High Court allows 15-year-old to change name despite opposition from local authority

June 27, 2024

A High Court judge has allowed an application made by a 15 year old girl to change her forename and surname, despite the application being opposed by the girl’s mother and the local authority.

In BC, Re (Child in Care: Change of Forename and Surname) [2024] EWHC 1639 (Fam), Mr Justice Poole concluded that although the views of the local authority were “of importance”, he said: “I give considerable weight to the settled wishes of a mature, competent 15 year old who has good reason to wish to change both her forename and surname, who has chosen sensible new names that are not frivolous or provocative or liable to be detrimental to her welfare in any way.

Outlining the background to the case, the judge said that BC is a 15-year-old girl, soon to be 16, who is a child subject to a care order.

She was placed by the local authority in long term foster care after police officers arrested her father in 2021, and charged him with sexual assault including rape of BC.

In the family public law proceedings that followed, a judge made findings that BC's allegations against her father were true.

BC has no contact with her father but has face to face supervised contact with her mother once every half term and weekly indirect contact. She has three brothers. She usually sees her younger brother, D, and sometimes one of her older brothers at the face to face contact with her mother.

In September 2023 BC made an application for an order permitting her to change her forename to two forenames, JK, and her surname to L.

The judge said: “The names she has chosen have no wider significance: they do not relate to her mother's maiden name or any other family names, for example. She has chosen the names because they are attractive to her and the actual initials of her new name would be of significance to her in relation to her recovery from the trauma inflicted by her father.”

In a detailed statement explaining her position, JK explained that she wanted to change her forename and surname because both have a “strong association” with her father.

The mother opposed her daughter's application and expressed the view that if BC wants to change her name, she should choose her mother's surname, which is different from the father's surname.

The local authority also opposed the application.

The judge said: “It is concerned that BC's actions concerning her names do not match her expressed wishes, that the change of names will be detrimental to her relationship with her family, that she is vulnerable to the impact of others asking her why she has changed her names, and that she will regret the decision.”

In a written statement to the court, BC wrote: “I settled on the name [JKL] in November 2021. I expressed at the time to the professionals who were working with me, a desire to change my name. The advice I was given was to wait until I became settled in foster care and the care proceedings had concluded. I accepted that the abuse I suffered has had a significant impact on me emotionally. I also accepted the view of professionals at the time such as my social worker who said that it wouldn't have been right to change my name. However, I have stuck to this name for over three years, and I believe it to be part of me. It is now part of my identity and a part of who I am. My desire to change my name arose from being hurt by the people I trusted most. I really don't want to be associated with or have my identity linked to my father, who betrayed me in such a cruel way.

“[…] I accept and understand that my family are unlikely to ever accept my name change. I know that my mum and brothers will not call me J. I'm willing to accept that. I'm just asking people to empathise with me for what it's like being called by the name that I have such negative connotations with. I have done my best to move on in life and my name is holding me back."

The social worker stated that she and the local authority opposed the application. The social worker stated that BC has not “consistently” asked to be called by her new name.

She noted that BC's father's criminal trial on the charges of sexual assault including rape of BC begins later this year and would roughly coincide with BC starting to use her new name if the application were granted – which will be a vulnerable time for BC.

She shared concern that the name changes will draw “unwanted attention” to BC and generate “difficult questions from her peers”, the judge noted.

The local authority submitted that the application should be refused for three main reasons:

"i) BC can use her preferred name without needing to change it legally, and given her hesitancy in using her preferred name, changing her name legally at this stage would not be in her best interests;

ii) There is a real risk that her relationship with her family will break down should she legally change her name; and

iii) BC's case is vastly different to the facts before the court in Re S."

In Re S (Change of Surname) [1998], the Court of Appeal was concerned with an application by a child in care aged 15 to change her surname.

Mr Justice Poole said: “Thorpe LJ put significant weight on the wishes and feelings of the child. The applicant's sister had been allegedly sexually abused by their father. The applicant wished to change her surname from her father's surname to her mother's surname. The judge at first instance had reviewed the authorities on name changes and refused the application. It appears that at the time of the first instance judgment the father had not been tried for the alleged sexual offences but that subsequently, and prior to the Court of Appeal hearing, he had been acquitted. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal. In a short judgment, Thorpe LJ held:

"[The Judge] reviewed authorities in relation to change of surname over the last 35 years, although it seems that he was not referred to one of the latest decisions in this court. From those authorities he drew guidance which in my opinion simply did not stand transplanting into the ground that he surveyed. It may be that those authorities distracted him from the analysis which he would have carried out had he continued from his starting point, namely that there was no authority directly in point.”

Analysing the submissions, Mr Justice Poole said: “In my judgment, care has to be taken in applying some of the authorities to the case of an application by a Gillick competent 15 year old, or indeed a capacitous 16 or 17 year old, in care. I reject the submission that the court may only permit the change of a name if the continued use of the current name would be likely to cause the child 'significant harm'.”

He continued: “I acknowledge that there are differences on the facts between Re S and the present case including that BC is asking to change both her forename and surname. I accept that the double name change requires particular consideration. BC is not asking to adopt her mother's surname in place of her father's surname. A request to change to a name that has no association with the family is a matter to be weighed in the court's determination.

“On the other hand, it might be said that even more weight should be given to BC's wishes and feelings than in the case of the young applicant in Re S because (i) BC was the actual victim of the sexual abuse by her father and so her motivation to make the change might be given even more weight, and (ii) the father has been found by the Family Court to have sexually abused her whereas no findings had been made in the Re S case. Findings have also been made against her mother.”

Mr Justice Poole observed that the evidence from BC’s school was “very persuasive” that she is mature for her age.

He rejected the local authority's case that BC had been hesitant or indecisive on the issue. He said: “BC's dissatisfaction with the Local Authority's opposition should not be taken as indecision. Her choice to await the court's determination before committing more publicly to the name changes seems to me to be a mature approach not a hesitant one.”

Considering the family’s views, Mr Justice Poole observed that the position of the mother, and apparently the brothers, is that BC has always been known by her forename within the family and so that should not change.

He said: “There is no adequate recognition of the impact on BC of her father's appalling sexual abuse. There is little evidence that they have properly understood why BC is making this application. […] BC has said that she will not insist on family members using her chosen first name. That will help maintain relations within the family.”

The judge described the views of the local authority as “of importance”. However, he did not find the local authority's grounds of opposition to be substantial.

He concluded: “Having regard to the legal framework and all the evidence and circumstances in this case, I have little hesitation in allowing the application and in giving leave to BC to change her forename and surname so that she shall be known as JKL. I suggest that if she wishes to do so, once she is 16 years old, she should be assisted to change her name by unenrolled deed poll. My order gives her leave to do so. I give considerable weight to the settled wishes of a mature, competent 15 year old who has good reason to wish to change both her forename and surname, who has chosen sensible new names that are not frivolous or provocative or liable to be detrimental to her welfare in any way.

“I am content that she has thought through the decision and is aware of the significance of the changes proposed. I am confident that she will be well supported at school and in her foster placement in the change process, that she will enjoy psychological and emotional benefit from the changes, and that she would be liable to suffer psychological and emotional harm were her application to be refused. The Local Authority might consider funding further therapy to support her though the process of the name changes (and the pending trial of her father). I do not believe that her family relationships will be harmed by the proposed name changes. In my judgement it is clearly in BC's best interests to allow this application.”

Lottie Winson