EKS v YGP [2025] SACAT 49

The application was opposed by the biological father of the child as he submitted the child was too young to understand the implications of a name change, and that it would dilute his connection to the paternal side of his family. The father gave opposing evidence about how the child refers to himself as his father. He also told the Tribunal about how the child was scheduled to see a psychologist to determine why he has been resistant to spending time with his paternal family.

• The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the child is unable to understand the meaning and implications of a change of name;
• In the Tribunal's opinion, this application is premature;
• It is not in the child's best interests to change his name until he is more mature and able to understand the meaning and implications of the application and form an independent view of it, until his parents seek further counselling and improve their communication, until he seeks psychological assistance to determine the reasons for him refusing contacting with his father and paternal grandparents and until there is more clarity as to whether his father's contact will increase with him or not.

Births, deaths and marriages - Application to change a child's name - Best interests of the child - Child is unable to understand the meaning and implications of the change of name

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 ss 25, 26

AQU v ZXG [2023] SACAT 88

Beach v Stemmler [1979] FCWA 1; (1979) FLC 90-692

Chapman v Palmer [1978] FamCA 86; (1978) 4 Fam LR 462

LTW v LJW [2021] SACAT 73

RAJ v BMA [2021] SACAT 4

Re HQM & EEM [2022] SACAT 5

Re WCH [2021] SACAT 68

Re XAF [2022] SACAT 72

VWA v OMH [2024] SACAT 2

XCK v OVW & Anor [2023] SACAT 76

YIR v VYW & Anor [2023] SACAT 64

ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

Dismissal of an application to register a change of child's name

Made under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 s 25(3)

1. This application is made by the applicant mother, EKS, of the child, HQH born in December 2018. She seeks the Tribunal's approval to change the child's name to current first name, current last name, stepfather's surname or, in the alternative, to current first name, father's surname-stepfather's surname.
2. The application is made under s 25(2)(c) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (the Act), which provides that an application for registration of a change of a child's name may be made by one parent if the Tribunal approves the change of name.
3. The other parent named on the birth certificate, YGP, has been served with the application and supporting documents and opposes the proposed name change. Accordingly, the matter proceeded to a hearing.
4. Section 25(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, on application by a child's parent, approve a proposed change of name for the child if satisfied that the change is in the child's best interests.
5. Section 26 of the Act also provides that a change of a child's name must not be registered unless:

26(a) The child consents to the change of name; or > > 26(b) The child is unable to understand the meaning and implications of the change of name.

6. In considering the principles to apply when determining whether the proposed change of name is in the child's best interests as required by s 25(3) of the Act, I have had regard to the case of ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52, in which Justice Hughes considered the principles set out in two decisions of the Family Court of Australia, namely Chapman v Palmer [1978] FamCA 86; (1978) 4 Fam LR 462 and Beach v Stemmler [1979] FCWA 1; (1979) FLC 90-692. Justice Hughes expressed the view that the Tribunal should be guided by the approach taken in those cases when the Tribunal is considering the application of s 25(3) of the Act and the concept of the child's best interests as set out in the Act.
7. The relevant principles and criteria that must be considered and applied are:

7.a The desires of the parents are of secondary importance when put alongside the welfare and, where applicable, the wishes of the child or children involved. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and must be determined on the facts of the particular case;

7.b The short and long term effects of any change to the child's surname;

7.c Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if his name is different from that of the parent with custody or care and control;

7.d Any confusion of identity which may arise for the child if his name is changed or is not changed;

7.e The effect which any change of surname may have on the relationship between the child and the parent whose name the child bore during the marriage/relationship;

7.f The effect of frequent or random changes of name;

7.g The advantages both in the short term and in the long term which will accrue to the child if his name remains as it is now;

7.h The contact that the other parent has had and is likely to have in the future with the child: and

7.i The degree of identification that the child will now have with each parent.

