Mother loses court battle to hyphenate her son’s name to include her surname

A DIVORCED Sydney mother has lost a costly legal battle to hyphenate her eight-year-old son’s surname so it ­includes her name.

A DIVORCED Sydney mother has lost a costly legal battle to hyphenate her eight-year-old son’s surname so it ­includes her name.

The young boy, who cannot legally be named, has lived with his mother for most of his life but kept his father’s surname after his parents’ bitter breakup, shortly after he was born in 2007.

His mother, 48, wanted her son to take on her surname so badly that she was prepared to take the case to the Family Court of Australia.

But, on September 2, Justice William Johnston rejected the mother’s application to have the boy take on her surname in a hyphenated version with the father’s last name.

Justice Johnson ruled it was not in the boy’s interest to have his name changed and the ­argument amounted to the parents fighting over ownership of the child.

The mother told the court the inclusion of her surname with the father’s would “clearly identify the child’s connection with her family”.

According to the mother’s application, she wanted her name to appear first in the ­hyphenated version.

The father, 43, argued against the change and told the court the boy had been known by his surname for eight years and that it was not in his son’s interests for it to be changed.

An independent children’s lawyer, representing the boy’s interests, also said there was no benefit to the child if his name was to be changed.

POLICE UNCOVER ALLEGED $4M ONLINE BANK SCAM

SAUCY JUROR GETS TRIAL ABORTED BY FLIRTING WITH DEFENDANT

LEGAL BATTLE TO GET NSW COURTS TO REMOVE CHILD FROM KILLER MUM

Justice Johnston pointed to a 1978 court case that said parents “attach far too much importance to the question of the child’s surname” and that it was “seen by some parents almost as a proprietary interest”.

The judge told the court such applications “often seem calculated to destroy the relationship” between the child and the other parent.

In terms of the psychological impact a name change would have on the boy, Justice Johnston said “the fact that the parents are haggling over the surname can of itself engender insecurity and confusion in the child’s mind”.

Evidence of the boy suffering from his parents’ poor relationship was demonstrated to the court through a report by a family consultant.

Following several interviews with the boy in March 2014, the consultant’s report said the child had become “so confused” that he didn’t know how he should act towards each parent.

The consultant said “at one point the father asked (the boy) if he would like a sandwich but the child said that he didn’t know whether he should eat ‘Mum’s sandwich or your sandwich’ .”

The boy looked “confused and anxious when he said this”, the report said.

The mother and father began their relationship in September 2006.

They separated in May 2008 and their relationship has deteriorated to the point where Justice Johnson has now imposed a ruling ordering both parents not to “denigrate” each other in front of their son.

Justice Johnston made other orders that dictate minute details relating to how much contact each parent can legally have with the child.

Each parent has the boy on alternate weeks and the judge even made orders as to which hours the boy will spend at which parent’s house on Christmas Day.

The boy’s passport was ordered to be surrendered to prevent either parent fleeing overseas with him.