Baby's surname

[yvanka]

Pregnant with DC1, DP and I are both completely sure that we don't want it get married for various reasons. We are committed to each other but don't want marriage.

The only issue that this has caused is that he wants the baby to have his last name and I want them to have mine. He says that it's "tradition" but I've done some research and it's actually tradition for the baby to have the mum's surname if parents are unmarried, and I just really want to have the same surname as my child.

However, DP also feels strongly that he wants his surname. I would compromise on double barrelling (our last names go well together) but baby going by just his dad's last name at school etc, but DP thinks that double barrelling is common.

He would be happy for me to change my last name if I wanted but won't consider changing his so I don't see why I should. AIBU?

Disclaimer: he is an excellent partner and very loving and kind to me, so no LTB please. Just looking for any words of wisdom as I can understand how he feels and am a bit stuck on how to move forward with this with everyone being happy.

As others have said - tradition is for baby to have your surname when born. In hospital my daughter was known as baby S (my surname).
Myself and my partner agreed to give our daughter his surname and officially she was registered with his surname.
He had to be present to register the birth for this to be the case

I don't think double-barrelling is common either and in this case it is a decent compromise.

If you aren't married then he needs you present to register the birth so just put your foot down that you are double barrelling unless he'd prefer baby to just have your name. If he wants you all to have the same he can change his name to yours.

Or toss a coin.

To give you another option to think about:
My dd has a different last name to both me and my dh as we merged our last names to make hers.
We had planned to change ours to the same as hers by deadpoll but we still haven't bothered two years on, and I'm not sure we will tbh.

@yvanka you have been very patient in replying to everyone's cross examination about marriage - especially since this was a side point for full disclosure. You sound very level headed and financially savvy. You are not going to be financially dependent on him, so have no need to tie up your fiances with him.
I would suggest as the mother and most likely main carer, the baby should have your name, and as as your DP finds double barreling distasteful, yours alone. Tradition isn't relevant here, practicality is.

are you coming under any pressure at all from your partner's parents? Or even just not-so-subtle hints from them?

Not at all! They live abroad so we barely see each other but we get on amazingly and they would certainly never pressure me into anything. They are very easygoing, almost hippy types and I don't think tradition means much to them either - they're not married and very happy.

Have you thought about what the child may like in the future? Which would most likely be the same name as both their parents?

Why are you so attached to your name? Even if you don't want to get married, which I don't really understand your logic for not wanting to; after all a husband doesn't always have to be a husband but a father will always be a father.

My DP are expecting and I have zero qualms over our child having his name, I have my fathers name, even though my parents got divorced and my mum then remarried, it never occurred to me that I would want my mothers name.

I appreciate that we are living in a much more modern and free world but I don't know anyone personally who has had children out of marriage and give them her their own surname. Whether marriage is on the cards or not. Unfortunately I think assumption would mean people may think they don't even have a father of people know you are not married.

Sounds like double barrel is the fairest way to go if you both want to have the name there.

You are not married so the child should have your surname.

Not being married to him puts you at significant legal disadvantage so he shouldn't imagine it's a free ride. If/when you split up (I sincerely hope you don't, but these are considerations to be made without the glow of optimistic romance), it will be a minor nuisance when you move on. I think any woman having a child should consider how she will cope if she has to manage alone. Get married if you are in doubt that you can.
Agree double barrelled names just look these days like the parents didn't want to get married. Very cumbersome too to fill in such a long name on all forms etc.

I changed my Ds's name from double barrelled to my name only when he was 3 because of this. It was just too much trouble. Keep it simple is my advice.

far higher chance if he's already divorced
He's not already divorced

Also another option is my parents gave me my dad's surname (my mum didn't change her name when they got married) but gave me her surname as a middle name. Not double barrelled, so I don't have the fuss of that, but her name is in there.

Give the baby your name. With his as a second middle name. (Or at a push go double barrelled).
I gave my DD my name . Five years later exP strolled off without a backwards glance (no maintenance given either though she does see him one day a week for a couple of hours!) and I’m very glad she has my name. Not at all saying you won’t stay together of course. But at the time of her birth I thought exP and I would stay together.

It's also a bit of distraction because getting married doesn't 'solve' the name thing - the woman doesn't have to take the man's surname just because they're married, and nor do the children of married couples automatically get the man's surname!

Exactly

He's the one who needs to persuade you. The default option is that you register the birth, with your surname.

You have to be amenable to registering him as father on the birth certificate, for that to happen. (I'm not suggesting you hold that over him, just sharing facts).

The reason it's sensible for the baby to have your surname, is that a large proportion of relationships fail and, almost always, the DC stay living with the mother, for at least half the time, often full-time.

Of course you don't want to think about breaking up in future and want to believe you won't. But, statistics. That is an argument for, at least, having your surname as part of DC's surname. More simply, just using yours.

So, over to your DP to formulate his arguments!

I side with the majority that give child your surname. His name as the middle name as a compromise. We are no less worthy to carry on a name just because we are women.

@Bubbles1st

Why are you so attached to your name?

Why is he so attached to his name?

Even if you don't want to get married, which I don't really understand your logic for not wanting to; after all a husband doesn't always have to be a husband but a father will always be a father.