1. EKS and YGP commenced a relationship in or around January 2014 and HQH was born in December 2018.[1]
2. HQH's name was formally registered on the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages as current first and middle names, father's surname. EKS says that HQH's first name was agreed upon well before his birth date and his surname was assumed and never questioned at the time. EKS says that YGP attempted to change HQH's first name to "current middle name", HQH's Paternal Grandfather's name, however she vehemently opposed this. Nevertheless, YGP was insistent that his father's name be utilised so whilst in a state of recovery (and somewhat non-cognisant), she agreed to adopt the current middle name as HQH's middle name.[2] YGP disputes this and says that HQH's name was registered with the full agreement of EKS.
3. EKS and YGP married in September 2019.[3] From around October 2019, the relationship between EKS and YGP broke down and EKS began to spend several nights each week at her parents' home with HQH. By the beginning of 2020, EKS and HQH were residing permanently at her parents' home.[4]
4. EKS commenced a relationship with MEF, HQH's stepfather, in or around May 2020. MEF has had full-time contact with HQH since June 2020. EKS and MEF married in November 2021. They have two children together, AMK (born May 2021) and XQH (born May 2024).[5]
5. YGP has had the same contact with HQH for a while, namely:

1. There are no orders under the Family Law Act 1975 concerning parental responsibility for the child or the parents spending time and having contact with the child.[6] There are no intervention orders in place and the father pays child support for the child.[7]
2. The matter proceeded as a contested hearing on 13 June 2025. Present at the hearing were EKS, MEF, YGP, and HQH's paternal grandparents.
3. Pursuant to an order by Senior Member Rainford on 29 April 2025, both EKS and YGP agreed that it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to interview HQH given his young age of six. Hence, HQH was not present at the hearing and nor was he interviewed by the Tribunal.
4. At the hearing, EKS provided detailed evidence on oath and also made submissions. In summary, she said that:

(a) HQH lives with her and MEF on a full-time basis and has done so since June 2020 and this is unlikely to change in the immediate future.[8] HQH has called MEF "dad" from a very early age through no encouragement or coercion.[9] On the few occasions that HQH does mention YGP, he always refers to him by his first name;

(b) HQH has refused to have any sleepovers with YGP for over one and a half years. HQH mentioned that YGP forced him to stay at his house one night even though he cried continuously for EKS and wanted to call her, but YGP did not let him. Ever since then, HQH has not wanted to stay overnight at YGP's house;[10]

(c) She does not believe that changing HQH's surname will have any deleterious effect on him in the short or long term. If anything, it will enhance his security and sense of identity being integral to both families;[11]

(d) Changing HQH's surname will simplify the identification process when dealing with schools, doctors, professionals and other Government bodies;[12]

(e) She has been reluctant to adopt MEF's last name for fear it will make HQH feel ostracised from their family. Nevertheless, it is something that she will be doing shortly. If HQH's last name is different from EKS, MEF and that of his sisters, this will only serve to cause him extreme anxiety and confusion. It will also cause him embarrassment when AMK is due to start school at the beginning of 2026;[13]

(f) HQH has already started expressing embarrassment about YGP being involved in his school life and school friends. It is the reason he does not want YGP to pick him up from school, attend school events such as sports day and swimming lessons. HQH has become "so distressed, volatile and angry at the thought of [YGP] taking him" swimming. One reason HQH has provided is that his best friend "will think it's weird".[14] HQH has been anxious, stressed, embarrassed, kicking, screaming and heightened at times of contact with YGP;

(g) Not changing HQH's surname will result in severe confusion for him and make him question his identity, something which no six-year-old child should have to question. HQH is likely to suffer emotional or psychological distress if his surname is not changed and this could perhaps be exacerbated if a change of surname is delayed until he is older1;[15]

(h) Changing HQH's surname should not affect the relationship he has with YGP or his family. To make HQH feel the most safe and secure, EKS would expect YGP and his family to embrace a change of surname and promote familial relationships on both sides. If HQH's name is legally changed but people important to him fail to use that name, then HQH will experience confusion and possibly grief.[16]

1. MEF provided evidence on affirmation and also made submissions. In summary, he said:

(a) He is supportive of EKS's application to the Tribunal;

(b) HQH says that his name is "current first name, father's surname, stepfather's surname" in their home;

(c) It would be better for HQH's identity if he had the same surname as his two sisters;

(d) He is concerned that HQH may view himself as not part of the family if he has a different surname;

(e) HQH did not want to see his paternal grandparents this year when YGP was overseas but did the year prior.

