Council granted leave to make application for change in forename of child, subject to outcome of care order application

The High Court has granted leave to a local authority to make an application to change an eight-month old’s registered forename.

In C, Re (Change of Forename: Child in Care) [2023] EWHC 2813, Mr Justice Cobb said his order was “contingent upon the ultimate outcome of the local authority's application for a care order”.

The judge said that the application concerned an 8-month-old baby boy, referred to in the judgment as 'C’.

C is currently looked after by the local authority and is subject to an interim care order under the Children Act 1989.

The local authority sought the permission of the court to change C's registered forename. The mother has given him the forename of 'Mia', and that is the forename by which he is registered under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, said the judge.

The local authority's case (per the application) was that:

"Mia … is likely to suffer significant emotional harm, as a result of him having been given a name that is predominantly considered to be a female name, when he is male. It is submitted on behalf of the local authority that such a name may attract ridicule or teasing and by consequence is capable of having a negative impact on his self-esteem as he grows up."

The judge noted that the local authority wanted the court's permission to change his forename to ‘T2’ [anonymised to protect the boy's identity], which was the forename given to him by the mother for a few weeks following his birth, and is “ordinarily associated with someone who is male”.

Mr Justice Cobb added that just before registering C's birth, the mother changed his forename from ‘T2’ to 'Mia Adonis'. The mother said that she wanted his names in combination to reflect the phrase "my beautiful boy".

C is the fourth child born to the mother. Her three older children have previously been removed into the care of the local authority, and are placed permanently with extended family members.

“At the heart of this sad history is the mother's poor mental health, her extensive offending history (including offences of extreme violence including to police officers and hospital staff), her volatility, her difficulty in managing her emotions in stressful situations, substance misuse, poor engagement with professionals, and chaotic lifestyle”, said Mr Justice Cobb.

He observed that the documents filed by the local authority within the care proceedings are “worryingly inconsistent” in how they refer to C - some documents refer to him as Mia, and others as ‘T2’.

“This inconsistency suggests that there is already a degree of confusion around C and his forename”, added the judge.

The current care plan is for C to be placed for the long-term with his paternal grandmother, in her home in which his father and the father's half-siblings also currently reside.

The court has not yet considered or formally approved this, but it has the support of the Children's Guardian, said the judge.

Considering the legal framework, Mr Justice Cobb noted that the changing of a name (surname or forename) is a matter of importance, and in determining whether or not a change should take place the court must “first and foremost have regard to the welfare of the child”.

He added: “The principles to be applied to change of name cases are the same regardless of whether a proposed name change relates to a forename or a surname (Re D, L and LA (Care: Change of Forename), in this regard challenging the earlier view of Thorpe LJ in Re H (Child's Name: First Name):

'To change a child's name is to take a significant step in a child's life. Forename or surname, it seems to me, the principles are the same, in general. A child has roots. A child has names given to him or her by parents. The child has a right to those names and retains that right, as indeed, the parents have rights to retention of the name of the child which they chose. Those rights should not be set to one side, other than for good reasons…. Having said that, one has to recognise, in reality, that names do change. Children acquire nicknames and even nicknames sometimes take over from the name that they were given as their chosen name. Children do have diminutives and they may themselves, as they get older, prefer their third name to their first name and choose to be called by it.’”

Outlining submissions from the parties, the judge noted that counsel for the local authority submitted that there were reasonable grounds for believing that C would be likely to suffer “significant harm by teasing, bullying and ridicule” if he were to retain the forename Mia, a name which is "ordinarily attributed" to the female gender.

The local authority raised the likelihood that C would experience “unwanted negative attention” from his peers as a result of his forename, and that this was more likely because he would not be living in a 'traditional' home with his mother and father, but in all probability with his paternal grandmother.

It was submitted that the court's exercise of its power under the inherent jurisdiction to change C's forename, or more accurately to add a new forename, “would constitute a proportionate interference with the mother's and C's right to family life under article 8 of the ECHR”.

The local authority proposed that C's full names be '[T2] Mia Adonis [Surname]'.

The judge noted that the father opposed his son being called Mia at all, but in all other respects he supported the arguments of the local authority. The father proposed that C's full names be '[T2] Jacob Adonis [surname]'.

C’s mother wished her choice of name to remain undisturbed. She filed a witness statement in which she said:

"Tradition is not the same as it used to be, and Mia can be whoever or whatever he wants to be. Mia Adonis means 'my beautiful boy' and I want this name to remain his registered name".

