Surname issue

[roopertbear]

More of a WWYD. Cannot agree on surname for our soon to be born child. Namechanged for this.

DP doesn't believe in marriage- fair enough. We have different surnames.

His surname- Smith- is the same as both his parents, paternal grandfather etc.).

My surname- Jones- is my ex DP's name. I changed it over a decade ago by deedpoll to match my DD. This has been my surname my whole adult life nearly. It's on all my documents and I don't go by my maiden name at all. DD has a very involved father and I can't change her surname. I also don't want to have a different surname to her.

My maiden name (Brown) is my father's name who I am no contact with. My mother has a totally different surname (Green).

I want to double-barrell Smith-Jones. DP wants just Smith. He hates double-barrell so said it can't be both names. I said fine, just Jones then. He is very much against that as it's not my 'real' name and it is essentially another man's name (though aren't they all?). He said if we don't go for Smith, we should go for Brown. But that's not my name and I've no intention to reverting to it. He said we should go for Green then, but it's the same issue. I don't want to have a surname that is not the same (or partly the same in the case of a double barrell) with either of my children, but we totally disagree.

The not getting married is not an issue, although I happily would, but I am not giving my child just DP's name if it's not also partly my surname (I'd become a Smith-Jones if we married- DC would then just be Smith). AIBU? Which name would you pick?

She changed her name. It’s now her name. Legally, socially. That’s why it’s called “changing your name”.

Agreed. Absolute bollocks.

He agrees to get married so you all have the same name. If not, it’s either double barrelled or your name.

The only way they would all have the same name would be him changing his name.

OP you say if you got married you’d change your name to Smith-Jones and your child together would be Smith. This seems like a nice solution, as it means you share a surname with both your children, and your partner shares a surname with his child. So why not just do that without getting married? AFAIK you’d have to faff about with a deed poll to hyphenate your name after marriage anyway so you may as well do it without the marriage.

Why should she? He's the one who doesn't want to married but she's the one who has to faff about changing her name again. Fuck that shit!

Oh I totally agree @LadyBird1973, I’m just trying to get into OP’s mindset here. I wouldn’t be happy with that arrangement even if I were married, myself (I wouldn’t want my kids to have only my DH’s surname, and I don’t see why I should change my name if he won’t), but as OP would be, I’m wondering whether she’d consider it without marriage?

Thank you. These are my thoughts exactly. I don't want to change my name particularly, I like it, it's my identity and what I'm known by at work. My maiden name feels utterly alien. I would, however, double barrel as a compromise if married but not willing otherwise.

Appleontherocks I'm not sure why you suddenly think I am an unfit mother who doesn't love my DP. I do, and hopefully we'll be together forever, but sometimes life happens. Your posts are nasty and you appear to be projecting. My own DP seems less emotionally invested in this than you are. I'm starting to think you're my mother in law or something.

I also agree with @LadyBird1973.

OP, i hope you remain strong and keep your name and give your baby YOUR name.

Bottom line is he doesn't want to marry you.

That is a man with one foot in and one foot out.

I don't mean to upset you but you deserve better and need to keep a cool sensible head on you.

Making a rash decision and giving into him could be something you bitterly regret.

Your family will be your daughter, baby and yourself all with the same name.

Your partner who is determined not to marry you can havd his own separate name.

This is about his ego, not whats best for you or the baby....all his ego...

We had this argument when our first was born. We're not married. I insisted on double-barrelled, DP was furious and insisted on his surname only. Huge rows. Awful. Anyway, child ended up with partner's surname and my surname as a middle name. So on all important paperwork my name is there but for day-to-day purposes he's got partner's surname. Winds me up to this day but it's the only compromise we could reach.

Anyway, child ended up with partner's surname and my surname as a middle name.

how did that happen?

