The Court of Appeal has upheld an injunction issued by the High Court which prevents a mother from registering her twins with her chosen forenames. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction in order to prohibit the mother in this unusual case.
The mother has a long standing diagnosis of schizophrenia. Her ability to parent was further diminished by her drug and alcohol misuse, chaotic home conditions and abusive male relationships. Her inability to work with professionals in an ‘open, honest and consistent manner’ also goes against her. As a result, her twins were made subject to an interim care order shortly after they were born.
New concerns arose when the mother wanted to name her son “Preacher” – a strong spiritual name and her daughter “Cyanide”, which the mother described as a lovely, pretty name. These names were considered as going beyond the ‘bizarre, unusual and foolish’, to the extent that the Court said that they could cause significant harm to the children.
In the court of first instance, HHJ Sharpe held that he could not exercise the court’s jurisdiction on this matter. However, he stated that the local authority still had the ability to restrict the exercise of the mother’s parental responsibility under s.33(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989 s.100. This therefore prevented the mother from registering the names of her
choice. An injunction was then made to that effect. The mother appealed.
Justification
Firstly, it was debated whether naming a child was a parent’s responsibility. This was found to be an act of parental responsibility under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 s.2. Secondly, under the Children Act 1989, the local authority can make significant decisions in a child’s life, if it is deemed necessary to promote or safeguard the child’s welfare. Although the Act only referenced changes to surnames, it did not prevent forenames from also being considered. Lastly, the Court considered if the injunction would significantly interfere with the mother’s right to a private life under Article 8 ECHR. To prevent this, the court had to approve the actions of the local authority before they acted. The Court’s decision had to balance the lack of a procedural route for this rare case, and the significant harm that would happen to the children if named by their mother. Although picking a child’s name usually fell to the mother, the young girl – as opposed to her brother, would likely suffer considerable harm from being named after a poison. Therefore these potential issues had to be avoided by the Court, and the injunction did just that.