1. YGP provided evidence on oath and also made submissions. In summary, he said:

(a) He respectfully opposes the application;

(b) He was never aware there were any issues with HQH's name until he received notice of the Tribunal application;

(c) Six and a half is too young to fully grasp the implications of a name change;

(d) If HQH's name is changed to either current first name, father's surname, stepfather's surname or, in the alternative, to current first name, father's surname-stepfather's surname, it may dilute HQH's connection to the paternal side of his family. He is also concerned about the change of name if EKS and MEF were to end their relationship;

(e) HQH has never told him his name is "current first name, father's surname, stepfather's surname". HQH knows his name is "current first name, current middle name, father's surname " and refers to himself in this way in his father's care;

(f) HQH's name was agreed upon at birth. HQH's middle name comes from his paternal grandfather and he denies there was any attempt to change his name while EKS was in recovery from birth;

(g) There are many children that keep their father's surname even when their parents have divorced.

(h) In his experience talking with his son, his son has told him that he enjoys swimming, and he has never indicated embarrassment to him about him taking him places and nor has he expressed any embarrassment about his name to him;

(i) He does acknowledge that although he wants increased time with HQH, this desire is not currently reciprocated by HQH and he is distressed by his son's reluctance to spend time with him. He would like to be more involved in his son's life, including sports day and further time and overnights. He acknowledges that HQH is living exclusively with his mother, but in his view, time with HQH should be shared evenly between himself and EKS and that is what he would like in the future. The last sleep over was approximately two years ago. He acknowledges that his son did cry for his mother at night but then settled and was happy in the morning and said, "sleepovers are fun aren't they?". The was the last sleep over;

(j) In recent months, his contact with HQH has improved;

(k) A name change is not a priority at the moment and, in his opinion, emotional and attachment issues should be addressed prior;

(l) He is concerned that his son acts differently between the two split households. For example, at his home, his son refers to him as "dad" and only refers to him by his first name when he is being cheeky. His son refers to MEF in his home by his first name and does not call MEF "dad';

(m) He is concerned about parental alienation. HQH will sometimes not want to attend contact with him due to missing out on other exciting family events and he is concerned these exciting family events are scheduled at the same time as his contact with HQH. There have been occasions when EKS has refused to encourage contact with him and HQH. He also received a text message from EKS to the effect that HQH may never want contact with him again. He has also called the home for scheduled telephone contact and EKS did not answer the telephone;

(n) He feels that a precedent was set at the beginning of the break up that EKS was the primary carer and he regrets this precedent was set. Another precedent that has been set is that HQH knows that if he argues against contact then the contact will not go ahead;

(o) He and EKS have had some counselling in an attempt to improve their relationship and the plan is for HQH to then seek some psychological assistance, and he is awaiting the date of an appointment.

1. The paternal grandfather provided evidence on oath. In summary, he said he and the paternal grandmother went to grandparents day last year and EKS ignored them. He and his wife used to be very close to HQH. When they came over, EKS did not encourage any contact and they then left.
2. In reply, EKS said, in summary:

(a) The application was precipitated by HQH's conversation with his sister AMK. When I questioned how this was the case, EKS explained that her daughter, AMK came home when HQH was approximately five years old and referred to herself by her full name, including her surname because there are lots of girls with the same first name and her surname was used to identify her. HQH then said his name was current first name, father's surname, stepfather's surname and this was not corrected by EKS or MEF;

(b) When I questioned whether the application was premature given that the plan is for HQH to see a psychologist, EKS denied that the application is premature. She said she is reluctant to get HQH assessed by a psychologist because she feels that there has been a lot of focus on HQH and his issues when there should be focus on what his parents can do to support him emotionally. EKS said it is important that she and YGP work on better communication before HQH receives support from a psychologist;

(c) She agrees that HQH acting differently in the two households is concerning;

(d) For YGP to suggest she may break up with MEF is offensive;

(e) It is not her responsibility to make HQH's grandparents feel comfortable and HQH's grandparents could have said "hello" to her on grandparents' day. In her opinion, HQH's paternal grandparents appeared as cold to her as she would have appeared to them. EKS was busy on that day and was already there with her parents and MEF's parents;

(f) She has always acted in HQH's best interests and has not alienated him from his father.

1. When I questioned EKS about the alleged text message she sent to YGP, she admitted that she did send a text messages to him that said "he doesn't want to see you voluntarily and don't think he would have an issue never seeing you again". When I questioned her as to how she would come to this conclusion, she admitted that she should not have sent the message but came to the conclusion HQH would not have an issue not seeing his father based on his emotionally distressed behaviours when he saw his father.

