BC ( Child in Care: Change of Forename and Surname), Re

When a competent child in care seeks leave to change their forename and surname, the court’s paramount consideration is the child’s best interests. The court must give careful weight to the child’s wishes, feelings, needs, objectives, age, maturity, competence, the persistence and reasons for the proposed change, and the likely consequences of granting or refusing leave.

The court must also consider the views of persons with parental responsibility, including the local authority, but those views are relevant principally insofar as they may affect the child’s welfare. The court must balance the child’s and family members’ Article 8 rights. It is not necessary to find that continued use of the existing name would be likely to cause significant harm. The principles apply equally to forename and surname changes.

BC, aged 15 and subject to a care order, applied for leave to change both her forename and surname. She had been placed in foster care after findings that her father had sexually and emotionally abused her, including rape. She wished to remove the association between her names and her father and had consistently selected new names.

The local authority and BC’s mother opposed the application. They relied on concerns about family relationships, possible regret, unwanted questions, the timing of the father’s criminal trial, and the availability of an informal preferred name. BC’s father did not engage. The central issue was whether the proposed formal name change was in BC’s best interests.

1. The application was allowed. Leave was granted for BC to change both her forename and surname and to be known as JKL.

2. The court rejected the submission that leave could be granted only if continued use of the existing name was likely to cause significant harm. That approach arose in authorities concerning infants and parental choice of an unsuitable name. It did not govern an application by a Gillick-competent older child seeking to change their own names.

3. The governing approach was that the child’s best interests are paramount. The court must consider the child’s competence, age and maturity; the steadfastness of the wish; the reasons for it; the significance and associations of the proposed names; and the impact of granting or refusing leave. A change of forename and a change of surname are subject to the same general principles, although changing both requires particular consideration.

4. The wishes, feelings, needs and objectives of a competent applicant require very careful consideration. The motives and objectives of objecting family members must be scrutinised. Their views, and those of proposed carers and the local authority, are relevant insofar as they may affect conduct and thereby the child’s welfare. They are not determinative.

5. The court must take account of the Article 8 rights of the child and family members, while recognising that a 16- or 17-year-old outside the relevant statutory orders, and any 18-year-old, can change their name without parental consent or leave. A care order makes leave necessary for a surname change under Children Act 1989 s 33(7). The application to change the forename was properly dealt with under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

6. BC’s settled and mature decision was supported by her history, her clear reasons, the psychological benefit anticipated from severing the association with her abuser, and the likely harm from refusal. The proposed names were neither frivolous nor provocative. The family and local authority concerns did not outweigh those considerations. The court considered that the change would not materially damage family relationships and that BC would be supported by her school and foster carers.