C (Children)

A parent’s choice and registration of a child’s forename are acts of parental responsibility. A local authority caring for the child may therefore have power under Children Act 1989, section 33(3)(b), to restrict that choice where necessary for welfare.

That power must be exercised with particular restraint. Where preventing a proposed forename would seriously interfere with Article 8 rights, the exceptional case should be brought before a High Court judge under the inherent jurisdiction. Leave requires both the absence of an available statutory order and reasonable cause to believe that, without intervention, the child is likely to suffer significant harm.

A court may prevent a forename only in rare cases. An unusual or foolish name is insufficient; the evidence must support a real likelihood of significant emotional harm.

The mother appealed from orders made by His Honour Judge Sharpe in care proceedings concerning newborn twins. The children were subject to an interim care order. The mother wished to register their forenames as “Preacher” and “Cyanide”.

The judge held that naming and registering a child were aspects of parental responsibility. He concluded that the local authority could restrict the mother’s exercise of that responsibility under Children Act 1989, section 33(3)(b), and granted an injunction under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37. He rejected the local authority’s proposed reliance on the inherent jurisdiction.

The mother challenged the characterisation of naming and registration, the local authority’s statutory power, the effect of section 33(9), and the use of section 37. By a respondent’s notice, the local authority contended that the inherent jurisdiction was the proper route. The central issue was whether, and by what procedure, the court could prevent registration of a parent’s chosen forename.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The judge’s conclusion that neither child should be registered with the proposed forenames was upheld, but the Court of Appeal reached that result through the inherent jurisdiction rather than the procedural route adopted below.

2. Choosing a child’s forename or surname, and supplying the registration particulars under Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, section 2(1), are acts of parental responsibility within Children Act 1989, section 3(1). The statutory duty to register does not take those acts outside parental responsibility. Accordingly, a local authority with an interim care order has power under section 33(3)(b) to limit a parent’s choice of forename where necessary to safeguard or promote welfare.

3. That statutory power did not make prior judicial scrutiny unnecessary. Preventing a parent from naming a child is a serious interference with Article 8 private and family life. There is no statutory application route enabling a local authority to obtain a ruling on a proposed forename, and it cannot use a prohibited steps or specific issue order for a child in its care. The inherent jurisdiction may therefore be invoked to sanction, limit or refuse the local authority’s proposed exercise of its existing power. Section 100(2)(d) does not prevent that use of the jurisdiction.

4. Leave under section 100 was available. No non-inherent-jurisdiction order could achieve the result, and the proposed name “Cyanide” gave reasonable cause to believe that the girl would be likely to suffer significant emotional harm. The likely injury included harm to identity and self-worth, and exposure to ridicule and cyber-bullying. The power is confined to rare and extreme cases; unusual, bizarre or foolish names will ordinarily not meet that threshold.

5. The name “Preacher” alone would probably not have met the significant-harm threshold. Applying the welfare balancing exercise in Birmingham City Council v H (No 2) [1993] 1 FLR 883, however, the benefit to the boy of retaining his mother’s chosen name was outweighed by the detriment to his sister if the twins had names from different sources. Neither name was therefore permitted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The mother’s appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the result but held that the local authority should have sought leave to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Children Act 1989, section 100.
• Swansea Civil and Family Justice Centre: On 25 June 2015, His Honour Judge Sharpe declared that the local authority could restrict the mother’s parental responsibility to prevent registration of the names and granted an injunction under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37.