C (Children)

C (Children)

The court has power to prevent a parent with parental responsibility from registering a child with a forename of their choice where the proposed name is likely to cause the child significant emotional harm. Such power should only be exercised in the most extreme cases and with the sanction of the High Court, via its inherent jurisdiction. In this case, naming the girl 'Cyanide' would likely cause significant harm, justifying intervention. The procedural route is an application under section 100 Children Act 1989 to invoke the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: Mother (Appellant); 1st Respondent: Powys County Council; 2nd Respondent: Humphrys & Co Solicitors (for 2nd Respondent)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Children) / Appeal From Order of High Court Judge (family Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Child Naming, Care Orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Article 8 ECHR, Birth Registration
Family Law Children Law Human Rights Parental Responsibility Child Naming Care Orders Inherent Jurisdiction Article 8 ECHR +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother (Appellant)

Appellant

Powys County Council

1st Respondent

Humphrys & Co Solicitors (for 2nd Respondent)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Children) / Appeal From Order of High Court Judge (family Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have power to prevent a parent with parental responsibility from registering a child with a forename of their choice?
  2. 2 What is the correct procedural route for the court to exercise such power?
  3. 3 Does the proposed naming of a child amount to significant harm justifying court intervention?

Ratio Decidendi

The court has power to prevent a parent with parental responsibility from registering a child with a forename of their choice where the proposed name is likely to cause the child significant emotional harm. Such power should only be exercised in the most extreme cases and with the sanction of the High Court, via its inherent jurisdiction. In this case, naming the girl 'Cyanide' would likely cause significant harm, justifying intervention. The procedural route is an application under section 100 Children Act 1989 to invoke the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mother prohibited from registering the children with the forenames 'Preacher' and 'Cyanide'.
  • Mother prohibited from referring to the children by those forenames in contact.