H (A Child), Re

In a dispute about a child’s given names, welfare must be assessed in a worldly and commonsense way. The fact that one parent obtained the first statutory registration does not justify giving that registration decisive weight. A primary carer may use a customary given name in the child’s ordinary dealings with health, education and community services, while recognising the child’s registered names. The court should not use an order under the Children Act to inhibit that use. Given names have a less concrete character than surnames and may acquire alternatives through family usage. Orders should contain only what is necessary.

The parents separated while the mother was pregnant. The father registered the child’s birth first, giving him the names MI, while the mother later registered the name H. The father’s registration was treated administratively as the valid registration and the mother’s was cancelled.

The mother applied under section 8 of the Children Act in relation to the child’s name. The Kingston upon Hull County Court declared that the child should be known by the registered names MIH and refused her application. The central issue on appeal was whether the mother could use H in dealings with external authorities without representing it as the child’s registered name.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Thorpe delivered the judgment of the court and Lord Justice Buxton agreed. The application was allowed as directed. Paragraph 2 of the county court order was struck out, and no replacement order was made because the order sought by the mother was superfluous.
2. Given names and registration. Authorities concerning disputes over surnames did not govern a dispute about given names. Surnames have particular significance in identifying the family to which a child belongs. Given names have a less concrete character and may acquire customary alternatives during family life. Statutory registration remains the child’s official registration, save in exceptional circumstances, but the fact of registration does not determine every name by which the child may be known.
3. Use of the customary name. The judge was right that no court order could prevent the mother from using her chosen name within the home. It was wrong to inhibit her from using that name in external dealings within the community of the primary home. In ordinary dealings with national health services, local educational services and community activities, there was ordinarily no formal need to produce a birth certificate to establish the child’s given names. The primary carer could therefore use the customary name, provided the statutory registered names were recognised.
4. Welfare assessment. Judges dealing with such issues should take a worldly, commonsense view of what is likely to promote the child’s welfare. They should not place excessive weight on the fortuitous fact that one parent registered the birth first. The assessment should include the child’s security and well-being, the primary carer’s need for support, and the carer’s liberty, matching the responsibility undertaken, to make decisions in the child’s daily life.

The county court order was varied by deleting paragraph 2. Detailed assessment of public funding costs was ordered.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the application as directed, striking paragraph 2 of the county court order.
• Kingston upon Hull County Court: on 27 September 2001, declared that the child should be known by the registered names MIH and refused the mother’s section 8 application.