London Borough of Haringey v Musa

In exceptional circumstances, the court may authorise a child’s change of forename as well as surname where compelling evidence shows that identification creates a real risk to the child’s security and a new identity is necessary and proportionate to secure a stable and permanent home. The child’s welfare remains paramount. The court must balance the harm caused by changing identity against the likely harm if protection is refused.

A court may vary an existing sibling-contact order where the benefits of contact are outweighed by the realistic risk of identification, disruption and pressure, particularly where the proposed carers cannot support continued direct contact.

The local authority applied in respect of two young children placed together with prospective adopters. It sought authority to change their surnames under sections 28(2) and (3) of the 2002 Act, authority under the inherent jurisdiction to change their forenames, and variation of an earlier order providing for reasonable direct contact between the children and their older siblings.

The applications arose against a background of extensive publicity, internet activity, attempts to identify the children, threats concerning their whereabouts and serious concern about the children’s future security. The central issues were whether name changes were necessary and proportionate, and whether direct sibling contact should be replaced by indirect contact.

1. Name changes. The children’s welfare was paramount. The evidence showed determined efforts to identify them, strong public and internet interest, and a real risk that disclosure of their identities or whereabouts would undermine their security and permanence. Although changing a forename was a fundamental interference with identity, history, culture and heritage, the court had to balance that harm against the risk of disruption if protection was not provided. In the unusual circumstances, changing both surnames and forenames was necessary, justified and proportionate.
2. Sibling contact. The existing order for reasonable direct contact had been disregarded by the local authority without proper process. Nevertheless, the court had to determine the children’s welfare on the evidence before it. The benefits of the sibling relationship were substantial, but direct contact created a realistic risk of identification and future pressure. The prospective adopters did not support direct contact, and its continuation was unlikely to be sustainable. The order was therefore varied so that only reasonable indirect contact would take place.
3. Open justice and protection. The judgment was delivered in public because the case was already in the public arena and transparency was considered preferable to secrecy. The court nevertheless emphasised the need to avoid assembling identifying pieces of information that could endanger children.
4. The court criticised the local authority’s failure to consult, assess, identify decision-makers or comply with the earlier contact order. Those matters were to be addressed in a further judgment.