Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

changing my son's name to a double barrelled surname

  • 09-06-2010 4:40pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 4


    my son currently has his dad's surname. his father and i are separated and i want to change his surname to include mine also. i've checked the citizen's information website but just got confused with whether its by deed poll or not!! any info on how to proceed would really help:D


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Hi,
    You can have a childs name changed on the birth certificate only if you are unmarried when the child is born (since 2005) and you subsequently marry and want to change to the fathers surname, this doesnt work backwards for seperation - so in this case, you wont be changing the birth cert.

    Your other options are to change it by deed poll, but you will need the consent of the father and you will need to present the deed poll with the birth certificate whenever the birth certificate is required as it reflects the legal status of the name change.

    You CAN just change it by common usage, so in other words you can just start using the new name and call your son by it and over time it becomes his name - if he wants to reflect that legally later on he could change it by deed poll himself.

    However - before doing any of the above, ask yourself, why do you want to change it? You are seperated from his father, but the nature of the relationship between father and son has not changed so if you were happy for him to have his fathers surname before, why not now?

    I just say the above because its quite possible a name change will only add extra resentment to a seperation, and that your son may decide to go back to his birth cert name later anyway.

    Also - how old is the child, is this something he will be aware of and possibly attach a negative connotation to as well?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    from citizens information

    Changing the surname of a child

    "The surname of a child can be changed in the Register of Births but only in certain circumstances. However, the surname of a child can also be changed by deed poll or common usage. Children aged between 14 and 17 years can execute the Deed Poll themselves but need the consent of both parents. Where a child is under the age of 14 years, one of the child's parents must execute the Deed Poll with the consent of the other parent."

    you need agreement from the other parent..
    you will probably witness most of the child's childhood - maybe leave
    the surname as it is:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,776 ✭✭✭up for anything


    My daughter decided to double-barrel hers when she started secondary school. She is registered at the school with the double surname and she has asked the doctor and the library so far to change it in their records. Common usage is probably the easiest way and you don't have to ask anyone's permission to do that.

    When I got married I kept my own name as well as taking his and just changed it at the bank etc. Never got asked for any official proof. Even when I applied for my passport, prior to getting married, all I had to do was fill in the new surname. Now I'm separated I am doing it all in reverse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭purplepug


    just a query on this topic.. am unmarried and separated from childs father. When we registered i gave 1st name, middle name, then used my surname as a middle name, then the fathers surname..NOT double barrelled. It was pointed out by family member that my surname will not be carried down as I have 1 brother, but he will not be having any children. I really want to start using my surname, not just because we separated, but for keeping the name going also. I reckon common usage is the way to go, but has anybody any insights on to the fact that my surname is already there, but as a middle name... (hope this makes sense) :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Please do not take this the wrong way OP, but are you doing this as a control thing for you or for the betterment of your child. My mother did it out of spite, and tbh, I have no idea what name is on half my stuff now.

    My household bills - Her surname because there is not enough room for both on the paper.

    My passport - both names as a double-barrel.

    My birth cert - My fathers name.

    It is a pain is the arse that parents don't seem to realise when they do these things. Please think of the convenience to your child too. I do not mean this in any harsh way please do not think that. But just as someone who has had to grow up with the awkwardness of it.

    I have split from my sons father. He had his father's name then and he still does now. It is his name and at the age of 18 if he wants to change it to Philip MaGee then off with him, but I would not do it to him out of anger/resentment/annoyance of his father.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,073 ✭✭✭Rubberlegs


    I'm not married and my first child was born in 93 when the child's surname was not put on the birth cert. She went by my surname. In '00, when our second child was born, and children's surnames were being entered on the birth cert, we decided to give no. 2 the double barrelled surname. To have the two the same we had already started to call our eldest by the double barrelled name. We asked could this be now entered on the birth cert, and were told no by the registrar, and what we were doing was essentially illegal. She said since we were not married, it was assumed the child had my surname, and it was illegal to call her by both names:confused:. I went to my local Citizen's Advice and was told that this was madness, that your name is by reputation and a child can go by any surname, and that there was no need to change the eldest by deed poll, as those were the days when the surname wasn't on the birth cert anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,179 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Not a fan of double barrel names, I think its selfish. Do do.you expect their kids to have treble barrel. Or even quadruple barrel names


  • Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I included the two names on the birth cert and it turns out the fathers side never uses the paternal name when addressing the child in the post anyhow. Im the only one who uses it on official documents. Am going to change it too since no one seems to be bothered about it.

