Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Name Change & Hyphenation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
    This is like the opposite of that other thread, where the mother wants to change the child's name away from the father's, and we pretty much all agreed that there should be no name changes. In this case, the father wants to change the name away from the mother's, and suddenly we're saying she should??

    The father was not too involved during the pregnancy and early time of this child's life and indicated that the mother could name the child whatever she chose. Now, years later, he has changed his mind. How is that different from the other situation, except for gender?
    The difference in the other thread was a few factors:

    1. age. The child was older in that thread than in this one.

    2. discrimination. Here, due to the way the birth is registered, one parent, whom is almost 100% of the time the mother, can register the child, list the father as "unknown" when the father is "known" and do as they please. This has been found to be discriminatory as it makes men second class citizens in this regard.

    3. choice. The child in first thread was registered with the fathers name as agreed by the parents at that time. That poster had a choice at the beginning to choose the last name of their child. They chose the father, and thus should live by their decision. In this instance, the father was not given a choice or otherwise have any input, thus robbing them of their ability to at least have their name included in one way or another.

    They are not apples and apples. They are not the same scenarios.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
      Here is another case with a very similar situation as you. Short relationship, a lot of conflict and a 2 year old. The name was ordered changed:

      CanLII - 2010 NBQB 120 (CanLII)
      Wow, I do not like much about that decision at all. The mother can really hose the father now if she wants to.

      Comment


      • #33
        The fact is that Dad consented for the child to have the mother's name. Why should he had the power to change the name now?

        I say that the name should remain the same. This is all bull shit that people complain that the name should have the father name or hyphenated.

        The dad has no case to change the name. I do not believe that he will win nor that the judge will fore hyphenated as we are not talking about a new born here.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Moolight View Post
          The fact is that Dad consented for the child to have the mother's name. Why should he had the power to change the name now?

          I say that the name should remain the same. This is all bull shit that people complain that the name should have the father name or hyphenated.

          The dad has no case to change the name. I do not believe that he will win nor that the judge will fore hyphenated as we are not talking about a new born here.
          I am not suggesting, and would not suggest, that the last name be changed to dads name alone. That would be unreasonable. But it is completely reasonable to request the inclusion of his last name. Naming of the child and inclusion of last names is a very important aspect relating to association. To allow a parent to arbitrarily and unilaterally omit the other parent from this aspect is not in the best interests of the child goes against all aspects of equality in our nation.

          The child is 2 and not even in JK yet. It would cause no harm to the child to include the fathers last name. And depending on how well he argues that the previous consent was simply a way to placate the OP so that he may get some parenting time, will really depend on how successful he is.

          Comment


          • #35
            HammerDad, I believe that your are making too much of a deal with the name. Father should concentrate on being a father and not fight for the name.

            If he had an issue, he should have act earlier. Playing with child name is not in the BIC. The child has the mother's name, it is so sad that people do not value this has acceptable in our society.

            I still believe that the Father has no case here.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Moolight View Post
              HammerDad, I believe that your are making too much of a deal with the name. Father should concentrate on being a father and not fight for the name.

              If he had an issue, he should have act earlier. Playing with child name is not in the BIC. The child has the mother's name, it is so sad that people do not value this has acceptable in our society.

              I still believe that the Father has no case here.

              The Judges, including all judges presiding in the Supreme Court of Canada do not agree with you:

              Deschamps J., writing for the Supreme Court in Trociuk, concluded that: (1) “A birth registration is not only an instrument of prompt recording. It evidences the biological ties between parent and child, and including one’s particulars on the registration is a means of affirming these ties” (see para. 16); (2) “Contribution to the process of determining a child’s surname is [a] significant mode of participation in the life of a child. For many in our society, the act of naming a child holds great significance” (see para. 17); (3) A father who is arbitrarily excluded from [naming a child] would reasonably perceive that a significant interest has been affected” (see para. 18); (4) “. the reasonable claimant in the father’s position, apprised of all relevant circumstances, would observe that the impugned provisions impose a disadvantage on him that they do not impose on a mother. It would be reasonable for him to perceive that the legislature is sending a message that a father’s relationship with his children is less worthy of respect than that between a mother and her children [and] would perceive the message to be a negative judgment of his worth as a human being” (see para. 21)

              In my opinion, it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, be manifestly unfair to the father and not be in the best interests of the child, if I were to enforce the child-naming provisions of Ontario’s Vital Statistics Act where British Columbia’s virtually identical statute has been ruled unconstitutional as amounting to discrimination on the basis of sex.