Does HQH consent to the change of name or is he unable to understand the meaning and implications of the change of name?

1. Although EKS feels that HQH agrees to the change of name, all parties agreed at the hearing that, given his age, HQH is unable to understand the meaning and implications of a change of name.
2. HQH is young and, in my view, likely to be influenced by the parent with whom he is spending the majority of his time. This consideration goes to the weight to be given to the evidence about the wishes of HQH.[17]
3. Given HQH's age of six, the fact that I did not interview him, the evidence that he uses different names in different households and the totality of the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that he consents to the change of name. Given his young age, I am reasonably satisfied that he is unable to understand the meaning and implications of a change of name.

1. I have considered all of the material before me, including EKS's application to the Tribunal, lodged 17 February 2025, and supporting documentations, including identification documentation, marriage and divorce documentation, email from EKS dated 29 April 2025, email from YGP, dated 28 April 2025, statutory declaration by EKS, dated 28 March 2025 and submissions from EKS dated 13 June 2025. I have also considered the oral submissions and evidence provided at the hearing.
2. I have considered that EKS and MEF would like HQH's surname to be changed and that YGP would like HQH's surname to remain as it is. I have placed weight on their wishes, however, their wishes are of secondary importance.
3. In my view, this application is premature and it is not currently in the best interests of HQH to grant this application. Both parties agree that the child should not be interviewed and is unable to understand the meaning and implications of a change in name.[18] I accept this is no bar to me approving the name change application, but I have heard evidence that this child is showing signs of emotional distress at times of contact with his father and is refusing contact with his paternal family. Both EKS and YGP accept that the child may be acting differently between the two split households. For example, he calls YGP "dad" at his home and MEF "dad" at EKS's home. EKS and YGP are currently engaged in counselling and the plan is for the child to have some psychological sessions to determine what is behind his reluctance to see his father. YGP would like to have increased time with his son and is unsure whether he will seek family court orders in the future. YGP says that recently his contact with HQH has improved. It is simply too early to say with any certainty what sort of relationship YGP will have with HQH and how a change of name might affect HQH's best interests.[19]
4. Without psychological evidence, at this stage, it is not possible to make a finding as to why HQH is refusing contact with his biological father. However, YGP has raised parental alienation as a concern. Given the age of HQH, being six, I was concerned about the text message that EKS sent YGP that "he doesn't want to see you voluntarily and don't think he would have an issue never seeing you again". To her credit, she acknowledged sending the message, admitted it should not have been sent and admitted that it would be beneficial for her and YGP to obtain further counselling to address their relationship. I am also concerned about the child's reaction to contact with his father and evidence that he has also recently refused contact with his paternal grandparents. EKS informed me at the hearing that it is not her responsibility to make HQH's paternal grandparents feel comfortable. This may be so, but I am concerned about HQH's current connection with his biological father and paternal family.
5. In my opinion, it is too early to say what are the short and long term effects of any change of the child's surname and whether there are any advantages for HQH if his name remains as it is. EKS argues that there will be no deleterious effects on him in the short or long term and, if anything, it will enhance his security and sense of identity being integral to both families. However, there is no psychological or medical evidence supporting this submission. Much of the evidence I heard suggests that HQH feels part of EKS and MEF's household but is resistant to contact with his biological father and paternal grandparents. The reasons for this are not currently known, but YGP has raised a concern about parental alienation.
6. EKS also argues a change of name will simplify the identification process when dealing with schools, doctors, and other Government bodies. I accept this may be so, but I place little weight on this submission as there are many families with multiple children that have different surnames.
