Does baby have to have husbands surname

[villet]

Hi my elder 2 kids have husbands surname but I have decided I don’t like it and don’t want to name the unborn one the same surname
What happens if we can’t agree ? Can he go to register office and name it anyway ? What if I go and name it what I want ?

also what happens if you don’t put husband on birth certificate

I don’t like being the baby carrier and other people get to have the name credit /pride

A baby definitely does not have to have the father’s surname, whether or not married.

And can be given any surname the parent (s) like, different from both mother and father.

And despite @SweetBirdsong ‘s unfamiliarity with the whole thing it is increasingly common in the UK for women to keep their own surname and pass it in to the baby. Often hyphenated with the Dad’s but not necessarily.

It has also been very traditional in ‘Western culture’ for babies to carry the mother’s name. Here the baby generally had the mother’s name… however it has been the default for that name to be the father’s by the time the baby was born. Babies of single mothers used to take Mum’s name.

Spanish babies have both surnames.

Icelandic baby girls have Mums name…

OP, your issues around this sound as if they stem from wider unhappinesses, but the facts are clear.

Are your older children your DH’s?

Have you changed your surname?

This is so ignorant. Baby can have any surname you want. OP; only question would be do you think it will be weird to have kids with different surnames? Assuming all same dad

You can literally give your baby any name you like. Father’s surname. Your surname. Double barrelled surname. A totally different surname of your choice.

I've never heard of this before so not sure what the registry officer will say if you choose to give the baby your surname rather than the father's- maybe in these situations they will require both.

It's a Registrar.

They are supposed to say nothing about it, and no they don't and can't 'require' anything in terms of surname (so long as you don't break the very few rules there are about names in general).

I do agree that there are clearly problems in this relationship and one youngest child with a different surname to full siblings might have some complex feelings about this. As you are married your husband will legally have parental responsibility for the child or the ability to assert it, so keeping him off the birth certificate wouldn't solve that but it could get quite unpleasant. This is my understanding but IANAL. OP I think you do need a free initial consultation with a family lawyer to be honest.

My son has my surname (didn't change it when we married) and my husband's surname as a middle name, in case of any future problems if the two of them travel together at airports etc.

We went back and forth about it for months before the birth, it could have gone either way. But he was "Baby MySurname" in the hospital and it felt weird to change that later. I felt more strongly about it after the birth than I thought I would.

So I understand wanting to share a name with your child. But I would also assume that if I had tried to register the birth alone and tried to (not even sure if possible if you're married) leave my husband off the certificate, our marriage would immediately be over. It's a huge thing to do to someone.

Btw I am not against modern naming conventions with respect to children, far from it. It's just in this situation, something more is going on.

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong but my understanding is the only legal naming requirement in the UK is that the baby has to be registered with a first name and a surname. Doesn't have to be the fathers surname or even yours.

I vaguely recall from when I registered mine that as you're married it's legally presumed that your husband is the father so he can go on the birth certificate without being present at registration. And assuming he is the father, why wouldn't you put him on the birth certificate? The BC is a formal legal document and as such should be as accurate as possible, you can't leave him off just because you've decided you don't like his surname. I'm awaiting a massive drip feed on that because there must be more to it

You can register the birth alone, and give the baby any surname you wat.

But the father, as your legal husband, should also be in the birth certificate (and you will be asked if you are married).

Even if you lie about that (which I do not advise) as you are married he has PR regardless

My DC have both our names. I absolutely agree with your sentiment that you carried the baby so it should have your name; and when partners are unmarried in particular, I feel quite strongly children should have the mother’s name, at least in addition to the father’s.

BUT two things are important:

1. your children should share a surname, it’s not fair to any of them to mark this one out as different and may lead to all sorts of horrible worries when he/she is older. Either you’re going to have to change all their names or you’re going to have to come to terms with having used your husband’s, because that’s what you did with the others.

2. you really cannot go this alone, unless you are intending to separate. You must have this out with DH and you must somehow come to an agreement. Even though you CAN register the child alone, i think it would be catastrophic to your marriage to do so. Argue your case - there is no legitimate excuse for your name not being there too, the only obstacle is changing the older ones’ to match but that’s no biggie. But if you don’t thrash this out it is going to spell trouble!

OP your post comes across as angry, are you having difficulties with DH?

Legally you can name your child any name you want, it could be your name, DH's name or the name of your first cat, it's not against the law.

However practically, do you really want to tell your two older children that you don't like their name?

What's the stuff about being a baby carrier? Do you feel undervalued?

When married, it's assumed that your DH is the legal father of the child. If you don't put him on the birth certificate, he could apply to a court to be added to it. Unless you could prove he's not the father, he'd be added and have parental responsibility that gives him rights about access, how child is raised etc.

Ultimately - don't take out anger at your DH through your child's name and identity. Unless there's a real reason why he shouldn't be in your children's lives, not putting him on birth certificate would be a silly and childish thing to do. Your baby is a person, not a bargaining chip.

You can put any surname you want on the birth certificate, of course that is your choice, it does seem rather outdated practice the baby automatically having the dads name, because in this day and age society should not assume that parents will want to get married, times have changed

I think it's something you should sit down with dh and discuss but my personal opinion is the mum carries the child for 9 months, it's the mum who has to go through child birth ultimately the final decision should be with the mother

You can give the baby whatever surname you want. You can go and register it yourself but as you are married so can your dh,

I find it bizarre that you would want your children to have different surnames.

This is bizarre.

