What's in a name? In the case of one little boy, it's four court hearings and an $8000 legal bill.
The boy was conceived during a month-long relationship that ended soon after the mother fell pregnant. The first the father heard about the birth was when the Child Support Agency contacted him. Now aged three, the boy lives with his mother and sees his father several times a week.
![A long-running case about whether a child should have a hyphenated surname may finally have been resolved.](/web/20161212013516im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/r/6/f/v/r/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gt8jjo.png/1481447138923.jpg)
The parents – given the court-ordered pseudonyms Ms Reynolds and Mr Sherman – have shared responsibility for the boy, but could not agree on his surname. The mother wanted him to share her last name, while the father pushed for a hyphenated version of both their surnames.
The long-running case has twice been before the Federal Circuit Court and twice been appealed to the Family Court, raising issues about identity, family connections and the challenges of a double-barrelled name.
Ms Reynolds argued at the first hearing, in October 2014, that a hyphenated surname was "a nuisance", had to be spelled out on the phone and shortened to fit forms and computing systems.
She claimed it was "impossible" to write on homework sheets and lunch boxes, and wondered what name the child would give his own offspring if he married someone who also had a hyphenated surname. He already had a "social footprint" and was known by the surname Reynolds, she said.
The judge ordered the boy be known by the surname Sherman-Reynolds. But the mother appealed to the Family Court, which overturned the decision.
Sending the case back to the Federal Circuit Court, the appeal judges noted the case had originally been determined in just one hour. They said while they were "aware of the pressures of work in a busy trial court ... a dispute about the name by which a child will be known perhaps for his entire life is a matter of real importance."
At the second trial, before Judge Michael Baumann, Ms Reynolds claimed a hyphenated surname would be a "constant reminder of [the child's] illegitimacy" and his parents' relationship breakdown.
However, Judge Baumann ruled that the boy should be known by the name Reynolds-Sherman, saying it was in the child's interests to "have a surname which accurately reflects his heritage".
The mother challenged that decision when it was handed down in January, representing herself in the appeal before the Family Court.
She argued that Judge Baumann had dismissed relevant considerations, including her claim that Mr Sherman was pursuing a hyphenated surname to antagonise her and that he had denied paternity when the boy was first born.
The Family Court disagreed, rejecting the appeal.
In a decision recently delivered in Sydney, the appeal judges found no error had been established. They dismissed Ms Reynolds' claim that Judge Baumann should have found a hyphenated name would be confusing for the boy, saying "the experience of this Court demonstrates it is now common for children to have a different surname from at least one of their parents, even in intact relationships".
They ordered Ms Reynolds to pay Mr Sherman's legal costs of $8000, noting it "seems to us to be a modest amount".
0 comments
New User? Sign up