    You can do it by deed poll but if the dad has guardianship you will need to get him on board.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭Lola92


    73Cat wrote: »
    I'm not married and my first child was born in 93 when the child's surname was not put on the birth cert. She went by my surname. In '00, when our second child was born, and children's surnames were being entered on the birth cert, we decided to give no. 2 the double barrelled surname. To have the two the same we had already started to call our eldest by the double barrelled name. We asked could this be now entered on the birth cert, and were told no by the registrar, and what we were doing was essentially illegal. She said since we were not married, it was assumed the child had my surname, and it was illegal to call her by both names:confused:. I went to my local Citizen's Advice and was told that this was madness, that your name is by reputation and a child can go by any surname, and that there was no need to change the eldest by deed poll, as those were the days when the surname wasn't on the birth cert anyway.

    As someone born in 1992 and with a brother born in 1993, I can assure you that we both have our surname on our Birth Certificates. I can not imagine why it wouldn't be there, the whole point of a birth certificate is to register the birth and family details of the child!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,865 ✭✭✭✭January


    Lola92 wrote: »
    As someone born in 1992 and with a brother born in 1993, I can assure you that we both have our surname on our Birth Certificates. I can not imagine why it wouldn't be there, the whole point of a birth certificate is to register the birth and family details of the child!!!

    I was born in 1987 and my surname is not on my birth cert?? Just my First and Middle name...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭purplepug


    ted1 I think that the choice is up to the individual.. I certainly am not a fan of double barrelled names but in hindsight i really wish I had gone for it with my son, so being he could be known by either one, the other, or both.
    @wolfpawnat i think ur reply is very individualistic to ur own circumstance and does not really help when you state "but are you doing this as a control thing for you or for the betterment of your child" . I am not sure who this statement is aimed at but I for one disagree with it being a control "thing", It doesn't, at the end of the day, change whom the father is. Parentally, the mother gets guardianship so surely the child will feel more comfortable carrying the surname of the person that they spend the most time with, still "belonging" to the family unit as it were. I also have older twins whom lost their father when they were two, they carry his surname and are comfortable with it as they have lots of family from his side with the same name that stay in touch. My son will not have that, and so will feel somewhat different, I think. All comments welcome :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭Lola92


    January wrote: »
    I was born in 1987 and my surname is not on my birth cert?? Just my First and Middle name...

    That is interesting January, I have seen my parents birth certs (late 1950s/early 60's) and their surnames are listed aswell. I didn't know that they were ever done without a surname, seems very strange to me!

    Back OT, as far as I know you can just change your sons name through common usage in school, among family and friends etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    I dont think there was ever a time when surname was not listed on birth cert, I have family birth certs from 1930s, 50s, 70s and 00s, just checked and they all have surnames.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    OP I have to agree with those who are questioning your motives for this name change - it could be perceived as a controlling act.

    My own memory of childhood was that schoolmates with double-barrelled names got an unmerciful slagging for it , yes I know children can be cruel but its a fact of life.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Delancey wrote: »
    OP I have to agree with those who are questioning your motives for this name change - it could be perceived as a controlling act.

    My own memory of childhood was that schoolmates with double-barrelled names got an unmerciful slagging for it , yes I know children can be cruel but its a fact of life.

    Is that true Delancey? What is there to make fun of in that?

    Saying that, you can rergister the child in school with one of the names and keep both on the birthcert, that way during roll call only one name gets established as general use.

    Also on Irish passports you can use one name rather than what is on the birthcert.

    Im not too fond of them myself personally, but how and ever....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,865 ✭✭✭✭January


    Is that true Delancey? What is there to make fun of in that?

    Saying that, you can rergister the child in school with one of the names and keep both on the birthcert, that way during roll call only one name gets established as general use.

    Also on Irish passports you can use one name rather than what is on the birthcert.

    Im not too fond of them myself personally, but how and ever....

    My understanding is that if you use a hyphen to separate the names then both have to be used, but if you just put the two surnames with no hyphen you can choose which one to use...

    So Adam Burke-Ryan would have to be used all the time, whereas Adam Burke Ryan, you could use either Burke or Ryan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    January wrote: »
    My understanding is that if you use a hyphen to separate the names then both have to be used, but if you just put the two surnames with no hyphen you can choose which one to use...