              [25] The right of a mother to arbitrarily exclude the father in the naming of their child is a breathtaking example of sexual discrimination, leaving the father without recourse (short of the application launched)[5] and rendering him a second-class parent. It is not in the best interests of a child to have his or her parents differentiated in this fashion. There will be obvious instances where it will be entirely appropriate for a father to be unacknowledged and for a child to be given only the surname of the mother, but this is not one of them


              This isn't an issue about the mothers name at all. It is the issue that one parent is able to arbitrarily exclude the other from the naming process, which has been found to be manifestly unfair.

              And who says he didn't act as fast as reasonably possible. How soon was he notified that the child is born. While he should be seeking out this information, it is on the parent who knows the child is born (always the mother obviously) to notify the other parent that the child has arrived as they are the person who holds such material knowledge. Further, just because the child is 2 doesn't mean the OP's ex 's application hasn't been in the pipes for months, if not over a year. Who knows, and it has little relevance. The Supreme Court of Canada has found the unilateral and arbitrary exclusion from the naming process to be unconstitutional. And as such, anyone who tries runs the risk of having the other parent getting a court order to have their name included in the child's name.

              Comment


              • #37
                Hammerdad, according to the Op post, the father was aware of the child been born and the name given to the child. More he even participated in the amendment and even signed the papers.

                To that point the father can not claimed that he was excluded nor claimed that this is related to access since the name has to relation to access.

                My point his that the significance that your are associated to the name is old school and base on the past tradition that the child had to have the father's name as last name.

                Now it is slowly changing and more women are keeping their name after marriage so you have to expect that the naming tradition of the child will also change. Therefore as long the child has one of the parent name you can argue that the relation significance is there otherwise I can also claim the same about where is the relation of the all the children that has only the Father's name.

                As Women ability to name the child at birth without the father. It is base on a necessity, while you are guarantee that the women is present your are not about the father. There is still men that choose not to be part of the child life or due to some event in there life change their mind later and that to me does not give them the right to change the name.

                You can claim sexual discrimination the day when men can give birth.

                This will depend all on how the OP present her case but it does not seem to me that the Father was arbitrary excluded nor have any relation to withholding access to the child.

                OP stated that the Father choose to go along with the decision and even signed the amendment of child name. Father had 2 occasions already.

                it is evident here that somehow he change later and I have seen this happening too.
                Father in agreement but as life progress get question why by people who are not accustom to see children with the mother's name and suddenly change his mind.

                I live it, my children had all my name which was even decided by the Father since he did not like his own name and because he had live through a name change when he was young and resented it.

                The name never prevented any relationship identity with the father nor was any obstacle. The is really no difference to situation where the mother kept her name and children having the father's name.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Moolight View Post
                  HammerDad, I believe that your are making too much of a deal with the name. Father should concentrate on being a father and not fight for the name.

                  If he had an issue, he should have act earlier. Playing with child name is not in the BIC. The child has the mother's name, it is so sad that people do not value this has acceptable in our society.

                  I still believe that the Father has no case here.
                  Hmm cant that go both ways? Mother should concentrate on being a mother and not fight for the name???

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Sure and she is not the one wanted to change the name here.
                    So yes she can concentrate on being a Mom and ignore it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It is base on a necessity, while you are guarantee that the women is present your are not about the father.
                      That may be true in some instances, but not in most instances and definitely not in all instances. The act of discrimination is where the mother, who knows full well who the father is, lists the father as "unknown" and moves forward with the naming child, knowing and wilfully restricting his input where it is in the child's interests to have both parents included in the naming process.

                      You are right, more woman are choosing to use their maiden name after marriage. And what is happening is more kids are getting hyphenated names. Yes, there are some that solely get the mothers name, but I am sure there are equally as many that get the fathers name. And either is fine as it is a mutual decision made by both parents. If you can't see the difference between two parents agreeing and one parenting dictating, than I am not sure what more can be said.

                      I am also living through it. The are some similarities and some differences though. My daughter has my ex's last name. I was told my daughter was born the day after she arrived. When I got the call and came to see my daughter when I was told, I got to hold her. My ex gave me a piece of paper to sign. It was the birth statement. It listed me as the father so I needed to sign. I signed it and to this day there is a part of me that regrets not fighting for my last name to be included. I didn't know my rights back then, and I also was just happy to see my kid. If I didn't sign, maybe my ex plays the hardass and doesn't let me see my kid like she did and we end up a bigger battle. I don't know, but all I know is my daughter was named without my input, aside from being told to sign the form. I've been involved in her life from day 1. In nearly 8 years, I've missed maybe 6-7 days of parenting time (most were made up though). I've never missed a c/s payment and at points over paid.

