This question was central in the case of BC v A Local Authority and others. The High Court found in favour of the child, who is nearly 16, due to the circumstances.
Background:
A 15-year-old girl, who was subject to a care order in June 2022 and placed in long-term foster care, made an application to change her forename and surname because both had a strong negative association with her father. Her father was arrested in 2021 and charged with sexual assault including the rape of BC after she called Childline three times over a period of about six weeks. She has no contact with her father but has supervised contact with her mother.
BC applied to have her forename and surname changed as her surname was her father’s and her forename was the female version of his forename. The mother opposed the application, contending that the child could be known by the mother’s surname, which was not the same as that of the father. BC does not want to take her mother’s surname due to the feeling of betrayal by her mother at the time.
The local authority (LA) opposed the application on the basis that the child could use her preferred name without changing it legally – as she has done for the past three years with her friends. The LA submitted that changing her name legally at this stage would not be in the child’s best interests as there was a real risk that the child’s relationship with her family would break down should she legally change her name. Moreover, the child’s case was vastly different from the facts before the Court in Re S (Change of Surname). The father played no part in the proceedings.
Decision:
The appeal was allowed and permission was given to the child to change her forename and surname, to be known as JKL. Poole J reviewed the law on change of name applications and noted that, aside from Re S [1998], applications were always made by either a parent or a LA. However, this case is distinguished from Re S due to the sexual abuse by her father. He looked at the position for children aged 16 or older who are not subject to care orders and can change their name by unenrolled deed poll without consent from a person with parental responsibility. He was not convinced that there was a good reason for this position not to apply for a child subject to a care order.
The Court took into account the child’s settled wishes and the length of time she had been using her preferred name but also her reasons for changing her name as well as her maturity. He found that the change would be beneficial both emotionally and psychologically and was, therefore, in the best interest of the child. Moreover, the name change was unlikely to harm family relationships. The names chosen by the child were neither ‘frivolous nor provocative’.
Poole J suggested that once the child is 16 years old, if she wishes to do so, she should be assisted to change her name by unenrolled deed poll and the Court order gave the child permission to do so.
Implications:
This case clarifies the position when the request to change name does not come from a parent or LA but rather from a child. This decision demonstrates that the Court’s paramount consideration is the child’s best interest. It also shows that children suffering from abuse do have a possibility to distantiate themselves from the situation which causes them trauma.
The question remains as to whether the child requesting a name change has the capacity to make such decision and it will be decided in light of the evidence presented. This case did not however discuss or shed any light on what relevant information is needed to prove such ability.