    So Adam Burke-Ryan would have to be used all the time, whereas Adam Burke Ryan, you could use either Burke or Ryan.

    Ah ok. All the difference a hyphen makes- wow.

    I think a nice and tidy solution to this is to make one of the last names a middle name.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    I think the fact that the mother wants the child to have her name isn't controlling. My daughter has my surname and as a result if I marry and have more children, they and I will probably have a double barrell surname and they can decide which to use but I don't feel comfortable with my first child having one name and the rest of the family another. That's just my personal preference.
    When my ex and I discussed having children, I suggested double barrelling our childrens names (for my daughters benefit) and he refused saying child would be teased as they were both long names. I said fair enough, we'll give them my name. No way, he went ape, he didn't want his kids to have a different name to him. I suggested he take my name also. Seeing as two out of three of us had the same name. That was a no-no too.

    Women are expected to give their children the fathers name, even if they keep their maiden name. Why wouldn't a woman feel as strongly about her child carrying her name as a father would.

    If a woman, after separation, wants to revert to her maiden name, and wants her child to share that name, and the child has no problem with it (basing that on an older child) then so be it.
    I would think it's quite normal to want your child to have the same name as you. And with so many children born outside of marriage, and so many marital breakdowns, I think it makes sense to use both. Not with a hyphen though, for the reason listed above.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    ^ It's a hangover from pre-dna testing, a way to mark the lines of patrilinear descent.

    Its also so the 'public' can identify the father.

    I dont really feel that strongly about my name being used. Its used not for sentimental or ideological reasons, but practical. A few gifts at Christmas were sent back because the other surname was used on the box and it wasnt on our mailbox [this was in the US]. Deep down it doesnt sit well with me really, but what can you do.

    When my parents divorced my mother wanted to have the same name as her kids so she kept her married name rather than changing ours. My aunt never took my uncles name and she doesnt mind having a different name to her kids who do take his name... so it's personal preference really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    For centuries people were addressed by their surname, it told you more about a person's lineage than anything they themselves would be able to tell you. In all census' up to about 1990, the vast majority of people (I would say about 95%) were traceable completely through their paternal lineage. In modern years it really has become a case of "who the daddy?" Fathers are being left off birth certs and without even a surname to give them recognition, in years to come people will have no idea what their heritage is.

    I know this seems like a stupid reason to some, but fathers don't really have much they can bond with their child with for the first few months and since we have our hormones to help us to do so, why not give him the name. If he is good enough to get support off, he is surely good enough to give a name to. In New York people have to submit a DNA sample now if they wish to get married, to ensure they are not biologically related, if people cannot even guess if they are related, we will soon have the same problem here!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    For centuries people were addressed by their surname, it told you more about a person's lineage than anything they themselves would be able to tell you. In all census' up to about 1990, the vast majority of people (I would say about 95%) were traceable completely through their paternal lineage. In modern years it really has become a case of "who the daddy?" Fathers are being left off birth certs and without even a surname to give them recognition, in years to come people will have no idea what their heritage is.

    I know this seems like a stupid reason to some, but fathers don't really have much they can bond with their child with for the first few months and since we have our hormones to help us to do so, why not give him the name. If he is good enough to get support off, he is surely good enough to give a name to. In New York people have to submit a DNA sample now if they wish to get married, to ensure they are not biologically related, if people cannot even guess if they are related, we will soon have the same problem here!

    Yes I agree with you about this 100%, ok the bonding thing doesnt apply in some cases where the dad doesnt want to bond, but aside from that, legacy, identity, who else has the same father as you [ok I know with very common names this is not going to tell you anything] how you trace your ancestors, who you are, where you come from, it labels the identity of the father.

    I think its in a lot of states and has been for a long time that you have to submit blood tests before you get your marriage license and that is in a big country with a big population. With the way families are going in Ireland, with a population of 4 million I think they should do the same here or have a public registry of parentage so people know who the are realted to. May sound a little Brave New World, but that is where it's going.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    I know this seems like a stupid reason to some, but fathers don't really have much they can bond with their child with for the first few months and since we have our hormones to help us to do so, why not give him the name. If he is good enough to get support off, he is surely good enough to give a name to. In New York people have to submit a DNA sample now if they wish to get married, to ensure they are not biologically related, if people cannot even guess if they are related, we will soon have the same problem here!

