X and Y (private law - change of name - termination of parental responsibility)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns two sisters, aged seven and two. Their father, who has parental responsibility for both as he is named on their birth certificates, is serving a life sentence for attempted murder of the mother, stalking, and possession of an offensive weapon. In March 2019, the father stabbed the mother fifteen times while she was walking home with the elder child, during which the elder child was also struck. The father had a previous conviction for assault on the mother in 2016. The mother sustained long-term physical injuries and both she and the elder child continue to receive therapeutic support for emotional harm caused by the attack and prior domestic abuse by the father. In April 2020, an anonymous call to Crimestoppers indicated a threat to the mother’s life, later traced to the father. The police supported the mother and children with rehoming and security measures. The mother now applies to the Court for termination of the father's parental responsibility and to change the children’s surname from that of the father.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the father's parental responsibility for the two children should be terminated.
2. Whether the children's surname should be changed from the father's name.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Father)

• The father denied the allegations underlying his convictions and claimed he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, intending to appeal.
• He accused the mother of being a liar, a bad parent, controlling, and alienating the children against him.
• He denied ever being abusive and asserted discrimination due to his autism and additional needs.
• He denied orchestrating surveillance of the mother, claiming recorded conversations showed others initiated contact with her.
• He did not accept responsibility or reflect on the impact of his actions on the mother or children.

Appellee's Arguments (Mother)

• The mother seeks termination of the father's parental responsibility due to the risk he poses and his inability to exercise it meaningfully while imprisoned.
• She argues that changing the children's surname is necessary for their safety and emotional welfare, especially given the elder child's explicit wishes.
• The mother emphasizes the father's history of violence, lack of insight, and ongoing risk to her and the children.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
B and C (Change of Names - Parental Responsibility Evidence) [2017] EWHC 3250 (Fam)	Approach to parental responsibility and name change applications, emphasizing best interests and evidential basis.	Guided the court’s approach to assessing the applications, emphasizing best interests of the children.
Dawson v Wearmouth	Changing a child's surname requires paramount regard to the child's welfare including future impact.	Supported the court’s consideration of welfare as paramount in deciding the name change application.
Re W, Re A, Re B (Change of Name) [1999] 3 FCR 337, [1999] 2 FLR 930	Factors relevant to change of surname applications, including welfare, reasons for registration, and parental commitment.	Provided a framework for assessing the name change application, considering the father's limited role and risk.
CW v SG [2013] EWHC 854 (Fam)	Criminal convictions serve as evidence of underlying facts in family proceedings under the doctrine of res judicata.	The court accepted the father's convictions as evidence of the facts without requiring further proof.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the father's parental responsibility by virtue of birth registration but emphasized that such responsibility must be exercised for the benefit of the children. It recognized the serious nature of the father's convictions, accepted them as evidence of the underlying facts, and noted his lack of insight and denial of wrongdoing. The court considered the welfare of the children paramount, as required by the Children Act 1989, and found that the father’s imprisonment until at least 2033 precluded meaningful exercise of parental responsibility. The court was concerned about the risk of harm if the father retained parental responsibility, including potential misuse of that responsibility to undermine the mother or cause harm. The elder child’s expressed wish to change her surname and dissociate from the father was given significant weight, while the younger child’s welfare was considered in light of her age and lack of relationship with the father. The court relied on the Cafcass officer’s welfare report, which recommended granting the applications, and on assessments by probation and police services that the father posed a high ongoing risk. The court balanced these factors and concluded that termination of parental responsibility and a name change were in the children’s best interests.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the mother's applications to terminate the father's parental responsibility for both children and to change their surname.

The direct effect is that the father will no longer have legal parental responsibility, and the children’s surname will be changed to dissociate them from him, enhancing their safety and emotional welfare. The decision reflects the court’s focus on protecting children from harm and prioritizing their welfare above the father's rights. No new precedent was set; the ruling applied established principles to the facts of this case. The mother is permitted to disclose the order to relevant schools and agencies to safeguard the children.