FWIW @roopertbear I’ve always thought the only truly fair way to name a child - unless one of you genuinely can’t wait to ditch your surname - is to double-barrel. I wanted to do this with our kids but my DH wasn’t keen (because it was mildly unusual and he has a horror of standing out in any way). But knowing that what I wanted to do was objectively fairer than what he wanted to do (give them just his name) meant I didn’t feel bad about overriding his feelings and maybe that’s what you need to do too. Your preference is to acknowledge both of you in your child’s name - if his only reason for not wanting to do that is that he just doesn’t really like the idea of two names, then I’m not convinced you need to take his feelings into account anyway.

Have jones as a middle name and smith last. Then you have both names in
the baby’s name. tell
him it’s both names or just jones, his call.

If it winds you up to this day then is it really a compromise? Or does it also wind your partner up that your name is on paperwork?!

What possible justification did he give you for being angry to the point of huge rows that you didn't want your shared child to have only his name?

What possible reason did he give for refusing to give his blessing to have both names double barrelled rather than making his the default last name?

Genuinely I would like to know how blokes like him justify this demand when making it.

Why on earth did you agree to a 'compromise' that is actually him just bullying you into getting his way?

The adults can change their names if they want to (they can both double-barrel so they continue to share a surname with their child(ren) as well as their spouse) but they should not change the children's surnames.

My mum changed her and my surname when she married my stepdad... they are now divorced 🙄 She should have kept both our surnames or double-barrelled hers.

He didn't compromise at all. He got exactly what he wanted. Your DP sounds abusive and controlling. If possible, you should change your child's name (not sure about the legality). You did all the hard work!! My DP was happy to double barrel our daughter's surname (with a hyphen) and I could choose the order. I chose my surname as the second part.

Just remind him that as you're not married you are the only one who can legally register your baby and there is a time limit. He needs to come with you if he wants to be named as father on the birth certificate otherwise you'll go alone and do the paperwork yourself. Basically it is up to you what you call your baby - if he wanted that right he should have married you. Hopefully that will speed things along.

When you are not married, no man has any right to push his surname on an unborn child

Surely no man has any right to push his surname onto a child, married or not? Plenty of women don’t change their surnames when they get married and don’t want their children only to have their father’s surname - but should they capitulate just because they’re married?

Are you trying to be offended🙄.

Traditionally if you are married and having a child together, the fathers name goes on the birthcert in some way, singularly or double barrelled.

It certainly wouldn't be fair to me to exclude his name completely if married and together, and I have never heard of a woman being married to the father of her children and the children registered solely in her name.

The issue whether a woman changes her name has nothing to do with this.

But when unmarried the father has zero rights at all to have an opinion on what name the child is given, in my view.

”It wouldn’t be fair to exclude his name completely if married and together” - but would it be fair to exclude your name completely, if you’d kept your maiden name?

I know of one family where the parents are married, they have separate surnames, and both children have the mother’s surname. (And I’m quite unsociable so I don’t even know that many families.)

I can’t see why this should be any less common than the parents keeping their own surnames and the children having their father’s name. Clearly it is less common, but why should it be?

Obviously I’m in a minority here but I don’t see why marriage gives fathers an automatic right to name their children unless both parents share a surname. I’m not looking to be offended, I genuinely don’t understand!

The issue whether a woman changes her name has nothing to do with this.

But it clearly does, because if the woman doesn’t change her name and wants to share a surname with her children, she’s not going to be happy with her children having just their father’s name. That may be what is done traditionally, but how is it fair?

I entirely agree with you.

Because the whole thing is about punishing a.guy who doesn't want to marry you. So it's unfair.if he does what they think he should have to do, but if he doesn't marry the woman, he is distanced from child. It's classic using the child.as a pawn for your relationship woes as I said from the start..

One woman wants to deny the child the right to a named Father unless he agrees to only have it in her name. It's just scorned women seeking vengeance. Really worrying and toxic. Feel sorry for their poor kids.

If its really important to you, maybe don't conceive out of wedlock. That goes for everyone involved.