Specific Issues in disputes relation to the upbringing of the child

1. Change of Surname

The most appropriate order would be prohibited step order or a specific issue order. The former
would be to prohibit the party from changing the surname and the latter is to allow the party
(petitioner) to maintain the name. s13(1) provides that a change of surname requires either written
consent of every person with PR or leave of court. This provision only applies when there is a child
arrangement order. When there is no child arrangement order, s2(7) provides that a parent can act
unilaterally, however this does not extend to change of surname circumstance since it is an
important matter thus still requiring consent of the other party ( as illustrated in Re P (1997) ). On
the facts, the evidence suggest to us that a share care is already in place between A and B. So if A
wants to formally change the surname of the child, she would need to obtain B’s consent or else it
may be advised to (depends on who u advising) A that B may impose a prohibition step order
through the court

Courts will consider the child’s welfare and whether there is a strong justification to change the
surname. The court will most likely not grant an order for the change of the name unless there is
some evidence that this would lead to an improvement from the point of view of the welfare of the
children. A surname is a biological label that portrays the paternal link with the father (Dawson v
Wearmouth).

Re W (A Child) (Illegitimate Child : Change of Surname) 2001: Changing a name because it is not
same as the parent does not carry much weight, if a new marriage and the marriage is so important
that it justifies the change of name may be relevant

Re B (Change of Surname) 1996: child usually will not be embarrassed having a different name from
mothers’ surname

Re A (A Child)(2001): the court made the order because the father was a criminal and having his
name as a surname was putting the boy at risk

Re S (Change of Names: Cultural Factors) 2001: in a conflict of race, can use mother’s religion name
but cannot formally change

When the change of name is already made, the father or whoever with PR can ask for SIO unless the
name was changed for a long time and that it is not appropriate to change back

2. Child removal from jurisdiction

S13(1)(b) provides that no person may remove the child from the UK without either consent of those
who has PR or gets a leave of the court.

Same discussion on consent however under s13(2) the child may be taken out of the jurisdiction for
a period of up to one month without obtaining the consent or court’s leave

Payne v Payne : usually when the primary carer asks for relocation application, it will be granted
unless it is incompatible with the welfare of the children

There must be a genuine motivation for the move and not the intention to bring contact between
the child and the other parent to an end. The necessity for a continuing contact between the child
and the other parent is significant consideration

Re F (Internal Relocation Cases): take a holistic approach

Re B (Children) (Removal from Jurisdiction)2003 : court allowed the order of a mother of 2 children
who wished to relocate to South Africa to be with her new husband so that he could continue
running his business

Re S (A Child)(Removal from Jurisdiction) 2003: court allowed the order to move to Perth because he
had a good salary.

Internal relocation

The courts will still consider the welfare principle. In Re L(A Child) (Internal Relocation: Shared
Residence Order) 2009, the mother’s wish to move from North London, where the father lived, to
Somerset was refused on the basis that the child’s relationship with the father would be impacted.

Re F(Children) (Internal Relocation)2010: the removal to the Orkneys from Cleveland was equivalent
to a removal to another country in terms of the difficulty of enabling contact.

However, it is important to note that in Re G(Children)(Residence: Same Sex Partner) 2006, Lady
Hale confirmed that orders restricting where a parent should live are generally regarded as an
unwarranted imposition on the right of the parent, although they could be justified in exceptional
cases.

Re C (Internal Relocation) 2015: make a welfare of children check

3. Medical Treatment

Section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 states that a minor who has attained the age of 16 can
consent to any surgical, medical or dental treatment without obtaining the consent of his parent or
guardian.

As for a child below the age of 16, after the case of Gillick v West Norforlk and Wisbech Area Health
Authority and Department of Health and Social Security (1986), a girl under 16 can lawfully consent
to such treatment provided she has sufficient understanding and intelligence to know what they
involve. The parental right to determine whether or not such a child can go through the treatment
will terminate if the child has sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to
understand fully what is proposed and this is a question of fact

So if 16 above – s8 applies, overrides PR

If below 16 – depends on Gillick competence

Re W (A Minor) (Medical Treatment : Court’s Jurisdiction) S8 FLRA 1969 does not extend the right to
consent to the right to refuse if it is in the child best interest to undergo such a treatment but the
courts will also take into account the understanding and intelligence of the child

4. Education

Under the Education Act 1996, the parents of every child between the age of five and 16 will have to
ensure that the child receives efficient full time education according to his age, ability and aptitude
and attend to any special needs the child may require. If they fail to provide such education, the
education authority may apply for an education supervision order under s36 of the Children Act
1989.
If there is a dispute as to the choice of school, it is important to note that each parent with PR has
the right to choose. In any event, s8 order can apply either SIO or PSO. Argue according to the facts
to see who shows more interest to the education needs of the child and who can provide better.

Re G (Education: Religious Upbringing)2012: take into account the child’s best interest and the
objective must be to maximise opportunities available to them.

5. Religious upbringing

The law is summarised in Re G(Education: Religious Upbringing) 2012: the court recognises no
religious distinctions and passes no judgement on religious beliefs. All are entitled to equal respect,
so long as they are legally and socially acceptable and not immoral and socially obnoxious.

If the religion involves practises that causes harm to the child, then the courts may take into account
such religious practises when deciding on an order.

Re G: the court will take into account the wishes of the child and will not automatically assume that
a child acquires a religion simply through being born to parents of a particular religion (Re J 2000)

The Re G’s religion teaches to treat boys and girls unequally.

In circumstance where there is a dispute between parents of a child that have different religion, the
courts are likely to allow the resident parent to determine the religious upbringing of the child. In
cases where there is a greater sharing care between the parents, the courts have allowed each
parent to raise the child in accordance with their religion. The children may decide themselves when
they are older in regards to which religion they should follow Re S(Specific Issue Order: Religion:
Circumsicion)2004. So long as it is socially acceptable, each parent are allowed to take their children
to different religious services Re N(A Child: Religion: Jehovah’s Witness) 2011.

If there is a child arrangement order, then the parent must ask consent to every other who has
parental responsibility over the children or get a leave of court. If there is no child arrangement
order, s2(7) states that the parties can act unilaterally but changing surname is an important issue
thus obtaining consent is important (Re P 1997)