OP have you fucked someone else and DH isn't the father?

@BrimfulOfMash Icelandic baby girls have Mums name

Just so you know, this is incorrect. The vast majority of Icelandic babies have patronymics derived from the father's name. It makes no difference whether the baby is a boy or a girl. Some babies have matronymics derived from the mother's name instead or in addition - again makes no difference if the baby is a boy or a girl.

OP, I understand the sentiment but it does seem strange to change systems for one child out of a sibling group. It would look like DC3 wasn't your husband's child.. Could you hyphenate and let all 3 kids have the same name or are they too old to be changing?

You can give your baby any surname you like! Doesn’t have to be yours or the Dads. I know a family where the mum isn’t married to the longtime partner, let’s say he’s ‘smith’
first DD isn’t his biologically but started using smith anyway as a teenager to match her siblings…
DD gets pregnant, doesn’t want to give baby the fathers name, likes the name smith (which isn’t even her legal name) so new baby is ‘Daisy Smith’ despite not having any legal/ hereditary claim to the name whatsoever.

you call call the baby any last name you want in the world, so if you want to use yours then do.

I absolutely love both of you 😊

You can give your child any surname you want. If your surname is Jones and DH's surname is Smith you are not limited to Jones or Smith. Baby could be registered as Stone, Williams or Parker, for example.

If parents are unmarried both parents must register the birth together for the father to be on the BC. Otherwise, the mother would register the birth by herself and cannot include the father in his absence. He can later apply to be added to the BC.

If parents are married, either parent can register the birth. If mum registers the birth alone, her husband is, I think, automatically considered the father. I'm not sure whether OP could leave her husband off the BC if they are still married at the point the child is registered.

As others have said, I would think carefully about giving one child a different surname to the other children, especially if all have the same parents.

I have Aspergers so possible our thinking styles are different

we were supposed to go to Middle East to visit his family and told his family we were going for lash few months. Then about 3 weeks ago we told his family I am expecting and I wouldn’t be comfortable on the plane and his dad turned his back away during video call which I found rude.

so I dislike them now. I also dislike my husband as he said until I visit his family in iraq I won’t be able to take the kids to any European holidays. I’ve always disliked their surname and hated that his sister chose my first sons name. So he’s not going to have any day this time.

Personally I hate the line of thinking that mother carried them so therefore has more rights when it comes to naming. Parents are equals. Unless something is going dreadfully wrong in a relationship (domestic violence, an affair etc), you are a partnership and need to have a sensible adult conversation in order to come to a joint decision you can both agree on. What about women who can't carry their own babies? Are they not as worthy of the honour of naming their babies because they didn't carry and birth them? Is it only mums who can carry and birth their own babies whose rights apparently trump the father? It makes no sense. Fathers cannot carry a child, it's not simply that they're choosing not to!! Someone above uses the idea of babies not being property as an argument for why mother who carried them apparently has more naming rights than father. You are right, they are NOT property, therefore it's rather arrogant to use that line to claim YOU should have more rights to name them simply for being biologically fortunate to be the one who carried them.

Ok, general rant over and back to the OP in question. I'm clearly guessing there is vital information you are choosing not to share with us as to why you are deciding to do things so differently with this baby compared to your older ones (assuming your husband is actually the biological father of all if them?). If he is not the father of this one and knows he is not, do not name him as the father on the bc. It will only cause major trust issues between you and your unborn child further down the line if you lie to them. If he is the father, you should think long and hard about the legal consequences of going behind his back and not naming him so on such an important document. That is a MAJOR decision with huge ramifications for the future of your relationship so I would think very carefully before taking such drastic action, whatever is going on in your relationship. To he honest, I'd say that would be pretty marriage ending if you failed to name him on the birth certificate at all.

If you are not safe, you need to get yourself and your other children out of there pronto and seek legal advice. I understand that is an incredibly difficult thing to do but there are women's refuges and charities who can support you.

If you are safe and your husband is the father I'm afraid I find your decision seems quite selfish. You are thinking about what you want, rather than what is best for the family and your children. Wanting baby to have your surname is completely reasonable but should really be a decision you make (together) when you start having children together. Once you have more than one, you are all part of a family and everybody's feelings should be considered. What kind of message does it send to your older children if you give this baby a different surnamd? That they are less important to you than this child? That they are different in some way to this baby? Children having different surnames to one of their parents is not at all unusual, but giving children with the same biological parents different surnames to each other definitely would be. The justification of "I carried them" doesn't really wash if you made a different decision with the older ones as how do you explain your decision to them? Try thinking of this from their perspective. I would either change their names too, if there are generally major irreparable issues in your marriage making you feel ou need to make this choice this time, or keep this baby's the same as it's older siblings in order to treat them the same.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but, unless there's something majorly unhealthy going on here which you've chosen not to tell us, I feel you've committed to using your husband's surname now for the older ones so that's a decision you should stick with for all your children with him, for fairness. Unless your husband is not the father or has committed an offence making him not worthy of the title anymore, you do not have more right to name your children simply because you carried them. You are equals and should make joint decisions as so. Never ever leave a biological father off of the birth certificate unless you have good reason to. Your child is not some sort of pawn in your power games as a couple. As others have said, through being your husband he would have parental responsibility regardless of whether you name him on the birth certificate anyway. A birth certificate is a legal document. Whilst you can technically choose any name you like for your child, you can't pick and choose what information you put on there. It's a legal document. If he is biological the father he should be named as so.

No