Will a mother stop being a mother?

i appreciate that we are living in a much more modern and free world but I don't know anyone personally who has had children out of marriage and give them her their own surname.

I did.

Whether marriage is on the cards or not. Unfortunately I think assumption would mean people may think they don't even have a father of people know you are not married.

If they assume it was an immaculate conception I'm sure OP can live with that.

@Bubbles1st

Have you thought about what the child may like in the future? Which would most likely be the same name as both their parents?

Why are you so attached to your name? Even if you don't want to get married, which I don't really understand your logic for not wanting to; after all a husband doesn't always have to be a husband but a father will always be a father.

My DP are expecting and I have zero qualms over our child having his name, I have my fathers name, even though my parents got divorced and my mum then remarried, it never occurred to me that I would want my mothers name.

I appreciate that we are living in a much more modern and free world but I don't know anyone personally who has had children out of marriage and give them her their own surname. Whether marriage is on the cards or not. Unfortunately I think assumption would mean people may think they don't even have a father of people know you are not married.

Sounds like double barrel is the fairest way to go if you both want to have the name there.

Have you thought at all about why the same could not be said to her DP about why he is so attached to HIS name and has qualms about taking hers?

Slightly different perspective: I am married (slightly reluctantly, but in the end it was less hassle to live with the historical baggage than to square the legal and financial stuff in other ways, plus I would have resented having to tick "single" on the fertility clinic forms when we went through IVF together as a couple). I kept my name and remain MsMyName. DS (now 7) has DH's surname.

I have never found it a problem or issue at school, doctors or travelling, having a different name. I occasionally have to correct people who assume I am Mrs DHname but that's no biggie (except with MIL :-)) . Botton line, I am DS's mum, I carried him and gave birth to him. I don't need the same name to label that connection. And I am and will always be the default bloody parent with nursery, school, doctor etc, regardless of name, regardless of whether I am working 200 miles away that day and DH is WFH 5 mins away. Because I am DS's mum.

Especially in the baby and toddler period, we as a society are still not great at including dads as equal parents. It's getting better but still work in progress. So I think it was more important for DH to have an outward label for his connection to DS than it was for me to have it, given a choice was required. If our names had worked double-barrelled we might well have gone for that but they sound clunky and awkward together. So not a route I considered for more than 5 seconds.

If you are talking tradition, it was unusual but a v big deal back in the day for an unmarried father to give his name to his child - it signified recognition and responsibility and intent to be part of the child's life. Some vestige of those notions still lingers which may be another reason he is pushing this so hard, even if it's not consciously articulated even to himself?

On a matter of taste, I do agree with him that double-barrelled has been overdone. Two separate surnames (second middle name + surname) seems nicer to me.

I'm married but kept my own name. DS has both of our surnames, double-barrelled. He's part of both of us so makes sense to honour that. That way, everyone still feels connected.

My DCs have my DP's surname, mainly because I don't particularly like mine. They have mine as a middle name, which was important to me - and helped with getting questioned at airports, which has happened loads when I've travelled alone with them. It just wasn't important to me that they had my surname - I carried and gave birth to them, I know they're "mine". But if it is important to you, I think the only compromise is double-barrelling it. I do think his unwillingness to compromise is an issue.

I have a friend who created a whole new surname for the family which they've all taken, and another friend who gave one DC her surname and the other her husband's. But I think you said you were only planning one child?

I have 2 children with DH. I never changed my surname on marriage. DD1 has my surname and DD2 has DH’s. It’s never caused us or our daughters any problems. Give the baby your surname OP.

@yvanka

why on earth are you paying to help him increase his equity

We are both accruing equity. My house pays for itself so I am not out of pocket contributing to the house that I'm actually living in.

But you're accruing equity without his contribution. He is using both his and your contributions to accrue equity. That's unfair to you!

[quote SomersetHamlyn]@Bubbles1st

Why are you so attached to your name?

Why is he so attached to his name?

Even if you don't want to get married, which I don't really understand your logic for not wanting to; after all a husband doesn't always have to be a husband but a father will always be a father.

Will a mother stop being a mother?

i appreciate that we are living in a much more modern and free world but I don't know anyone personally who has had children out of marriage and give them her their own surname.

I did.

Whether marriage is on the cards or not. Unfortunately I think assumption would mean people may think they don't even have a father of people know you are not married.

If they assume it was an immaculate conception I'm sure OP can live with that.[/quote]
these are my 'opinions' and thoughts for consideration for the actual OP. Who can do and think what she likes with them.

I appreciate that we are living in a much more modern and free world but I don't know anyone personally who has had children out of marriage and give them her their own surname.

I bet many of us know several mothers who regret giving their children the surname of a man who is no longer involved, though.

@yvanka you have been so very patient answering all the questions about marriage. It makes me think you are going to be a wonderful parent - congratulations on your baby!

I agree with most pp and believe you should give baby your surname or double barrel.

I am married but I didn't change my name on marriage, we double barrelled but without a hyphen to signify the children have both our surnames. We are not common!
I won't say anything about marriage but do get some life insurance if you have not already. if you are young you can get £100k cover for less than £15 per month and this will go a long way to helping your child should anything happen to either of you 9 you should get a policy each, written in trust for your partner.)