                      But, because I signed the form, I felt like I was screwed. I could've claimed duress, saying I just wanted to see my child and didn't want any battles or my ex to withhold parenting time because of my unwillingness to give her her way. But it has been nearly 8 years now. My daughter and I have a great relationship, notwithstanding not having my last name. But there are times, like travel and just when my daughter makes statements like "I'm a X, but oh yeah, I am also part Y", where my side appears as an afterthought, it becomes bothersome.

                      To exclude someone from the naming of their child, knowing that they have said they intend to be there to raise the child, is unfair and discriminatory.
                      Last edited by HammerDad; 07-18-2013, 08:54 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Hammerdad,
                        You have realise that most case both parents are present at birth or together and this is a non issues.

                        In the situation where parents are not together, the mother is given 30 days to register the child which does not allow you to identify the father unless he is present and sign the papers.

                        The only way to identify the father without his consent is if he is dead or due to illness. in these case the process is more complex as you will need to provide supportive documents.

                        As you see base on that unless the father is around and reachable you cannot identify him on the birth registration.

                        Your issue about traveling exist in both ways as the mother often does not have the same name as the child. As you also live it, the name should not prevent having relationship with the child.

                        My 3 children have mother last name and that was on consent even on father suggestion. It never create an issue on traveling. Never the father even express regrets.

                        Most people goes for the father name only by custom and because most women do not see it as an option and this is not a debate you wish to have in a couple.

                        While my situation is rare as my children have the mother name and that was done with father consent and his idea. It never was an issue but we did received some curious question on how we decided that.

                        Surprisely, I also got from some women that they never thought about it as an option or that would have create to much issue with the father.

                        Father have harder time accepting that their child do not have their name and my point is that this is more due to custom putting the importance of name the child with father name and not because it actually change the fact that they are the father or relationship with the child.

                        As for naming when parents disagree, there is no real solution to name as even hyphenating the name will create an issue. And who's name come first....debate just goes on till next generation you now face the possibility of 4 names.

                        With time naming will lose is tradition and may open a new trend of given a brand new last name. Who knows...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The opposite happens too.

                          Count me as one of those women who felt very pressured by the man to give the children his surname. There was just no discussing any alternatives with him. I capitulated because he was very good at manipulating me, I was very very fatigued by difficult pregnancies and tired of arguing, and was pretty much willing to agree that the babies be named Bubba-Joe-Ahmed Buttercup as long as they were finally on the outside of me.

                          Is a little part of me sad that my own surname name is gone? Sure, especially now that we have separated, it would have been nice to have won one of the arguments. But I still wouldn't fight to change the name afterwards.

                          It would be nice to see last name be done randomly, or alternate between kids, or boys take the father name and girls take the mother name automatically or something. I am so done with the old traditions that wives and children must have the father's name as if they are his possessions.

                          Friends of mine have two kids, one with her last name and one with his. The funny thing is that the one named for him takes after her, and the one named for her takes after him. They still love each other as full siblings without sharing a family name.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Moolight View Post
                            Hammerdad,
                            You have realise that most case both parents are present at birth or together and this is a non issues.

                            In the situation where parents are not together, the mother is given 30 days to register the child which does not allow you to identify the father unless he is present and sign the papers.

                            The only way to identify the father without his consent is if he is dead or due to illness. in these case the process is more complex as you will need to provide supportive documents.

                            As you see base on that unless the father is around and reachable you cannot identify him on the birth registration.
                            You are failing to recognize the point of - If the father IS around and WANTS to be involved, a mother can still list him as "unknown" and move forward with the naming of the child. That is what is discriminatory and cause the name to be changed.

                            One can't honestly tell me that 30 days isn't a long enough time to attempt to contact ones ex to notify them that they are now a parent and you wish to list them on the registration form? And that you need to discuss the naming of the child. Any father that then does not come forward to be involved doesn't deserve their name to be included. But for every woman that just registers the child's name, taking advantage of the "unknown" provisions, knowing who the father is but refuses to contact them, deserves to have the courts come down on them and tell them they are wrong, that the name of the child will be changed.

                            There is case after case where one parent has unilaterally decided on the naming of the child, and the courts have caused the kids names to be changed. You may not like the fact, but it doesn't make it less of a fact. And I am not talking about instances where the father clearly states he doesn't want to be involved, or one night stands where the guy really unknown, or in instances of abusive relationships. I am talking about instances where the father either says they want to be involved and/or even wasn't sure (he should at least be given an opportunity, the child is part him as well).

                            Comment

                            Our Divorce Forums
                            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                            Working...
                            X