    Why not give both names? That's what is being discussed here. Not an either/or scenario. A lot of my daughters friends have double barrell surnames and it's easy going enough, especially as they get older. The dads family usually use their name and the mothers side use theirs. The child uses both easily. No teasing as it's far more common now and generally for school, they use one surname.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,135 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Double-Barrel surnames scream "Pretentious Parents" to me tbh. I'd be very surprised if this attitude doesn't prevail throughout most of the country.

    I'd have liked my daughter to have my surname but since her brother has his mother's surname, it seemed something that could cause problems for them in the playground in the future so we went with the sensible option of giving Rory her mother's surname.

    If she wants to take my name when she's older, great, until then it's just easier for me to be the "odd one out" in our family.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    ash23 wrote: »
    Why not give both names? That's what is being discussed here. Not an either/or scenario. A lot of my daughters friends have double barrell surnames and it's easy going enough, especially as they get older. The dads family usually use their name and the mothers side use theirs. The child uses both easily. No teasing as it's far more common now and generally for school, they use one surname.

    Because as I said to the OP in an earlier post, it is awkward and can lead to some annoying situations when filling out forms when there is not enough space for the full name and can lead to it being shortened to one rather than both too.

    Not too mention as the previous post states, it is pretentious sounding and has caused people to openly admit that they are a bit stand-offish to me at first thinking that I will be full of myself and filled with airs and graces!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Because as I said to the OP in an earlier post, it is awkward and can lead to some annoying situations when filling out forms when there is not enough space for the full name and can lead to it being shortened to one rather than both too.

    Not too mention as the previous post states, it is pretentious sounding and has caused people to openly admit that they are a bit stand-offish to me at first thinking that I will be full of myself and filled with airs and graces!

    Well, it's personal preference and I think it's becoming more and more common. I personally intend to give any future kids I have, both names on the birthcert and let them use one while keeping both on official documents etc.
    Unless my future husband wants to take my name :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 20 PingPing


    aoifej86 wrote: »
    my son currently has his dad's surname. his father and i are separated and i want to change his surname to include mine also. i've checked the citizen's information website but just got confused with whether its by deed poll or not!! any info on how to proceed would really help:D

    You simply change it by common usage.
    You're his mother, and you'll be putting his name down for things- so simply start referring to him by the name you want him to use. Over time, everyone will just call him by that name, and it will become accepted as his legal identity by common usage.

    You don't NEED to change anything on birtcerts or deedpoll or whatever.
    Ordinary usage will change his name to what you call him, and how he introduces himself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    Is that true Delancey? What is there to make fun of in that?

    Saying that, you can rergister the child in school with one of the names and keep both on the birthcert, that way during roll call only one name gets established as general use.

    Also on Irish passports you can use one name rather than what is on the birthcert.

    Im not too fond of them myself personally, but how and ever....

    I'm probably showing my age here but when I was a schoolchild the comics we read ( yes I'm old enough to have been a comic reader ) frequently had the ' baddies ' with double barrelled names like Cedric Ponsonby-Smythe or Mariella Fortescue-Owens , these were in addition to the usual ' Basher ' Briggs and ' Bully ' Bates :rolleyes:
    The perception that existed was that double barrelled names were the preserve of upper class 'toffs' who spoke with whiny accents , although we did not know the word then the fact is we saw these names as ''pretentious'' and it's a view I have not changed , I can't stand double barrelled names and would never saddle a child of mine with one.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 12,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭byhookorbycrook


    tough on children with dyslexia, not being smart,likewise children who find hand-writing tough.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    I just want to interject here with a teacher's perspective. In secondary schools, double-barrelled names are not unusual, neither is students having a different name to their parents. However, it does 99% of the time denote that the parents are no longer together, which on one hand saves the student being asked awkward questions but on the other hand, it kind of labels them. Bullying wouldn't be an issue. When it comes to roll call, most teachers would call out the first part of the double barrel, not the whole thing.

    Common usage is the way to go. When he's older, he can decide himself.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    deemark wrote: »
    I just want to interject here with a teacher's perspective. In secondary schools, double-barrelled names are not unusual, neither is students having a different name to their parents. However, it does 99% of the time denote that the parents are no longer together, which on one hand saves the student being asked awkward questions but on the other hand, it kind of labels them. Bullying wouldn't be an issue. When it comes to roll call, most teachers would call out the first part of the double barrel, not the whole thing.

    Common usage is the way to go. When he's older, he can decide himself.

    I agree its far too indicative of the parents marital status, which doesnt seem fair imo. That's not what a child's name is about.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement