Arguments with dp over names and surnames

[Bellabutterfly2014]

Hey everyone, so as we are about to tune into the evening of x-factor and strictly (one sky plus'ing) my partner has said I am taking over with the name choosing just as his ex did which has upset me.

Firstly, as we are not married I said the baby should have my surname as being the primary carer I would be doing the majority of docs & dental appointments and school runs plus if he wants me and the child he can always put a ring on it!!!

Then just because my mum and I were discussing names he thinks I am taking over however part if me does think that if I have to be pregnant for 9 months then I should get the final decision, with his ideas considered.

Do people think that I am being in-reasonable????

I am married, but didn't take my husband's name. I never thought twice about the kids having his surname though, it was never an issue. I have no problem not sharing a surname with my kids, why should I? It doesn't make them any less mine, and I haven't run into any practical problems.
You should agree on a first name, though this does often involve compromise and there's no reason why you should make all the compromises if you don't like his choices!

And you can't put him on the birth certificate unless he's there, since you are unmarried.

Anyway, I thought it was "traditional" for babies to have their mother 's surname; it's just that traditionally that was the father's surname. Certainly the NHS labels them as "Baby Hersurname" in the hospital.

I think the name the baby has in the hospital was to tie them to the patient, and isn't reflective of what their name is going to be? (As in DD was Baby Thurlow, not Baby DPSurname, on her incubator).

I know, Thurlow. But I don't think there is a tradition of baby having father's surname that is independent of the wife having the husband's surname, IYSWIM.

That's a very good point. I suppose there's not,.because it has historically been the norm for women to take a man's name

I completely understand why if you were in a shit or non existent relationship with dc father you would not compromise on surname. But if you are giving birth to your dc with partner in loving relationship then why would you think along the lines of 'ill be left holding the baby' etc. Seems so bizarre to me. I expect my dp to parent equally and so we discuss important matters regarding our dc.

I agree, beavington. There is nothing wrong with having a strong preferences for a surname or wanting to share a surname with your child, but I don't understand why people suggest you should operate from the "I'll be left holding the baby" position. Particlarly if you're in a serious relationship and have decided to have a baby, then why would you plan for splitting up?

Because something like 1 in 3 relationships do end, and I doubt anyone in them thought they would either.

I get that - I just think it is a very negative viewpoint to take right from the start.

1 in 3 relationships might end but in most cases fathers do not disappear entirely and are still entitled to a relationship with their DCs, what is likely is that they will not be the main carer, so having the same surname at least gives them something more of a link with the DCs.

The split of care will reflect the split of care before the break up.

You think anyone would want to see their kids more or less dependent on their surname?!

Of course not. However in most cases the mother as main carer is inextricably linked to the children anyway, whereas the father, especially if non-resident is not as obviously linked to them, it is a symbolic thing that indicates the relationship to the outside world and redresses the balance. So it might be a comfort to them that even though their dad can't live at home with them anymore they are still linked by name.

Don't agree with you, but tired now!

I would never have dreamed of telling OH that I had the final say in the baby's first name, even though we aren't married.
The plan was for baby to take his surname. Then in the hospital, the name was written down on her tag with my surname, and we realised it worked quite well - we added his surname on the end on the birth certificate (double-barrelled but no hyphen) and we've not had any problems.

I don't think anyone mentioned potential relationship break down or being left holding the baby. so why is that being referenced? Personally I want the same surname as my child. That's important to me. It's one of the main reasons I got married. I believe strongly in all that. That may not be the modern way but it's important to me. If the man I was with wouldn't marry me then I would certainly give the child my name.

Flowerygirl said it on the previous page. I agree with whoknowswheretheimegoes

I think there are two different conversations taking place here though. One where female wants to marry and male does not hence talk of if male wants childs name then they should marry (why not if you disagree so much on where your future is heading, do not decide to have a child together and then argue over naming rights). The other is those who are married and kept name or are unmarried and unbothered by marriage looking at bringing a life into the world together and arent really thinking ahead to any inevitable breakup

Not married and both kids have DP's surname. It's a nicer name.

Yes, I think you are right beavington. I'd have been angry if I'd fallen pregnant and my partner didn't propose. Hence why I would give the child my maiden name if I was in that situation. The fact is my surname is now the same as my husband, so it's not an issue for us. I totally get where op is coming from though.

One where female wants to marry and male does not hence talk of if male wants childs name then they should marry

So, blackmail?

It's not blackmail. It's refusing to let someone have his cake and eat it.

And I don't get your "You both need to agree on the baby's whole name. Anything else is unfair." -- yes, that's the ideal. But sometimes parents just won't be able to agree and there isn't a compromise position (on a surname, at least. In order not to be able to find some common ground on a given name at least one of the parents has to be acting like an arse). When parents are unmarried, legally the casting vote effectively goes to the mother (as she can register the birth herself but the father can't). What's your alternative?

Actually, I reckon in the situation where the parents have different surnames and they can't reach a compromise, one of them probably is acting like an arse. Compromise being the key to all decent relationships and all that.

Does "having their cake and eating it" refer to not being married?

More or less, yes (remember that we are talking exclusively in this bit of the discussion about a situation where the mother WANTS to marry the father and take his name but the father refuses, while also trying to insist that the child MUST be given his name). I don't see marriage that way in a wider social context, but in that specific scenario I don't see why the father should get his own way on everything.

He doesn't want to get married because it's just a piece of paper? Fine; so is a birth certificate. If legal structures (e.g. marriage) that he doesn't fancy (but that are important to his partner) aren't important but legal structures that he does fancy (e.g. legal name of child) are really really vital to him, and he effectively wants to have all significant decisions default to his way of doing them then he's trying to have his cake and eat it.

It's interesting that the situation being described here as "blackmail" is the one where, given two decisions neither of which is individually amenable to compromise, the mother gets her way over one major decision and the father gets his way over the other. The situation where the father overrides the mother's wishes on both and does whatever he wants seems to be ethically hunkydory.

I agree with you Tortoise. I had an interesting conversation with a (male) friend at the weekend about his unborn babies surname.
He wants it to have his surname his GF wants hers, his argument is that its traditional.

I told him that a) it was "traditional" to have a shortgun wedding when finding yourself up the duff and unmarried but thankfully times have moved on from that stigma.
And b) its actually traditional for babies to have their mothers surname, but whether the baby and father shared a surname depended on whether the parents were married. And again we've moved on from automatic assumption of name change.

So if he doesn't want his girlfriend to have his surname why does he want his baby to? There was no answer.

If the dad doesn't want to get married or makes vague reference to it happening, then I'd give the baby both surnames (not hyphenated and his name first followed by your name last) and say if you get married at a later date you can drop your name from the end.