7. I reject the submission of EKS that if I do not change HQH's name, he may not feel accepted and an intrinsic part of both families.[20] The evidence is that HQH has a very strong familial association and identification with MEF and EKS and his sisters. HQH also has a strong connection to MEF's parents whom he sees on a weekly basis.[21] If anything, the evidence is that HQH is struggling with the connection with his paternal family. For unknown reasons, he is resistant to contact with his father and paternal grandparents when he used to enjoy this contact.
8. EKS submits that HQH will suffer embarrassment if his name is not changed particularly when AMK starts school next year. EKS refers to embarrassment HQH has already suffered due to YGP being involved in his school life and friends.[22] However, a name change will not change the fact that YGP is HQH's biological father, and it will not stop HQH being embarrassed, if he is, about his father. EKS also refers to a concern that when she changes her surname, she has a fear HQH will feel ostracised from her family. I accept it is possible HQH may feel some embarrassment should his siblings, stepfather and mother have a different surname and I have placed weight on this submission. However, if HQH's surname were changed to his stepfather's as proposed, he would no longer have the surname of his biological father and he would no longer have the middle name which connects him to his paternal grandfather. If HQH's surname were changed to "father's surname-stepfather's surname", he would still have a different surname to every person that he lives with and he would also no longer have his paternal grandfather's name as a middle name.
9. EKS submits that, if his name is not changed, HQH will suffer severe confusion and it will make him question his identity. EKS submits that HQH is likely to suffer emotional and psychological distress if his surname is not changed and this could perhaps be exacerbated if a change of surname is delayed until he is older.[23] EKS submits that she will be changing her surname to MEF's surname shortly and if HQH's last name is different from hers, MEF's and his siblings, this will cause him extreme anxiety and confusion.[24] Unfortunately, from the evidence I heard, HQH is already confused about his name and is acting in different ways between the two split households. I accept the evidence that he uses the name "first name, father's surname, stepfather's surname" when he is with EKS and MEF. However, I also accept the evidence from YGP that when HQH is with him, he refers to himself as "first name, paternal grandfather's name, father's surname". I do not consider a name change would reduce his confusion.
10. EKS also submits that any reference to YGP's family tradition of being named after his paternal grandfather is anachronistic and of little relevance. I reject this submission as it can be tradition and create meaning and belonging for families to call children after family members. In Re XAF [2022] SACAT 72, Senior Member Rainford said "the views expressed by the father of the child regarding the passing on of a last or surname as a 'birthright' in today's modern (and generally, more receptive and accepting) society is quite anachronistic and is not in keeping with best interest considerations. Today, it cannot be considered the norm to assign a child the father's last name, particularly where the parents were not legally married. More and more, we are seeing cases of hyphenated last names (of both parents) and in cases such as this, where the parent who has the day-to-day care and responsibility of the child has remarried and had other children, then best interest considerations may gravitate towards a change of last name to the name of that parent." I accept the considerations of Senior Member Rainford. However, in my view, this case is different. YGP did not express that his surname should be used as a "birthright" but rather indicated that it was important to him that his surname be used and it was agreed upon at birth with EKS.
11. EKS says that she "doubts [HQH] has any knowledge of his middle name and would not be able to state it if asked."[25] She also submits that changing his surname would only affirm to him that he is related to his sisters and he would be confused and distressed if he knew his surname is different to that of his sisters.[26] I reject this given YGP's evidence that HQH does know his legal name and refers to his legal name when he is with YGP. In any event, even if HQH was not aware of his legal name (on the balance of probabilities, I find he is aware of his legal name), it is not possible to change a child's surname so it never existed on a birth certificate.[27] In relation to EKS's submission that she was never fully on board with the paternal grandfather's name, that may have been the case but the reality is that HQH was registered with that name and named after his paternal grandfather.
