Change of Name and Section 91(14): A Reading Case Study

“RS represented a mother in respect of a dispute over a change of name of a child in Reading.  The case was complicated as, although the child was 14, he had additional needs and was non-verbal due to his Autism and various other diagnoses. He could communicate through pointing and gestures, and the mother felt he was learning his name, but his wishes and feels could not be ascertained.  The child had the father’s name and the mother asked the father for consent to change it.  An authority was signed by the father, and the mother changed the child’s name.  The father some time later claimed that the authority was fraudulently signed by the mother.  This was vehemently denied.  There was a long history of abusive behaviour from the father and the mother felt this was an extension of that.  Father applied for a SIO not to change the child’s name.  The court concluded that the name had already been changed.  The child had been known by that name for some 10 months.  The test was not whether the authority was fraudulently signed.  The test was welfare (Dawson v Wearmouth).  How would the child benefit from the name being changed back to the father’s name? This could not be proven and so it was concluded the child should keep the mother’s surname.  Due to the father’s approach to litigation a section 91(14) bar was also imposed until the child ascertained the age of 16.”