Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is in a name?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
    Neither parent needs a judge to make the change. You apply through the registrar of Ontario, give notice to the other parent and if it's contested then it automatically gets hyphenated alphabetically. Going to court over it is a complete and total waste of time, money and taxpayers money.

    The other parent has the option to contest it, if they don't contest it then it goes through. If it's contested it gets hyphenated.
    This must be very recent? I'm looking at the forms now.
    But the forms say,

    If someone refuses to sign and return this page to you, you may ask the Ontario Court of Justice for an order allowing you to apply without that person's consent. If the court gives you such an order, put the court order with the rest of this application.

    Comment


    • #32
      My kids have only my last name and that's never gonna change, score for status quo!

      Comment


      • #33
        Can anybody link to where it's actually stated that a child's name change (for a child who already has a name), just gets hyphenated if everyone doesn't consent to such a change? I don't see that anywhere in the Change of Name act for Ontario. It says everyone who shares legal custody of child, must consent, or apply to court to remove need for consent.

        I know when you first register a child's name at birth, it's mentioned about hyphenating, but I don't see it for subsequent change of name registrations.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by dad2bandm View Post
          This must be very recent? I'm looking at the forms now.
          But the forms say,
          Nope, not new, but perhaps that is - it was not required when I applied. Notification, yes, consent no. If the other party did not agree they were required to contest it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by dinkyface View Post
            But this would only happen if the mother identifies the father on the registration, which she is not required to do.
            If the mother does not list the father, the file must file a motion to establish paternity. In connection with the motion the father may request that the child's name be changed to alphabetically hyphenate the last name.

            Here is the presiding case in Ontario:

            https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...&resultIndex=3

            In this case the judge says:

            [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[6] — but this is not one of them.
            Here is the case in BC which went to the Supreme Court:

            https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc...2003scc34.html

            [23] 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).

            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