Another surname question

[starshaker]

I was married and am almost divorced. I have my s2bexh surname as does my daughter. Im currently pregnant with twins and they are not exH. They will not be taking their dads/donors surname as he has done a runner and denying all knowlege. Would it be a problem to give them the same surname as dd and i have.

In my opinion yes its like saying that the baby on the way is your s2bexh and i don't really think that would be right. Do you not plan on reverting back to your own surname once you are divorced.
I'm no expert on this but wont you need to have the father's surname on the birth certificate if you want to claim anything from the csa - he might say the baby isn't his but there are ways to prove otherwise lol.

revert back to your maiden name and all have the same one but make sure you state the fathers name on the cert

I cant put his name on the BC as he is not even admiting im pregnant so no way will he go to have it put on. Im not changing my name back as i want to have the same surname as dd. I want to have the same surname as these 2 asell and there is no was my ex would let me change her name

Could you go and dd go double-barrelled - maiden name and married name and twins have your maiden name?

I see it that this is my name now and i want us all to have the same name. Just wondered if anybody else had done this

Starshaker why do you need your ex there to put his name on the birth certificate? You are the one who fills it in.
I don't see a problem with using your name except for whatever your original ex might think. Would be ideal if he didn't mind/bit more hassle if he does.
My DS doesn't have same name as me though, never bothered me.

I thought you can only put somebodys name down if you were married to them unless they were there. I dont think my exH would actually care really and i would explain it is my name aswell.

I'm pretty sure, but a call to your local registry office could put your mind at rest. I'm sure men have long been named on b.certificates against their will, so to speak. If he claims he's not responsible, he can always try to prove it through DNA in the future.
Now in Scotland it is certainly the case that an unmarried man can't register the birth without partner present, whereas a married man can go on his own to do it.
Good luck by the way.

Both of my Dc's have my married surname even though neither of them are my exh's and came along well after we split. They are also by different men. I kept my surname because I preferred not to return to my maiden name and also my Dd's father said he'd rather Dd took my name to avoid questions when she goes to achool.
I'm actually glad the three of us have the same surname tbh.

There's no rule that you have to put any particular name on the birth cert, or that you can't put a name on if the person bearing the name objects or isn't there. Using the name doesn't make the man take any responsibility. Not using it won't let him off the hook either if you wanted to pursue him for support. The name is irrelevant to the relationship -- there doesn't have to be an admission of paternity for you to use a name. It's a very practical idea to have children and mother with the same surname, even if it's a double-barreled surname.

This is as far as I know anyhow.

Your married name is your legal name.
You are entitled to give it to your children.