Posted on 07/31/2017 12:22:59 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A mother who no longer liked her child's middle name has won the right to have it removed in a legal challenge costing thousands of pounds in legal aid.
In the new case the mother, who cannot be named, objected to the child's middle name because it was the same as an infamous public figure which she said gave it negative connotations and would therefore harm the child.
But the father wants to keep the name arguing it is an essential part of the child's identity.
So the mother took the case to the family court where she was granted legal aid.
District judge Cooper ruled in her favour last year but the father was granted the right to appeal.
In a separate hearing in May this year the father assured the judge he would only use the child's first name and would not refer to the famous name in any correspondence.
SNIP
He said: "At birth the child was given two forenames by the parents and registered with both. The child is most commonly known by the first name but the father uses both and says he favours the middle name.
"The middle name is a normal well established name. It is not eccentric or in itself offensive. However, the mothers case was that, as a result of its association with a notorious public figure, it is infected with bad connotations."
The case is bound to draw unfavourable comparison to Charlie Gard, whose parents were denied legal aid to try to save their son's life.
Last week politicians criticised the legal aid system after it was claimed that the Gards did not receive legal aid.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Without providing the middle name, this thread initially pissed me off...now I vote it the Thread O’ the Day. Great comments.
So, it's "Donald"?
Is it possible that mom and dad agreed on the name beforehand, but now that they're fighting about everything else, she's come to hate the name?
That was Rachel Dolezel’s new name.
Taint Jemima.
You have to have the middle name “Wayne” to be allowed on death row. “John Wayne _______” is not required, but earns extra points.
Probably Osama and probably given by the father on purpose.
I say that because 3 British papers all covered the story without spilling the name or family’s name.
If it is all about the name and the public had to pay for it (because the father refused to change it) then the public deserves to know how the money was spent.
Sue?
Good a guess as any!...................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.