12. I have considered EKS's submission about HQH's sensitive nature and that he is likely to be very self-conscious and sensitive to any negative attention or even bullying by his peers - whether actual or perceived.[28] I accept her submission that he does have a sensitive nature. However, there is no evidence before me to suggest that HQH will have negative attention or be bullied due to his name. The only evidence to suggest any concern from peers is that his best friend thought it would be weird if his father took him swimming.[29] I did not understand the concern expressed by HQH's best friend to be connected to HQH's surname. I reject the submission that there "is not doubt that he is likely to experience negative emotional impacts if his surname is not changed at this time." The evidence from YGP is that HQH knows his name and has never demonstrated embarrassment about his name. EKS has given evidence that "We always tell [HQH] that each family is different and in doing so, want to assure him that having two dads is 'normal.' We would never want [HQH] to feel different as a result of circumstances not of his own making. We advocate a healthy relationship with [YGP] and are encouraging of him spending time with [YGP] even during periods where he has absolutely refused". Given this evidence, should any negative emotions arise, EKS and MEF can explain to HQH that many children have different surnames from their siblings and parents and this makes them no less a part of the family. As said by Senior Member Ward, it is a common modern phenomenon, for reasons to do with blended families, remarriages and the like, that a child may have a surname that is different from their primary carer's surname.[30]
13. I accept that there have been no frequent or random name changes for HQH.
14. In my view, it is too soon to say whether a change of surname will affect HQH's relationship with YGP. He is currently resistant to contact and the reasons for this are not clear. YGP is concerned that there may be parental alienation. If this is true, a name change may further alienate HQH from YGP and his paternal family. I cannot make a finding that there is parental alienation on the balance of probabilities however I was concerned about some of the evidence including the text message from EKS to YGP indicating that HQH may never want contact with YGP, EKS allegedly refusing to come to the door to encourage contact, YGP calling during scheduled telephone contact with no answer by EKS, EKS's attitude on grandparents' day that it was not her responsibility to make the paternal grandparents comfortable, and an allegation that exciting events are organised during HQH's contact with his father. On the other hand, I also heard evidence that EKS denies there is any parental alienation, that she has encouraged contact, that HQH was upset at a sleepover at YGP's home and YGP refused to allow him to call his mother and this is why HQH has refused further sleepovers, there have been occasions that YGP has persisted with contact despite HQH not wishing to attend and one occasion YGP used insulting and foul language towards EKS, which scared HQH and AMK.[31] EKS has also submitted that given her agreement to meet with a psychologist to determine why HQH is so reluctant to spend time with YGP, this should highlight her willingness and proactiveness in encouraging HQH to have a better relationship with YGP for HQH's own mental and emotional well-being.[32]
15. I have considered both proposed name changes and for the reasons provided, in my view, this application is premature and it is not in HQH's best interests to grant either of the proposed names. I accept that it is not necessarily the norm to assign a child the father's last name and that more cases are being seen of hyphenated last names. However, this alone, does not mean the application is in HQH's best interests. I do not consider it in HQH's best interests that his name be changed at this stage. He is too young to understand the implications of a change of name and put his views to the Tribunal. Further, I heard evidence that he is acting differently between the household of his mother and father and I am concerned he is currently confused.
16. I have considered EKS's argument that she and MEF have full-time care of HQH and it is in his best interests that both parents are recognised as well as his siblings. I accept the surname of HQH's mother, stepfather and siblings are relevant and he may shortly become the only member of the household that he lives in with that has a different surname and this may cause him some embarrassment. I also accept that HQH's siblings are close in age and he is likely to have a life-long relationship with them and I place weight on this as relevant. However, the proposal is to change the surname to include reference to MEF's surname not EKS's surname. I accept EKS's evidence that she intends to shortly change her name, but she has not yet done so. Further, as I have already found, in my view HQH already feels connected to MEF and EKS's family so I do not consider a change of surname will improve the connection that he already has. The evidence I heard suggests, for unknown reasons, he is not feeling connected to his paternal family.
17. EKS referred to a number of cases to support her application. Although case law is relevant to consider, she appropriately acknowledges that each case needs to be considered on its merits. In summary, I note:

