W, F, C and D (minors)(Name changes disclosing gender reassignment and other matters) (Rev 1)

Applications to enrol children’s Deed Polls must be handled compatibly with privacy and equality rights. Where publication of a child’s former and new forenames would disclose gender reassignment, Regulation 7 of the 1994 Regulations should be applied so that publication is limited to the surname and date of the deed. The deed should remain in court rather than being transferred to the National Archives pending consideration of appropriate access arrangements.

A child aged 16 or 17 must give the consent required by regulation 8(4). Where a parent with parental responsibility objects or has not consented to a surname change, the Deed Poll process is generally insufficient to determine welfare issues. A prior specific issue or section 13 order of the Family Court will ordinarily be required.

The court considered four applications to enrol Deed Polls for minors. W, aged 15, and F, aged 17, sought name changes associated with gender reassignment. C and D, aged 8 and 4, sought surname changes where only their mother had signed and the father, who had parental responsibility, had not consented.

The applications raised the interaction between the Enrolment of Deeds (Name Change) Regulations 1994, Practice Direction 5A, the Children Act 1989, privacy rights under Articles 8 and 14 ECHR, and protections under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The central issues were the form and storage of publication, the need for a child’s consent, and whether welfare questions could properly be determined through the Deed Poll procedure.

1. W. Publication of W’s former and new forenames would disproportionately interfere with privacy under Article 8 and could disclose gender reassignment. Regulation 7 did not prescribe the precise form of publication and was therefore interpreted compatibly with the Convention. The advertisement was limited to the date of the deed and the child’s surname, with the file marked private and access subject to the court’s permission.
2. Storage and wider guidance. The deed was to remain in court and not be released to the National Archives on a public basis until the relevant authorities had considered appropriate access and storage arrangements. The court observed that public bodies requiring fully enrolled deeds should consider whether that requirement was proportionate.
3. F. Regulation 8(4) required a child aged 16 or over, unless married or civilly partnered, to consent to the deed by signing in both old and new names and having the signature witnessed. F’s application was referred back so that the required informed consent could be obtained. If approved, the publication and storage arrangements were to follow those ordered for W.
4. C and D. Regulation 8(5)(iii) and Practice Direction 5A contemplated applications without the consent of another person with parental responsibility where the statutory conditions were met. However, those provisions did not authorise the Queen’s Bench Division to determine welfare issues arising from a disputed unilateral surname change. In the usual case, a specific issue order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, or a section 13 order where applicable, should precede enrolment. The applications were adjourned pending Family Court consideration and proof of reasonable diligence in attempting to locate the father.
5. The court further held that the Regulations contained no requirement for medical evidence merely because a proposed name change related to gender reassignment. A name change did not itself alter legal gender.