To want baby to have my last name

[Anonforthisone1]

Me and oh have a good relationship. He doesn’t want to get married never has. I have been married before and don’t have strong feelings either way. Double barrelling would not work with our names (which is what my other kids have as when I married I double barrelled my name,now back to just maiden name) and it is a rhymey toungue twister that would be a pain.

i really want baby to have my last name. For one I think it would be nice for the kids to have a connection. Also I just think it will be easier for travelling, school and health stuff and I am staying at home so will be doing the bulk of that stuff. I just feel that it makes sense. Also sentimentally my dad died when I was two. The only thing I really have from him is his last name and the only connection my kids will have with him is that too.

this has really upset oh who says that it is a given that baby has his name and is how it is done. That he just always expected that his child would have his last name and that he wants to pass the name down to his little boy. Am I being really unfair to want to do this?

Your son might not have children, he might not marry and have a child that has his partner’s surname, he might marry and take his wife or husband’s surname, him and his partner might choose a new surname. There’s no guarantee just because he’s a man his surname will carry on. In my peer group, nearly all of the women kept their name and the children have a mix of the two surnames.

I kept my name, my child has my name, my brother hasn’t (and won’t) have children, so I’m the only one keeping the name alive.

Actually I’d argue it’s always been traditional for babies to have their mothers’ surnames, it’s just their mother had usually changed her surname upon marriage. This misogynistic expectation that men get to pass on their surname to babies whose mothers they haven’t married is very modern. I think a lot of new mothers are hoodwinked into thinking it’s the right thing to do when it’s really not. Travelling with your child will be a pain with different surnames.

Traditionally, babies are given their mother's surname. Where parents are married, this is usually the same as the father's.

My children had my surname at brith as I was unmarried. It wasn't even a conversation, I just stated it would be that way and my partner didn't have a problem with it.

I've never understood why women give their babies the father's surname when it is different to theirs. Seems like a bonkers thing to do to me.

As you are unmarried, you can register the birth alone. He will only have Parental Responsibility if you go together. If you are married, either one of you can go to register and you will both automatically have PR.

In the eyes of the law, unmarried parents are not equal and the mother has more immediate rights.

When parents are married, they are equal.

The major issue here isn’t the surname. You really shouldn’t be a SAHM because you won’t be left anything if your partner breaks up with you or something happens to him. You need to support yourself financially and employers aren’t keen on large gaps in employment history.

I would be wary of having a child with someone who will not legally commit to you and, therefore, the baby but wants tagging rights. Especially if you are not going to work for a while once baby arrives as this leaves you very vulnerable. I felt OK giving our baby my husband's name as we were married. I kept my maiden name (as did his first wife) and our child has the same last name as dad and half siblings. You could get civil partnered without fuss. Otherwise, the baby should take your name.

I agree with a PP that far more important that names is you becoming financially dependant on a man you are not married to, @Anonforthisone1. That is an exceptionally bad idea. Like, really bad. If you want to be a SAHM you need to get married. Unless you have a private income of come kind.

My DC are now 7 and 6 and I'm still with their father (we're unmarried) but I wish wish wish with every fibre of my being that I'd given them my surname instead of his. It really gets me down.

He doesn't want to commit his life and name to you (marriage) but wants you to commit your child's name to him ?
But, obviously, you are being unreasonable.

I was married and a sahm before. I ended up with a clean break divorce so no better off. It would have been an absolute pain with lots of arguing to try and get pensions etc.

i am also a sahm due to one of my children’s needs (dc has a lot of sen and i am considered a carer)

I think the only fair thing to do is to make it work double barrelling in this situation. You aren't happy with not sharing a name, but neither is your partner. It doesn't matter if it doesn't flow great, if it's important to both of you that's really the only solution.

Like others said traditionally unwed mothers the baby had the mother’s surname. Just point that out to him. If he wants the baby to have his name you get married. If not then it’s your name. End of discussion.

its a new trend to give babies dads surname when not married.

He can always change his name to yours by deedpoll.

You are completely vulnerable if you are financially dependant on a man you’re not married to. Mumsnet is littered with stories of women left high and dry in this situation.

Another man who’s traditional when it comes to last names and women staying home but not when it comes to having children out of wedlock.

Neither would I.

OP, my DC have the same surname as their Dad because he married me. Simple as that. No marriage? No right to decide DC’s surname.

Remind him that legally only you can register the DC’s birth because he has not married you. You get to decide the surname. His lack of rights here is a direct consequence of him refusing to marry you.

Awful, outdated tradition that needs consigning to the bin. Eldest DS isn't married to his partner & I encouraged them to use her surname for DGS - at first she was adamant she wanted DSs name.

Conversely, my closest friend defaulted to her partners name for their child, they split almost immediately after the birth & he has been utterly fucking useless for 7 years. So friend asked if they could ADD her name & the ridiculous prick (who claims to be a feminist & was a friend of mine for 20 bloody years) said he needed time to think about such a massive decision. Pathetic fucknugget of a man.

I don't think it should be a default eitherway but a discussion. But also I just don't think men have the right to be all 'Awww but it's not faiiiir' about it.

Your other half is a donut for thinking that’s what would happen automatically. Soft donut you also who didn’t discuss this before being pregnant. It’s very common to not have the father’s surname. I didn’t have my fathers and my little boy has a double barrelled of mine and my partner’s (not married)

Why do you children need to take father's last name at all? Married or not? It's such an outdated and patriarchal tradition.

If it wasn’t for my saving and inheritance that I have I would have been left high and dry in my divorce. I would have had to sacrifice half my savings and inheritance to get anything in the way of his pension etc.

marriage really isn’t this massive security thing for every situation.

If he feels that strongly about it, he can take your name.

I think that if a man wants the baby to have his name he should marry the mother. If you have no plans to marry then of course the baby should have your name

Ah well as he is not married to you, he is not able to register the child's birth thus cannot put his name on the child's birth certificate.

Therefore it is your choice and your decision.

AND your name.

Am I correct in thinking that some of you have had a baby unmarried and given him/her your last name, but when you've married you've (legally?) changed his/her last name to your husband's?!!!! Why?!!!!

If he wants his kid to have his name, did he never consider that he needed to marry the person he had a kid with, after having agreed a name change on her part first?

Even if you married, you state you wouldn't change your name as you want your children to have a family name together. So that was never an option for him - he could have thought about that earlier

Admin-wise, as the main carer, particularly if you don't go the distance, you are best off sharing a name with your child.

His option for the baby to have "his name" is to change his.

And also to consider the needs of his children before his own. He's a dad now.

But why should he assume she'll take his name?

The whole name thing needs to change - all of it