It was submitted for the mother that the change of forename sought by the local authority was a “disproportionate interference in balancing the right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, and should be refused”.

Discussing the case, Mr Justice Cobb separated his conclusions into two parts:

i) Are there reasonable grounds for believing that C (born male) will suffer significant harm in the school and community in which he is raised (through teasing, ridicule or otherwise), if he has the forename Mia – a name currently ordinarily associated with a female?

ii) Are there reasonable grounds for believing that C will suffer significant harm (by intra-family conflict, and/or confusion) if he is placed with his paternal family who are all opposed to him having the name Mia (unilaterally chosen by the mother), where the placement is vulnerable to disruption from the mother?

On the first question, the judge concluded that he was “unpersuaded” that there were reasonable grounds for believing that C would suffer significant emotional harm in the school and community in which he will live simply by having the forename of Mia.

Outlining his reasoning, he said: “Abbreviated names, diminutives, and blended names are commonplace and add materially to the ever-expanding lexicon of forenames in daily usage. I accept that currently Mia is a forename ordinarily given to, and/or used by, a female; […] but Mia could of course be an abbreviation of Jeremiah, and perhaps convincingly so if Mia is pronounced with a long-'i'; the Children's Guardian pointed out that the name Mia is sometimes used as a shortened version of other boys' names including Miguel in Spain.

“[…] The immediate area in which the paternal grandmother lives is described as having "quite a good ethnic mix … with other Black African and African Caribbean families, and families from Southeast Asia, and northern Europe"; within that ethnic mix it is reasonable to assume that there will be some from the Bangladeshi community where Miah is a name commonly associated with males as it generally denotes 'mister' or 'gentleman'”.

The judge noted he was “conscious” that it should only be in the most extreme cases that the court is likely to interfere with parental choice of forename for a child in care, and “only then when the choice of name goes ‘beyond the unusual, bizarre, extreme or plain foolish’.”

He added: “I am also of the view that it is important that I respect the mother's choice; her choice of forename represents one of the few ways in which she will have had the chance to exercise her parental responsibility for her son.”

However, on the second question, Mr Justice Cobb concluded that if he did not make an order changing C's forename to T2, then there was “reasonable cause to believe that C would be exposed to harmful intra-family conflict and confusion over the next few years such as to cause him to suffer significant harm”.

Outlining the risk of intra-family conflict, the judge said: “The forename 'Mia' is strongly disliked by the paternal family; the father and paternal grandmother wish it to be expunged from the birth register altogether; it may be unrealistic, and possibly unfair, to require the paternal grandmother and the father to call C by the forename Mia for the rest of his life.

“[…] There is a real risk that if I do not formally permit C's name change to T2 now the paternal family will simply unilaterally call C by a forename other than Mia, and if they were to do this, they may use a name other than T2 (which has the value of having been one of the mother's original choices). This could generate considerable conflict.”

He added: “For the avoidance of doubt, I reject outright any introduction of the name Jacob, suggested by the paternal grandmother who does not yet even care for C, into C's collection of forenames.”

Another consideration outlined by the judge was the issue of confusion. He noted that it was a “considerable concern” that the local authority had not been consistent in how it had referred to C in its filed documents in the present proceedings (Mia in some, T2 in others).

Concluding the case, Mr Justice Cobb said: “I must, to spare C the risk of significant harm and to promote his best interests, provide clarity for him; it is incumbent on me to remove, or at least limit, as far as I am able, the risk of confusion and conflict. It is for this reason alone that I approve the forename change, by the addition of the forename T2.”

However, the judge made clear that the mother's choice of names (Mia Adonis) should not be expunged from the register, as those names should remain available for C should he wish to use them in the future.

The local authority was granted leave to make the application under section 100 of the CA 1989, subject to the ultimate outcome of the local authority's application for a care order.

Mr Justice Cobb concluded: “If the care plan for C is approved by the court, and a care order is made on that basis (with C moving to live with the paternal grandmother and father), the local authority's application for a change of forename succeeds.”

He added: “If the care plan for placement with the paternal grandmother and father is not approved at the final hearing of the Part IV application, and C is not to be placed within his paternal family, then there is in my judgment no proper basis for the court's intervention; the arguments and reasoning set out in §45 to §49 above would not apply to the same extent or at all to a different placement. In those circumstances, the local authority does not have leave to change C's forename.”

Lottie Winson