Objecting to Known As Name

[blibbleflop]

Can a NRP with PR object to or prevent their child being given a "known as" surname at school? If so is it necessary to obtain a prohibited steps order or can you simply write to the school and refuse consent?

Yes nrp can object, however if that child does not see the nrp I think as long as the name isn't legally changed it would be unfair.
That family probably feels more secure and the child included being known as the same name.
It can also get confusing i.e

"Hi i am miss smith I am calling to tell you tom brown is too ill to come to school."
"And you are??"

You can't just say no to the school, it has to be court ordered. The court will take the child's wishes into account - as will a decent parent.

The NRP can not only object, they can prevent their child being given a "known as" name at school or anywhere else.

If the school is following government guidance it should not accept a "known as" name unless everyone with parental responsibility has consented or there is an appropriate court order. Some schools fail to check but, contrary to the previous post, if you tell the school that you do not consent they should not accept a "known as" name. A change from the birth name has to be court ordered unless everyone with PR consents. Sticking to the birth name does not require a court order.

Having said that, if the resident parent is trying a "known as" name with the school they may be trying it in other situations as well, so it would be sensible to get a prohibited steps order.

@prh47bridge, that wasn't the advice given to the school I work at.

Child has bio parents A & B and has the legal surname B. B is on the birth certificate. A&B have never been married. A has married C and taken C's surname. Child wants the same surname as mum and stepdad. Child has no contact with B.

Child is registered as Legal Surname B, Known as C.

Bio dad B raised a complaint but on legal advice was told that without a court order the Child could use the 'known as' name as long as the child was registered as surname B.

Mum was also willing to go to court, but it didn't come down to that.

The current government guidance is, "schools should ensure that the surname by which a child is known should not be changed without written evidence (independent of the parent seeking to make the change), that consent has been given by the 'other parent' or by anyone else who has parental responsibility for the child". That reflects decisions by the courts.

XH finally abandoned DS1 when he was 6. After I married DH, by which time he had been DS1's only real male parent for around 5 years and we had DS2, we started using the same surname for the whole family. I was fighting XH for maintenance, which he wouldn't pay because he didn't want a relationship with DS1. The only thing he did want was that DS1 kept his name and insisted on writing that into the court order.
As he then ignored the order for maintenance, we ignored the order about the name and when DS1 changed school, we registered him in DH's name. When DS1 turned 18 he changed his name legally by deed poll.

we ignored the order about the name and when DS1 changed school, we registered him in DH's name

It depends when this happened but if it was within the last 20 years that was an illegal change of name. The school and other official bodies should have insisted on using the name on your son's birth certificate. Even without the order, your ex may well have been able to get a court order enforcing use of your son's birth name regardless of whether or not he paid maintenance.

The fact some people have been able to ignore the law without penalty does not alter the law. If it did, speed limits would be unenforceable. Some people successfully get schools to change their child's name without going through the proper legal process. It does not alter the fact that, as far as the law is concerned, any name change (including use of a "known as" name) requires either consent of everyone with PR or a court order.

In this case it's not my DC, it's a relative's and he's had to fight tooth and nail through court for access as his ex was refusing contact.

We've seen evidence already that his ex is likely to try something with the name (nametag in clothes with her name). A prohibited steps order would be an option, but with a mountain of legal bills he's already got he's reluctant to go back to court.

Child in question is currently below school age, so I think currently any questions on the child's opinion are moot at the moment. I'm trying to keep this as vague as possible in case his ex stumbles on this.

The court fee for a PSO is £215. He could represent himself for this.

It's confusing I think for parents, and schools TBH - for example, this paragraph from the Child Law Advice Charity webpage makes it sound as it 'Known As' names aren't an issue:

Known as or Given Name
Some parents may want their child to be known as a name different to that on their Birth Certificate (their legal name). It is possible for this to happen; however, a child’s legal name must be used when registering them at schools and doctors for example. If one parent disagrees with the use of the ‘known as name’, they can apply to the court for an order to stop them doing this.

Why does it matter?
It wont impact your friend at all, presumably the surname the child may be 'known as' is his primary caregivers, who will be doing the majority if not all of the school paperwork and communications etc if shes the RP so would make more sense to have the same name.

The birth certificate name is still there if DC wants to use that as he gets older.

I wouldn't want my DC having the name of a parent who wasn't even doing day to day care, if he's the primary caregiver who will be doing most of the paper work and school relations then he'll be able to fill the forms out when he does the admissions, and if not it seems like he's just trying to control something that really won't affect him at all.

Generally the "known as" box on school admission forms is for a first name abbreviation ie Catherine known as Katie or in the case of some children who use their middle name for whatever reason & is so that teachers & other staff use the name the child is usually known as.

Both of my DD's used my surname throughout nursery & school (legally changed once the youngest was 16) but there was no requirement to put their legal surname on the forms & they have attended 5 different schools - in the space for their fathers details I put his name & no contact details as I don't have them... no one has ever questioned this.

One of my DCs changed schools last year. Legal surname is DFs but due to legal charges against him (nothing to do with DCs or me) which led to severe bullying she is using my surname as 'known as'. School didn't ask about PR or question me doing this. exP found out after a couple months not happy but didn't complain.

You might as well tell us about successful frauds you've committed, and dress that up as advice. Just because sometimes people get away with it does not make it lawful.

I do apologise @collaborate, I didn't mean to undermine your professional advice. I would never knowingly commit fraud and gave my experience as an expression of surprise at not knowing I had done anything wrong and that the school had allowed it. Sorry I should have put more explanation.

My post wasn’t directed at anyone in particular. It’s just that the law is very clear on this subject, and many posters have added to this thread to say how they got away with it. Changing name without lawful authority is not fraud, or a criminal offence, but it is not lawfully correct.

You might as well tell us about successful frauds you've committed, and dress that up as advice. Just because sometimes people get away with it does not make it lawful.

In Scotland it's perfectly legal to use any known as name of your choosing provided it's not for fraudulent purposes... I was known as my stepfathers surname from the age of 12 - my exam results certificates, drivers licence etc were all in that name - before eventually changing it legally so that I could use it on DD's birth certificate as opposed to my birth surname.

So using a known as name doesn't necessarily equate to committing fraud

Why does your relative have more right to share a name with his child than the child's mother?

In Scotland it's perfectly legal to use any known as name of your choosing provided it's not for fraudulent purpose

The law in Scotland is the same as in England on this point. Changing a child's name requires the consent of everyone with PR. Once you are an adult you can use any name you want.

Why does your relative have more right to share a name with his child than the child's mother

Because that is the child's legal name and the law is that changing a child's name requires the consent of everyone with PR.

Let me rephrase: "Why does your relative feel he has more right to share a name with his child than the child's mother?"

Why is it such a big deal to him that the person who does most of the interacting with the school would like the child to have the same name as her?

Sorry I wasn't saying it was ok I was trying to empathise with the mother so they saw it from both sides.

If a nrp agrees to name change but only by email (not a signed letter) can you do it on your own?

If a nrp agrees to name change but only by email (not a signed letter) can you do it on your own

Yes.

Why is it such a big deal to him that the person who does most of the interacting with the school would like the child to have the same name as her

I can't speak for the OP's relative but fathers often feel that changing the child's surname is part of an attempt to write them out of their child's life, especially where, as here, the mother has resisted contact.

Thank you @prh47bridge