Can't agree on baby's surname

[Cl4rkii]

I'm not with the father of my 2 week old, but need to register her birth soon. The father is insisting that I double-barrell the surname, but I don't want to. What if we don't come to an agreement by the six weeks. What happens then!

why should he have to go through the courts?

It's a good indicator that he's serious about PR. And we've seen so many selfish fathers on here who, let's face it, at this stage have contributed nothing but a sperm cell, distressing mother and baby by demanding contact time alone in the very early stages. Quite frankly, no one needs that in their lives when trying to make it through the sleep-deprived early months as a new parent. As for surnames, I don't buy the idea that they should get equal say in anything at this stage. Currently, the baby has no need at all for interaction with its father. Also, when the father grows a human inside his body and then pushes the kid out through a tiny orifice, irreparably changing his body in the process, he can give the kid whatever surname he wants. At the moment, the mother's investment is far greater and she shouldn't be having to pussy-foot around the father when it comes to naming.

Some people seem to be getting confused between giving the baby his surname and putting him on the birth certificate as having parental responsibility. OP doesn't have to register him as the baby's father with PR, but he is legally able and entitled to apply for it and will get it if he does, at which point he would be able to do things like stop her changing the baby's name to her new husband's if she remarried (not that there would be any good reason to do so). However, in terms of the baby's actual name, she can give it her own surname without his consent and he wouldn't be able to unilaterally change it afterwards even if he did get PR, which is why she should do it now - she could change it to his in future if she wanted to, but she couldn't necessarily change it back to hers if she gave it his and regretted it.

You've not given any context to the fact that you're not together. Is there a back story in which he's behaved badly?

To me the default would be double barreling unless there's a good reason not to. He is the father.

To me the default would be double barreling unless there's a good reason not to. He is the father

Agreed. Mumsnet is super aggressive on this topic, and perhaps some with good reason due to so many experiences of shitty partners/dads, but there's very little information from OP in this thread.

The child has two parents. We've been given no reason to believe the father won't be a part of his/her life. So the default for me would be to double-barrel it unless for some reason you DON'T want him to be part of his/her life.

Parental responsibility and name are two different issues

naming the father on birth certificate does not require you to use his surname you can still register John Smith with mother Mary smith and Father Fred Jones naming the Father doesn't mean kid has to have fathers surname

naming the Father on birth certificate does give parental responsibility bu t even if you don't name him it is simple for him to get PR and to be added to birth certificate so unless you have good grounds for him not having PR that is likely to stand up in court you may as well put him on birth certificate but he has to attend with you, ultimately he can't make you put his name as babies surname the registrar will not give the baby his surname against your will if you say no that will be the end of it.

Give the baby your surname. It's much easier if your not married to have the same name

No brainer. Your surname.

For me the default would be: which family will this baby live as part of, and what name does that family have?

That would be YOU, op. The mum. The head of the family this baby will grow up LIVING with. The mum of, potentially, other children in the future who would also carry that surname, YOUR surname.

This father might stick around or he could do a complete disappearing act. Total unknown. So even giving a double barrel creates a situation where your child has a different surname to you, and definitely a different surname to any potential siblings, all for an unknown quantity.

Giving your surname alone also means that you effectively retain control of the family name for your children. You may have other children, with another partner. Making your surname the family name means that you can make sure that your children can all share a family name - yours.

Giving the baby your surname means that you

Give the baby your surname. Having your surname has nothing to do with parental responsibilities. There is no reason for any baby to automatically have the fathers surname.

Definitely GIVE THE BABY YOUR NAME.

Yours.
I wasn't even allowed to double barrel my dc's names . They have xp's name.

I think a way round it is to put his surname as a middle name but not double barrell it and then just not use it!

That doesn't sound like a bad compromise to me.
something like John Michael Smith Brown (obviously completely random names)?

Or has the father behaved badly?

Your surname. There are people out there who are married and still have their mums surname. You’re not even together and you’re thinking of giving your son his name That’s all old hat now Kids have to have dads surname. My dd is in my name as will any subsequent children be.
There is always the option of double barrelling or meshing. Say if your name is Bradshaw and Jefferson. You could have something like Bradson

Give the baby your name. There’s every chance the father will fuck off after 5 minutes.

I would do what you suggest- his surname as a middle name. I gave my dc my maiden name as a middle name (I'm double barrelled) and her dads as a surname

Double barrel is fair

Your surname! I deeply regret double barrelling my dc surname with their commit phobic dads x

In your name you lessen the issue of being stopped at border control when on holiday either way

I wasn't even allowed to double barrel my dc's names hmm. They have xp's name.

Of course you were, it was always your decision. You obviously gave in to pressure.

My DC are in their 20s now and have a double-barrelled name. They were born before we married and I have never changed my name. It's worked well for us as DH and I have never parted. If you have started off being separate, the baby should absolutely have your name.

Of course you were, it was always your decision. You obviously gave in to pressure.

Depends on where that person lives. It's not an option in quite a few countries... It would be where I'm at I believe but only by citing the fact that DH is English and that double barreling is indeed practiced and allowed in the UK...

choc I'm in the UK. XP went into a rage when I said I wanted to double barrel the names. I was too scared to stand my ground and gave in.

Depends on where that person lives. It's not an option in quite a few countries... It would be where I'm at I believe but only by citing the fact that DH is English and that double barreling is indeed practiced and allowed in the UK...

Even when the parents are unmarried? I imagine it would be very unusual to pass a law forcing a paternal surname on a child of unmarried parents.

choc I'm in the UK. XP went into a rage when I said I wanted to double barrel the names. I was too scared to stand my ground and gave in.

That's a shame. I hope you would feel stronger if you found yourself in the same position again.

I'm a stubborn mare and I've always been determined to do things my way if I believe I'm in the right. I've been with DH for 26 years and we both know that we have to find compromises or trade-offs. The children's surname was definitely a compromise!

Register your baby with your surname.
Go alone to the registry office. You won't be able to list a father.
XP can apply to go on the certificate and have PR.
He cannot force you to change baby's surname.

If the two of you can’t agree, then you get to decide. He has no parental responsibility (rights) until he’s granted them.