# Baby Surname? Engaged couple, change the name at birth or at wedding?



## adton (14 Sep 2009)

We are a couple engaged with a wedding next year. We have a baby due in 4 weeks time. Should we give the baby the fathers surname at birth or wait until the wedding? Is it a difficult process to change the babys surname when the mother changes hers at the wedding?


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2009)

I think you will find the information you are looking for here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...your-baby-is-born/registering_birth_your_baby


----------



## thomas1234 (14 Sep 2009)

if you put the father's info on the birth cert, and give the child your surname, as far as i understand you can't later change it to the father's name. 

from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...your-baby-is-born/registering_birth_your_baby

"it is *not* possible to change the surname of the child in the Register of Births if the father's details were recorded in the original registration. The child's surname can only be changed at the joint request of both parents."

just how i interpret it, i could be wrong!!!!


----------



## Suzy (14 Sep 2009)

Hi,

Yes you can change the childs surname after marriage, however it takes 3-4 months to get it finalised. I think you would be better off doing at birth as you have to get forms witnessed if you want to change the surname after marriage (can be a drawn out process).


----------



## Wonderwoman (16 Sep 2009)

Just put both surnames on the birth cert. It is the sensible thing to do if you are not married at the time of the baby's birth.


----------



## csirl (17 Sep 2009)

Why not just give the baby the fathers surname? You dont need to be married to do this and it is probably the most appropriate regardless of whether or not you are married anyway.


----------



## Scotsgirl (17 Sep 2009)

I don't think it matters as the birth certificate states mothers name, fathers name and under childs name it is just their first names.  My son automatically took my name at birth as his father wasn't on the birt cert.  I recently put his father on it and it is now possible for my son to use either surname if he wishes.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> ...it is probably the most appropriate regardless of whether or not you are married anyway.


 
Why? How is a mothers surname less appropriate?


----------



## Scotsgirl (17 Sep 2009)

My thoughts exactly Truthseeker.


----------



## csirl (18 Sep 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Why? How is a mothers surname less appropriate?


 
Anthropologically more appropriate. It's usually quite obvious who a child's mother is - bump, birth etc tends to give it away. It's less obvious to society (without having to check birth certs etc. which people dont do on a casual day to day basis) who a child's father is, so labelling the child with the biological father's name makes more sense. There are a multitude of reasons for this.


----------



## truthseeker (18 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> Anthropologically more appropriate. It's usually quite obvious who a child's mother is - bump, birth etc tends to give it away. It's less obvious to society (without having to check birth certs etc. which people dont do on a casual day to day basis) who a child's father is, so labelling the child with the biological father's name makes more sense. There are a multitude of reasons for this.


 
In the cases where children are not raised by both parents they tend to live with their mother in the overwhelmingly majority of cases, a mother and child with different surnames causes confusion in schools, on passports, etc. 
In the cases where the father has done a complete runner there is zero point in a child carrying his name.

So unless the parents are married or at least living together I would think it makes no sense for the child to carry its fathers name.


----------



## Scotsgirl (18 Sep 2009)

I still don't get it csirl.  For instance if my son now uses his father's surname, who's to know he is my son (unless they were around for my pregnancy and birth).   I know who my son's father is.  My son knows who he is.  Why does it matter that other people know who the biological father is? Is is important what 'society' thinks? 

What difference does having the father's surname make.  My son chooses to take my name as I raised him.


----------



## banbha (19 Sep 2009)

Why not give your baby both your surnames? Your child can use both surnames or just your future husband's (or yours) legally. No need to worry about unwieldy double barrell names, and you will know that your child can use whichever surname is right for the circumstances.


----------



## banbha (19 Sep 2009)

And csirl, I'd love to know what your 'multitude of reasons' are. If you have a valid argument for children always being given their father's surname rather than the mother's, I am very open to hearing it. Anthropomorphically speaking, my daughter looks nothing like me (unlike my niece). Thank goodness she has my surname!


----------



## galway. (20 Sep 2009)

i am engaged our child has double barrell name, one will be scrapped after the wedding, makes sence as the paper work in years to comme will be hassle


----------



## John Rambo (20 Sep 2009)

Just use the father's name...anything else makes little or no sense in the context of the above.


----------



## smc66 (22 Sep 2009)

i believe it can be very expensive change surname after the wedding.  you d be better to put both names on the cert


----------



## GreenQueen (22 Sep 2009)

Register the child under both surnames. Baby "Smith Doe"  Mother Jane Smith, Father John Doe.

Do not put a hyphen between the 2 surnames as it then becomes a full surname - Baby Smith-Doe.  You would require it to be changed later.

If you register the child without a hyphen between the 2 surnames there is no need to alter their birth registration at a later date.  The child's passport etc can be applied for under the common usage surname "Baby Doe" with the birth certificate attached.

