{"id":3060,"date":"2023-11-17T15:00:54","date_gmt":"2023-11-17T15:00:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dawsoncornwell.com\/?p=3060"},"modified":"2023-11-20T13:16:02","modified_gmt":"2023-11-20T13:16:02","slug":"gemma-adams-discusses-when-the-court-will-intervene-under-the-inherent-jurisdiction-in-respect-of-a-forename-change-to-a-child-in-care","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dawsoncornwell.com\/pl\/insights\/gemma-adams-discusses-when-the-court-will-intervene-under-the-inherent-jurisdiction-in-respect-of-a-forename-change-to-a-child-in-care\/","title":{"rendered":"Gemma Adams discusses when the court will intervene under the inherent jurisdiction in respect of a forename change to a child in care"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the recent case of C (Change of Forename: Child in Care), Re [2023] EWHC 2813 (Fam)<\/a>, The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb considered an application by the local authority to change the forename of a baby boy (aged 8 months old), who is subject to an interim care order and is currently being looked after by the local authority. The Judge refers to the child as \u201cC\u201d throughout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mother gave C the forename; \u201cMia\u201d which he is registered as on his birth certificate. The local authority\u2019s case was that \u201cMia \u2026 is likely to suffer significant emotional harm, as a result of him having been given a name that is predominantly considered to be a female name, when he is male. It is submitted on behalf of the local authority that such a name may attract ridicule or teasing and by consequence is capable of having a negative impact on his self-esteem as he grows up.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The local authority therefore sought permission to change C\u2019s forename to \u201cT2\u201d, which was the forename given to him by his mother for a few weeks following his birth, and which is a forename ordinarily associated with someone who is male. The local authority\u2019s application was supported by the father, paternal grandmother (into whose care C was soon likely to be placed for the long-term), and, for different reasons to the other parties, the Children\u2019s Guardian. The mother opposed the local authority\u2019s application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When C was born, initially, the mother referred to him as \u201cT1\u201d, which was the forename of her own late father. When C was then around 6 weeks old, the mother changed his forename to \u201cT2\u201d, however, just before registering C\u2019s birth, the mother changed his forename once again, and gave him (and registered him with) the forenames; \u201cMia Adonis\u201d. The mother explained that her reasoning for this was that she wanted C\u2019s names in combination to reflect the phrase \u201cmy beautiful boy\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Judge referred to various case law when considering the local authority\u2019s application and stated that the following principles are relevant to the facts in the case:-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The courts intervention under the inherent jurisdiction<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. This is likely to happen only rarely<\/strong>. Indeed, only in a \u201cmost extreme\u201d<\/strong> case should the court exercise its power to prevent a parent from registering a child with the name chosen by that parent for the child (Re C <\/em>at [3]);<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. The issue of whether there is a power within the inherent jurisdiction to prevent a parent with parental responsibility from naming their child with a particular name is dependent on whether the court is satisfied that to allow such a name to be used would likely cause that child significant harm <\/strong>(Re C <\/em>at [108-109]);<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. Although \u201cit will only rarely be the case\u201d, nonetheless \u201cthe giving of a particular name to a child [i.e., like \u2018Cyanide\u2019 in Re <\/em>C for instance] can give a court reasonable cause to believe that, absent its intervention, the child in question is likely to suffer significant emotional harm\u201d (Re C <\/em>at [102]);<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Welfare decision<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. The changing of a name (surname or forename) is a matter of importance, and in determining whether or not a change should take place<\/strong> the court must first and foremost have regard to the welfare of the child<\/strong>; section 1(1) and section 1(3) Children Act (CA) 1989 therefore apply;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n