to not want our daughter to have the surname 'Perfect'?

[Brooks10]

Our daughter is due any day. We have decided on her first name, but are struggling with the surname. We are not married. He wants his surname (which I actually don't mind, as in don't mind her having just his surname) but his surname is Perfect. It's not unreasonable to think that's not a great surname is it?? He thinks it's a great surname to have, so which is it?? A bad or good surname to have? I think it's really bad tbh. Mind you, it doesn't sound that great hyphenated either, does it?

For me it's nothing other than being automatically done that way because I genuinely do not know any different and don't have experience of anyone using the mothers name. To me it's just what is done . Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just highly unusual to me to hear of children taking their mothers name.

No one has ever asked me which name I will use. When discussing first names with various people they all automatically pair things with my DPs surname to see how it sounds - I haven't had this discussion with anyone at all, it's just what is expected by everyone, which is why it surprises me so much when I see the opposite on here.

Perfect-Mayfield makes me think perfect minefield. Sorry, OP!

whys there such a rush to get married on here?

Because if you are going to give up / reduce / put on hold your career and earning potential to bring up kids as a SAHP then it is a no-brainer to get married to protect yourself and your children legally.

Sad, but true. Because if you split up and you are co-habiting not married, all bets are off in terms of what you will get financially. And you don't have to be reading the Relationship board here for long to know that many people will not hesitate to screw over their exDP (and very often their own DC in the process) once a relationship breaks down.

Hmmm, I think the OP should probably give her DD her surname, for some reason it's easier to change to Dad's name than from Dad's but that's my opinion and OP needs to go with what she feels is best.
Fwiw, a friend has a DS and DD and they both have her surname not their Dad's. DFriend made the decision because their Dad's surname is notorious in the area and she didn't want her DCs having to deal with the inevitable labels that would come with and she didn't want a different name to her DS (or DD five years later). Their Dad (and his family) hates the fact they don't have his name but he also didn't want to go to the register office (despite being asked to do so) so DFriend just went with what she felt was best!
My DSiL has a different issue in that her DCs have their Dad's (her ex-H) name and her DS hates his current surname (NC with his Dad), he's desperate to change it to either her maiden name or the name she'll have when she gets remarried this year! His "D" F is having none of it and is being particularly horrible about it .
Personally my DCs and I have DHs surname, I was desperate to change my name when I got married; maiden name is quite famous for a specific reason I'm not by the way and I hated it as a kid but with my current name not horrendous but no better than my maiden name I do look back quite fondly on it.

If I was in your position, i.e not married, I would give her my surname. No matter how 'perfect' his surname.

Batteries that is a really sensible reason! Particularly where there are kids involved. I do sometimes wonder if it would be worth it just for the tAx breaks, automatic next of kin status if he's ill, financial security in the event of a breakup etc. But it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, after watching my multiply-married mother and the disappointments she has suffered... On the other hand, every marriage she has left she simply walked away - never sought for settlements or maintenance or anything, just packed up and walked out and started again. I think for her marriage has always been about the romantic ideal rather than the practical benefits - maybe this is why it has not tended to work out for her.

But I think your answer demonstrates my point - marriage doesn't necessarily signify greater commitment to or faith in the relationship, indeed sometimes far from it! So if people know that and do it anyway for the convenience, for tradition, or for insurance purposes if the relationship DOESN'T work out, fine; but unmarried people like the OP shouldn't expect to have their commitment questioned if they aren't and have no plans to be married!

No, very true, lela.

BUT... I always said I wouldn't have children with a man who wouldn't marry me because either

1. he earns more and his financial security is more important to him than my peace of mind, and security for the children, or
2. he earns less and his financial security isn't important to him, and I couldn't be with someone who wasn't sensible with money because how does that pan out when you have children to prioritise

I think a lot of people are coming from that kind of place when they question the commitment of unmarried couples. Why wouldn't you want to give your other half security? It's not just divorce it's death as well. My DH dies and I automatically get everything. Keep the house. No ifs no buts no legal wrangles. It's very difficult to replicate that level of security outside of marriage, although possible. My understanding is that it's also more expensive in lawyer-time terms, than simply getting a license and getting hitched down the registry office.

Getting married is basically saying 'I view your personal financial security to be as important as my own'. It's an important declaration I think. And without it, I would certainly be inclined to question their commitment.

I think it's nice! You have your Mr Perfect and now a Little Miss Perfect!

