't want him to)?

It's not as straight forward as that. There is case law on mothers who exclude fathers from the naming process.

Case law? For unmarried fathers? Crikey. Please can you provide more information ASAP?

I'm pregnant and not married as neither of us are that bothered - we see bringing a life into the world as more of a commitment than signing a piece of paper. DC will have his name, but should we ever decide to marry, I wouldn't change my name. We're mixed nationality, so we've agreed to that DC will have given names from my country and the surname from his. I think I must be in a minority in that I'm really not bothered about having a different surname to my children. It's commonplace in many parts of the world where women don't change their names on marriage.

Long and short of it, there has to be compromise, as there is in every aspect of a relationship.

If the Dad is going to be present in the childs life, and he is the biological Father, the child should always have his surname.

The OP sounds like she is bitter about not getting her way, and wants to punish her man because of it.

Yeah why should he get to give the baby his surname if he can't be bothered to provide security and a family unit with all the legalities and commitment attached?

I had a friend in exactly the same position. It's quite a serious thing not marrying someone that you promised, and then her having your child so that they are left totally vulnerable economically. My friend and her partner split up and she lost out big time because he'd have had to share a lot more of his finances if they had been married, not to mention pensions etc.

People are right, a baby isn't just a thing to be trivial about, which is exactly what your BF is doing by not marrying you and making you feel vulnerable and insecure.

If the Dad is going to be present in the childs life, and he is the biological Father, the child should always have his surname.

Exactly, because women are fine as gestational carriers, but children really belong to men and their names should reflect that.

Only babies men can't be arsed with should be given the name of the vagina they emerged from.

(Holds head in hands in utter despair)
Please get some legal advice twinmamma.
I understand you are probably hormonal and lovestruck but unfortunately life is not always full of sparkles and rainbows. Please do it. You sound very young and naive. Do it for your babies.
bridgetoc. Question for you - how does the op know the father is going to be present in the child's life?

If the Dad is going to be present in the childs life, and he is the biological Father, the child should always have his surname

Why on earth would anyone think this? If the parents have different surnames, why would any child automatically take the father's name? Regrettably, although not always the case, when parents split then it is more often the mother who has primary care. I have heard plenty of women on MN and RL rue the fact that they gave their DC the father's name, but none who regretted giving DC their own name.

Op you say early on that he isn't bothered either way about getting married. If he isn't bothered either way then why not just get married?

Secondly - is it in your financial interest to get married? You own your own place with a mortgage so you have assets, he rents his out (I'm guessing therefore you have the bigger/more expensive house). What about Pension/ savings etc?

It's unlikely you will ever regret just giving baby your surname (rarely, if ever, such a thread is posted), but you may regret just giving his. Therefore give baby just your surname - hey surely as a non traditionalist he won't care either way, the birth certificate 'is only a bit of paper'

DoinItFine