R (A Child), Re

When a parent seeks judicial approval for changing a child’s surname against the opposition of another parent, the change must be justified as being in the child’s best interests. The applicant bears a burden of showing that the change would improve the child’s life. The court must balance the long-term value of maintaining an outward link with the non-resident parent against shorter-term benefits such as convenience, reduced confusion or embarrassment. Those benefits may not outweigh the continuing importance of recognising both parents. A proposed move abroad is not, without evidence, a sufficient reason for changing the child’s surname. Where the evidence does not establish a significant advantage, the court should refuse permission for the change.

The father appealed from an order of the Brighton County Court permitting his young son’s surname to be changed from L to R. The mother intended to move with the child to Spain. The parents had agreed arrangements for the child’s future, including continuing contact and parental responsibility for the father, leaving the surname as the only issue.

The county court decided the issue on written statements and submissions. It applied the welfare checklist and concluded that the child’s long-term interests favoured sharing the surname used by the mother’s family. The Court of Appeal considered whether that conclusion was justified on the limited evidence available.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal deleted paragraph 3 of the county court order, which had permitted the change of surname. Public funded costs assessments were ordered for both parties.
2. The choice of a child’s surname is a matter of parental responsibility. The court may permit or prohibit a change under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. Where the change is opposed, it must be justified under section 1 as being in the child’s best interests. The parent seeking the change bears a burden of establishing an improvement in the child’s life.
3. The relevant exercise involves balancing the long-term interest in preserving an outward link with the parent with whom the child does not live against shorter-term advantages such as convenience, reduced confusion and avoidance of embarrassment. The latter considerations are not automatically insignificant, but their weight depends on the circumstances.
4. The judge had heard no oral evidence and had no evidence about Spanish naming customs or the alleged advantages of the change. The proposed move to Spain was therefore a neutral factor, and the absence of evidence supporting the mother’s case was material. The child’s young age did not justify treating the proposed surname as settled or treating the change as self-evidently beneficial.
5. Both Lord Justice Thorpe and Lady Justice Hale considered that using both parents’ surnames might provide a sensible way of recognising the child’s links with both parents and assisting his adjustment to life in Spain. That suggestion was not imposed as an order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the Brighton County Court allowed to the extent of deleting paragraph 3 of the order.
• Brighton County Court: permission granted for the child’s surname to be changed from L to R.