But I'm not going to be a SAHM?

Batteries again all very good points! I think it is probably salient that I am very very wary of becoming financially dependent on my OH - practically neurotic about it in fact. Not because I don't trust HIM personally, but on principle. Am on mat leave now and inevitably I am going to have to rely on him for money for the next year, and it has taken me a lot of time to feel right with myself about that. The only way I can justify it to myself is that I think being with her for longer will be the best thing for my daughter, and that I will be saving us both a lot of money in childcare. But it still bothers me, and I can't pretend it doesn't. I feel guilty about it. He tells me this is damn silly, btw, so it is not coming from him, but from my background.

To add to the irrationality, the other way around I am completely happy with - at times when he has been hard up (e.g. finishing his PhD) I have been more than happy to cover costs for both of us, I like to treat him to meals out etc. I think it's safe to say I am not terribly well-balanced about these things :p

We earn an equal wage (maybe I earn just slightly more but practically equal) and we currently put a percentage into a joint bank account and will also do so when we have children. I don't like the idea of either of us becoming financially reliable on each other. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do, but that's just my opinion and we are very happy with our choice and are coping absolutely fine!

OP I think you and me are probably very much on the same page! Hope you come to a happy decision about the surname. I think hyphenation is the way to go in your case - couldn't in mine as it would end up a triple-barrel, but I think Perfect-Mayfield is cool! And in any case she may make her own decision which way to go with it later on in life - my half brother was double-barrelled with my stepmum and fsther's names as they were unmarried, and around secondary school he just dropped my stepmum' name and went with my father's (not sure why that way round, but it was his choice). Upset my stepmum a bit I think, but they both respected it as his choice - means you won't get the blame if she ends up hating Perfect, as she still had an out, and keeps your OH happy!

I guess in my experience you tend to always get someone in the relationship who does 'better'. One who is more career focused, or just better at their job. And over time there is the creep...oh let's get this house, we can afford it now, oh lets do this thing.

Banking on always earning equivalent for 40, 50 years seems a tad unrealistic, and neither getting ill or disabled etc etc, not to mention a child with needs that may necessitate a SAH or part time parent. I dunno, it doesn't seem likely to me.

But I don't see how marriage is relevant. Finance works in our house. We each do a percentage into savings for this reason. It works for us, so let's not call it 'unrealistic'

Savings in a joint account are just a case of who gets there first. One of you could clear it all out and leave the other stranded.

It happens.

It won't happen. I have family in the legal sector and have relevant things in place. However, I don't feel I need to justify my decisions on here.

And btw, we do have separate bank accounts and savings too. It's a joint one which things like child's activities will come out of, if that was cleared, oh well, there isn't tones in there.

If it was our other joint one which things like our mortgage etc. comes out of, we have something legal in place, which stops this from happening. It's relatively simple to have this set up if you go through the correct channels, without marriage

That's why I said "if" OP

Of course, circumstances change. Illness, redundancy, etc can alter your circumstances as well as relationship breakdown. And of course nobody ever thinks their relationship will break down! I personally think it's sensible to protect yourself financially.

It's not just a joint account at stake...house, pensions, etc etc

But OK, you've got yourself completely covered

We do

Oh god, no, I wouldn't want my child to be called Perfect! Too much scope for teasing.

Hate yes Butt is an unfortunate surname... I would know! Shockingly I never got bullied for it - bar a strange woman who ID'd me in the coop, burst out laughing and asked if it was my real name

Great. You've got access to free / easily accessible legal advice. I don't and many people don't so marriage is an easy shortcut to a secure outcome.

If it was our other joint one which things like our mortgage etc. comes out of, we have something legal in place, which stops this from happening. It's relatively simple to have this set up if you go through the correct channels, without marriage

Good for you OP. I've never understood all the Guff about marriage being a necessary protection.

You trail blaze in other ways - why not simply give the child your surname, both because Perfect is awful and because you are the one carrying / birthing her.

There are a lot of difficult surnames around! I'd always assumed I'd be quick to change my name on marriage as I'd had such a bad time growing up with mine; but no, I found one that in some respects was even worse. I've gone 50/50 for myself and the children have their father's name. In our case hyphenation would absolutely have been worse than either option (though some of our "friends" thought it would be cool to hyphenate). [imagine if the surname option to pair with Perfect was Peters ... ours is a bit like that].

No best answer for the OP I think, hope you can use this thread to help you sort it out.