C (Change of Forename: Child in Care), Re

A court may intervene in a child in care’s forename only in a rare and extreme case where there is reasonable cause to believe that continued use of the name is likely to cause significant harm. The name’s unusualness or gender association alone is insufficient. The court must give primary consideration to the child’s welfare, while balancing the child’s and parents’ Article 8 rights. Registration is important but not decisive. A change may nevertheless be justified where the proposed placement creates a real risk of significant harm through persistent intra-family conflict and confusion about the child’s identity.

The local authority applied for permission to change the registered forename of an eight-month-old boy subject to an interim care order under the Children Act 1989. His mother had registered him with a forename ordinarily associated with girls. The local authority relied on possible teasing, ridicule and emotional harm. The child’s father and paternal grandmother opposed the name, while the mother supported its retention.

The likely care plan was for the child to live with his paternal grandmother and father. The central questions were whether the existing forename was likely to cause significant harm in the wider community, and whether retaining it would create significant harm through conflict and confusion within the proposed placement.

1. Jurisdiction. The court granted the local authority leave under section 100(3) of the Children Act 1989. The reasoning in Re C, [2016] EWCA Civ 374, applied equally to a change made after registration. Although section 33(3) gives a local authority with a care order senior parental responsibility, the seriousness of interfering with parental Article 8 rights requires the matter to be brought before the court under the inherent jurisdiction where the statutory conditions are met.
2. Applicable principles. Intervention in parental choice of forename is rare and ordinarily confined to a most extreme case. The court must determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that continued use of the name is likely to cause significant harm. The decision is welfare-based and highly fact-specific. Forenames and surnames attract the same general principles, and registration is important but not conclusive.
3. School and community risk. The court was not satisfied that the child’s forename, merely because it was ordinarily associated with girls, was sufficiently unusual, bizarre, extreme or foolish to justify intervention. Contemporary naming practices, cultural diversity, abbreviated names, changing views of gender and the child’s African and Caribbean heritage reduced the likelihood of significant harm. Possible teasing, gender confusion or adverse employment consequences did not meet the statutory threshold.
4. Family placement. The court was satisfied that retaining the name in the proposed paternal-family placement created reasonable cause to believe that the child would suffer significant harm from avoidable conflict and confusion. The paternal family strongly opposed the name, the mother opposed the placement, the circumstances of registration were contentious, and the child was already being referred to inconsistently. The combined risks justified adding the alternative forename.
5. Proportionate order. The mother’s chosen names were not removed from the register. The additional forename was authorised only if the care plan was approved and a care order was made placing the child with the paternal grandmother and father. If that placement was not approved, there was no proper basis for intervention.