Genealogy Chat

My friend ..had a baby last week ...wants to register the child in her maiden name and the babies fathers name ....her first hubby left her 2 years ago..she tried to change back to her maiden name BUT...everyone told her "it will be better after her new child was born"....that child is now here . BUT the BMD office say she has to use her X married name not her Maiden name for her new baby???
where does she stand?

surely she doesn't need to officially change her name ie by deed poll etc she can call herself what she wants as long as its not done for fraudulent purposes.

i would have thought she could register the child in her maiden name by saying that's what shes now called. Her X has no part of the new baby.

Perhaps the Citizens advice bureau can help

just found this info online for registering births


who can register
If the baby's parents are married when baby is born then either one of them can register the birth.

If baby's parents are unmarried but you want to include both their details in the register then you must both go.

If you are not married you are not obliged to include the father's details in the register. If you don't and you want to at later date there are special procedures that may allow you to do so. Contact the Registrar for more information.

choosing a name for your child
A mother can choose to give her baby any first or last name she likes. Baby can have her last name or the father's. A father has no right to insist that his last name is used.

A married couple can choose to give their baby any last name - it doesn't need to be the same as theirs.

I find that strange, as when you register your children you don't take proof of who you are. Couldn't she just say her maiden name

I hope this makes sense lol

Julie

Back in 1984, when I had my daughter - I was no longer married but not divorced and she wasnt my husbands child anyway...... she was registered in my maiden name, and I gave my maiden name as mother.

She can call it what she wants, legally. My husband has Rollings in his family, who gave their kids the surname Rollins. It was a cheap and handy way to change the spelling of their surname (which was the intention), as those kids obviously gave their kids the Rollins name. No questions asked, its not illegal.

Thanks so much ....for your help ...sorry I wasnt here ..but this baby has also got feeding problems and is back in hospital ...lost 1lb in 5 days .........
i will ring CAB .....and see what they think ..but Lorraine has some good stuff ...from the net anyway ....
Thanks again I spoke to my friend about 10pm and she is much happier ......and thinks there is probably hope ...
Thanks XX

If the reg office is giving out crap instructions that would explain why my sis-in-law's two children from a second relationship have the surname of her first hubby even though she was divorced.

Legally I would think she could register it in her own name as she's divorced and the baby has nothing to do with the man. Even if he was the father then she's not obliged to name them after him.

CAB should be able to give you some good advice, but she really should just go in there and tell them the name she's registering it under and be damned. lol She could always take her divorce papers with her :P

I think in today's world she can give the child any surname she wishes.

However this was not so in the past - even up to the 1970's if a woman was still married then her husband was assumed to be the father of her child, even if he wasn't. If the real father wanted the child registered in his name he had to attend the register office with the mother, and even then the child was registered in both names - the husband's and the real father's.

Kath. x

This sounds like the thing my daughters would get tangled.
I would suggest it is the surname which the mother gives for herself which goes on the certificate.

Not really relevant to your original question, but isn't it going to be difficult for people doing their family history in 100 years time when surnames are not carried on through the generations? It's bad enough to find family members now, without them all using maiden names or any other names they choose, etc.

I'm not meaning to offend anyone - just thinking out loud, lol.

Kath. x

I think it stems from the rule which states "Baby can have her last name or the father's" per Lorraine's thread, and then from that, what they define as the mother's last name.

Whilst a mother can chose to revert to her maiden name without any documentation, in practice this is not so easy as far as the authorities are concerned which presumably is why they will only accept her current married surname. (Id fraud, terrorism, illegal immigrants, data protection - you name it, there will be some reason or other)

Whether they are legally correct is a different matter which is why advice should be sought.