(a) The decision of AQU v ZXG [2023] SACAT 88 is very different to this case. In that case, the children had no contact with their father and were able to consent to the application. Further, in that case, there was evidence from a psychologist supportive of no contact. The children in that case were 12 and 10 years old respectively at the time of the Tribunal agreeing to a name change;

(b) The decision of Re WCH [2021] SACAT 68 involved a case whereby there was an error in the previous recording of a child's name and the child did not know about the error. Further, there were Family Court orders approving the name. In that case, unlike here, the child was able to consent to the name change and the child was 10 years old at the time of the Tribunal agreeing to a name change;

(c) The decision of XCK v OVW & Anor [2023] SACAT 76 involved a case whereby there was an intervention order between the parents. In that case, there was an altercation between the children's mother and the father's parents which was traumatising to the children and a significant factor in them wishing to change their surname. Unlike in this case, there was independent evidence from a school principal and a psychologist and there was no meaningful contact between the father and the children. In that case, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to change the name of an eight and seven year old child;

(d) The decision of Re XAF [2022] SACAT 72 involved an application that was primarily brought in response to the father being charged with offences related to terrorism and neo-Nazi ideology, and the consequent media attention. In that case, Senior Member Rainford said, "Today, it cannot be considered the norm to assign a child the father's last name, particularly where the parents were not legally married. More and more, we are seeing cases of hyphenated last names (of both parents) and in cases such as this, where the parent who has the day-to-day care and responsibility of the child has remarried and had other children, then best interest considerations may gravitate towards a change of last name to the name of that parent." However, in that case, the child was 12 and able to consent to the name change and had not had contact with the father for over 12 months which is very different to the facts here;

(e) The decision of YIR v YVW and Anor [2023] SACAT 64 is, again, very different to this case. That case involved a child with no registered name which caused difficulties which impacted negatively on the child as he had no Medicare card, and his carer was unable to deal with Centrelink in relation to him. This is similar to the case of LTW v LJW [2021] SACAT 73 that also involved a child with no registered name;

(f) In RAJ v BMA [2021] SACAT 4, the evidence there was that the three year old female child did not realise she had a different surname from the people with whom she lived. This is unlike the situation here whereby HQH uses his correct legal name at his father's home.

1. In my opinion, this application is premature. It is not in HQH's best interests to change his name until he is more mature and able to understand the meaning and implications of the application and form an independent view of it, until his parents seek further counselling and improve their communication, until he seeks psychological assistance to determine the reasons for him refusing contact with his father and paternal grandparents and until there is more clarity as to whether his father's contact will increase with him or not.
2. Overall, the key factors I consider relevant to this application being premature and not being in HQH's best interests to grant is the young age of HQH, HQH using different names in his father and mother's households, concerns of parental alienation, the current uncertainty regarding the father's contact and that shortly HQH will have psychological assistance to determine the reasons for his refusal of contact with his father. This psychological input could be highly relevant to any future change of name consideration.
3. As said by Senior Member Rainford in LTW v LJW [2021] SACAT 73 at [30] "I am mindful that in determining an appropriate name for the child, that I am not tasked with deciding who is the better parent. I have no doubt that both the mother and father love the child equally in their own way, despite the acrimony and differences between them."
4. I am not satisfied that it is HQH's best interests to have a legal change of name at this point in time.
5. This does not prevent future applications as access arrangements are resolved, HQH matures and things are clearer in terms of what is in his best interests when it comes to his surname.[33] The Tribunal does not imply that HQH's best interests is to bear his father's surname because it is his father's surname. Had HQH been given his mother's surname at birth and the father brought an application to have it changed, the Tribunal would have similarly rejected the application as not being in HQH's best interests. The conclusion is simply that, having been given that name, it has not been demonstrated it is in HQH's bests interests to change the name at this point in time.[34]
6. The Tribunal is not satisfied on balance that the proposed change of name is in HQH's bests interests and accordingly approval for the changes sought, either the name "current first name, father's surname, stepfather's surname" or, in the alternative, "current surname, father's surname-stepfather's surname" is not granted.

1. The application for approval to change the name of a child is dismissed.

[1] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.1.

[2] Statutory Declaration of EKS, dated 28 March 2025, paragraph 2.

[3] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.1.

[4] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.1.

[5] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.1.

[6] Order of Member Aglieco, dated 18 March 2025.

[7] Order of Member Aglieco, dated 18 March 2025.

[8] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.1; 2021/SA011602

[9] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.9.

[10] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.8.

[11] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.2.

[12] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.3.

[13] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.3.

[14] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.3.

[15] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.4.

[16] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.5; VWA v OMH [2024] SACAT 2.

[17] XCK v OVW & Anor [2023] SACAT 76 at paragraph [29].

[18] Order of Senior Member Rainford, dated 29 April 2025.

[19] ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52 at [29].

[20] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.9.

[21] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.9.

[22] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.3.

[23] Applicant's submission, paragraph 5.4.

[24] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.3.

[25] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 9.

[26] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 6.

[27] ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52 at [16].

[28] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 13.

[29] Applicant's submissions, paragraph 5.3.

[30] Re HQM & EEM [2022] SACAT 5 at [29].

[31] Email from EKS to the Tribunal, dated 29 April 2025.

[32] Email from EKS to the Tribunal, dated 29 April 2025.

[33] ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52 at [33].

[34] ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52 at [33].