It's simpler, cheaper and if you do not marry or eventually split then the child still has the option of using both or one or another surname.


----------



## Bronte (22 Sep 2009)

Names can be changed by deed poll if required.  It is a simple enough procedure and costs little.  

In some countries married people are not allowed to use the women's family name.


----------



## csirl (22 Sep 2009)

banbha said:


> And csirl, I'd love to know what your 'multitude of reasons' are. If you have a valid argument for children always being given their father's surname rather than the mother's, I am very open to hearing it. Anthropomorphically speaking, my daughter looks nothing like me (unlike my niece). Thank goodness she has my surname!


 
It is important to keep the father of a child involved in the child's upbringing. Giving a child the father's surname helps preserve the link and bond between the child and his/her father and incentivises the father to stay involved. Not giving the child the father's surname sends out the wrong message to both the father and the child. Essentially tell's the father that he is not wanted and tells the child that his/her heritiage - remember that it's his/her father we're talking about, is worthless and should be discarded. Too often, when things dont work out between a couple, the mothers refuse to give the fathers surname due to their own bad feelings rather than considering the child.  

There are also genetic reasons. It's much easier to avoid sibling relationships when both siblings have the fathers surname. Believe it or not, cases of half-siblings having relationships do happen. Think about it - both are likely to be of similar age and grow up not to far apart from one another. In cases where the father is not on the scene for either, chances are if the meet, and its not entirely unlikely, they will not suspect that they may be siblings. And it may not just be siblings, we could be talking about cousins not knowing they are cousins, which is even more likely if both families live in the same area. Not as uncommon as you think and is beginning to become a problem in poorer parts of some cities worldwide.


----------



## John Rambo (22 Sep 2009)

Bronte said:


> Names can be changed by deed poll if required. It is a simple enough procedure and costs little.


 
It's hardly accurate to describe changing a person's name by deed poll as a "simple enough procedure".


----------



## Bronte (23 Sep 2009)

John Rambo said:


> It's hardly accurate to describe changing a person's name by deed poll as a "simple enough procedure".


 
Why?


----------



## Bronte (23 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> It is important to keep the father of a child involved in the child's upbringing. Giving a child the father's surname helps preserve the link and bond between the child and his/her father and incentivises the father to stay involved.
> 
> .


 
Sorry this makes no sense. Whatever name a child has is irrelevant. What is important is that the child is genetically his and more important that he is interested in taking care of his offspring. If someone is so superficial as to base one's relationship based on a name than that person is really not interested in their offspring. 

What about all the women all over the world whose child does not have their name?


----------



## truthseeker (23 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> It is important to keep the father of a child involved in the child's upbringing. Giving a child the father's surname helps preserve the link and bond between the child and his/her father and incentivises the father to stay involved. Not giving the child the father's surname sends out the wrong message to both the father and the child. Essentially tell's the father that he is not wanted and tells the child that his/her heritiage - remember that it's his/her father we're talking about, is worthless and should be discarded.


 
So by this logic, does not giving the mothers name send the wrong message and tell her she is worthless and should be discarded?
Fathers shouldnt need to be 'incentivised' to stay involved with their child, particularly if it is a female child who may later change her name upon marriage, will a father disown a married daughter because she no longer has his name?



csirl said:


> There are also genetic reasons. It's much easier to avoid sibling relationships when both siblings have the fathers surname. Believe it or not, cases of half-siblings having relationships do happen. Think about it - both are likely to be of similar age and grow up not to far apart from one another. In cases where the father is not on the scene for either, chances are if the meet, and its not entirely unlikely, they will not suspect that they may be siblings. And it may not just be siblings, we could be talking about cousins not knowing they are cousins, which is even more likely if both families live in the same area. Not as uncommon as you think and is beginning to become a problem in poorer parts of some cities worldwide.


 
While this is certainly a possibility, I dont see how a child carrying the fathers name stops it from happening. If a child has their fathers name but doesnt know their father, how are they to ascertain that the 'smith' they meet and begin to date has the same father (especially if the other child doesnt know the father but simply carries his name as well).

Names are irrelevant in this situation, whats relevant are the relationships that children have with their father - if the father is not on the scene at all then he is a bad father and it makes no difference if the child has his name or not - its not going to preserve any 'heritage' if the child simply never sees or has a relationship with his father.


----------



## Bronte (23 Sep 2009)

Which reminds me I have a half sibling of the other sex living about 100Km from where we lived as children who bears the name of neither of my parents.  Lots of Irish people do, they are everywhere.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Sep 2009)

Bronte said:


> Which reminds me I have a half sibling of the other sex living about 100Km from where we lived as children who bears the name of neither of my parents. Lots of Irish people do, they are everywhere.


 
I would think in todays more enlightened society people tend to know who their siblings and half siblings are, compared to a time where single parenthood was shameful and grandmothers would pretend to be the mother etc...


----------

