To not think its right to bouble barrell child's name after divorce?

[BlueEyesWhiteDragon]

Parent A (female) and B (male) split last year. No affairs, no DV. Parent A felt B checked out of marriage and family life despite repeated requests to change didn't so instigated split. Parent B doesn't agree obviously felt blindsided by split and initially hoped they'd get back together. Now has new partner.

They have 2 DSs aged 7 and 2. DSs are with B every other weekend and 1 midweek for tea every week.

Split is not amicable in that they do not get on, all communication is by email, they handover on the doorstep, its still quite fraught.

A legally changed her name a few months ago. It's not her maiden name but a name she has chosen that has meaning to her. Oldest DS is upset that he no longer shares the same name as mummy. She's had discussions with him about double barrelling and DS likes that idea so she has asked B to agree with her new name being first.

B doesn't want to agree as he feels it's a wider pattern of punishing him and wanting to erase anything to do with him in As life (impossible as they share DCs). Is scared to say doesn't agree as likely to result in contact being messed with.

Both parents are friends of mine but this is causing massive issues (and in the wider group) as the issue is just being spoken about all the time.

I've lost my temper with both of them this week because well I'm just sick of the whole thing.

A has text me this morning to say

"I'm disappointed that you as a mother cannot see the importance for DC1 to feel connected to both of his families by sharing a name. We have been friends for many years and I expected more from you in terms of support. Its clear that your desire to not take sides between me and B is resulting in you taking his side. I think until you can see reason it's best that we hit pause on the friendship"

I have known A for 15 years and met B through her (so known him 12). I never married my DCs father and gave them both my surname.

I admit I don't understand the importance of it. I don't think a 7 year old can really be that bothered or understand the intricacies of changing a name.

AIBU? Am I missing something massively fundamental? As a child is having a different name to one parent really that traumatising?

I don't think a 7 year old can really be that bothered or understand the intricacies of changing a name

I was about 4 when my father contemplated changing our surname because of racism. And I remember being devastated. My surname was part of me and connected me to my father (I have my mothers maiden name as one of my forenames). We kept our surname, btw.

So I would say a 7 year old can have very deep and really feelings about what he wants his surname to be and it’s not on to diminish these.

I totally agree with A. Fortunately both children had a double barrelled name mine first and then his. However should they have had just his when divorced I would have reverted to maiden name and then wanted it double barrelled for the kids.

My friend was Ms A and he was Mr B she became mrs B children both B at his insistence they divorced she went back to bring ms a the children were 8 and 3 and wanted her name mr B insisted they would not be a or indeed a-b. Refused to double barrel but a judge saw different and the children became a-b.

I would be irate if you didn’t support me.children are 50-50 and they should have names from both sides

YABU

A is an absolute disgrace. She stopped the children seeing dad for no reason but spite for 3 months. She changed school unilaterally.

I don't blame B for being paranoid. She's absolutely malignant, and she is harming her kids with this manipulative name bullshit.

YABU. Why shouldn’t the children have the names of both their parents?

It’s such a sexist idea that some men gave: “My children have to have my name”

B is making this all about him, and trying to control her. I think, OP, you've been blinded by charm and unconscious misogyny.

It's reasonable of her to want to distance herself from the name that came with the husband. She is no longer connected to him, why should she have his name? The DC are connected to both of them, so can have both names.

Names are important to children- they are the first things they learn to write. They are called out at register each morning. They are on their books, clothes, pegs.

If it doesn't matter that they don't have her name, why does it matter if they do have her name? Make your mind up, OP.

What a shame A changed her name and gave the baby his name alone in the first place.

In principle, of course a mother should be able to give her children her surname.

She isn’t wanting to eradicate his name, just add hers.

He was happy enough when she and the child took his name. Can’t he see why she would also feel the children should have hers?

No matter what her reasons, why is he objecting? He is being a patriarchal knob. And exerting his patriarchal knob power in vetoing the name change.

I am surprised you are not agreeing with her about adding her surname.

And if he was an uninvolved parent, then I'd be wary of him suddenly stepping up. If he was unable to be responsible when he lived there, why would I trust him when he doesn't? Does he know and understand and prioritise any medical needs, diet needs, routines etc? a does he know where the doctors is, when needed. I'd be reluctant to trust my kids to a man that was playing silly buggers, introducing new partners, and failing to provide.

I'm completely confused as to why any of this is your business?