High Court Allows Change of Child's Forename in Care Case to Prevent Significant Harm

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2813 (Fam)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the matter of Re C (Change of Forename: Child in Care) [2023] EWHC 2813 (Fam), the High Court, presided by the Honourable Mr Justice Cobb, grappled with the question of whether a local authority could change the forename of a child in their care which had already been registered, on the grounds that retaining the registered forename might cause the child significant harm due to societal perceptions associated with the gender typically linked to that name. This article provides an analysis of the judgment, elucidating the legal principles applied by the court.

Key Facts

The proceedings concern an 8-month-old boy referred to as ‘C’, who is in the care of a local authority under an interim care order. The mother registered him with the forename ‘Mia’ – typically considered a female name – which led the local authority to bring an application for permission to change the name. The application was supported by the father and paternal grandmother, who anticipated potential bullying and ridicule, and was opposed by the mother.

The court’s analysis in this case primarily focused on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to protect children’s welfare, as guided by both statutory provisions and case law precedents. Critical to the decision were Section 33 of the Children’s Act 1989, concerning local authority powers and limitations over children in their care, and the application of Section 100 pertaining to the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The judgment drew from significant precedents such as Dawson v Wearmouth, Re W, A, B, Re M, T, P, K and B, alongside Re C [2016] and Re D, L, and LA [2003], which collectively inform the judicial approach to cases of name change for children under the care of local authorities.

The principles established in case law that were pertinent in Re C (Change of Forename: Child in Care) can be summarized as follows:

  1. Rare Intervention: Case law dictates that courts will only rarely intervene in parental choices of forenames, outside of circumstances deemed “most extreme” or beyond the typical realm of unusual or foolish names.

  2. Welfare Consideration: Any decision made must be in the best welfare interest of the child, in accordance with Sections 1(1) and 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.

  3. Significant Harm: The court will fundamentally intervene under its inherent jurisdiction if there is a reasonable cause to believe that a child is likely to suffer significant harm due to the name given.

  4. Article 8 of ECHR: There is an engagement of Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns respect for private and family life, and this must be considered unabridged and balanced against intervention.

  5. Registration Importance: The fact that a name is already registered is important but not decisive.

  6. Parents’ Attitudes and Link to the Past: Parents’ views are relevant to the extent they might affect the welfare of the child, as is the link to heritage and the sense of belonging brought by a name.

Outcomes

Mr Justice Cobb determined there was no reasonable ground to believe C would suffer significant harm due merely to community or school response to the forename Mia. However, he concluded that the risk of significant harm was more likely owing to imminent intra-family conflict and the expressed opposition by the paternal family to the name, which could disrupt C’s potential placement and cause confusion if multiple names were informally adopted.

Therefore, while the legal threshold to intervene on the basis of community or societal treatment was not met, the internal family dynamics and potential for significant harm posed through conflict justified intervention.

As a result, pending the approval of the care plan for C to be placed with the paternal family under a care order, permission was granted for the registered forename to be changed, adding the forename T2 while retaining ‘Mia Adonis’ for potential future use by C.

Conclusion

In Re C (Change of Forename: Child in Care), the court demonstrated the careful balancing of interests required when considering the change of a registered forename of a child in care. The decision reaffirms the principle that interventions in such personal decisions of naming a child are not made lightly and require a substantiated risk of significant harm to justify court involvement. It underscores the evolving legal and societal considerations around gender and identity, undoubtedly reflective of broader societal shifts. The case is illustrative of the court’s cautious but necessary intrusion in upholding the welfare of the child, which remains paramount.