plaintiff. Pursuant to s 25(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (SA), the Tribunal approves the proposed change of surname of the child KXU and the child DZM from the father's surname...
Key principles
Under s 25(3) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (SA) the Tribunal may approve a proposed change of a child's name only if satisfied the change is in the...
Section 26 requires that a child's name change not be registered unless the child consents or the child is unable to understand the meaning and implications of the change; the...
Where an older child (near majority) displays a carefully considered, cogent and strongly held wish to change their name, that wish carries substantial weight in the...
The Tribunal is to assess best interests by reference to the established factors derived from Chapman v Palmer and Beach v Stemmler as applied in ZXN v TZW: short and long term...
Issues before the court
Whether each child validly consented to the proposed change of surname for the purposes of s 26 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act...
Plain English Summary
The mother applied to SACAT to change her two daughters' surnames from their father's name to her surname. The Tribunal interviewed both children. The older daughter (almost 17) clearly understood and consented; the younger (11) could not demonstrate understanding. The Tribunal applied the statutory test: registration requires consent or inability to understand, and approval must be in the child's best interests. Giving substantial weight to the older child's cogent wish, the history of minimal contact with the father, the benefits of family inclusion, and the interest in sibling unity, the Tribunal approved the changes for both children.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,797 words · generated 25/06/2026
What happened
ESR, the mother, applied to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) for approval to change the surnames of her two children, KXU (born 21 August 2003; almost 17 at hearing) and DZM (born 4 August 2009; 11 at hearing), from the father's surname to the mother's surname. The application was brought under s 25(3) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (SA) (the Act), with registration to be effected under s 25(2)(c) if the Tribunal approved. The father, YDX, filed written submissions opposing the change and spoke to the Tribunal by telephone. The Tribunal conducted a private interview of both children at the hearing on 14 August 2020, assessed consent under s 26 of the Act, evaluated best interests by applying the factors derived from Chapman v Palmer and Beach v Stemmler (following ZXN v TZW), and granted approval for both children's surnames to be changed to their mother's surname. The Tribunal's reasons were delivered 17 August 2020 by Senior Member McEvoy.
Whether approval of the proposed change of surname is in the children's best interests under s 25(3).
What weight to give to the father's opposition, including asserted cultural significance of his surname and potential future difficulties for family...
Cited legislation
3 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
Key factual nodes:
The family has a history of separation and intervening domestic violence; intervention orders restricting the father's contact were in place (contextual facts relied on when assessing contact and effect).
The Tribunal found there had been minimal or no contact between father and children since 2018 and very limited contact since about 2010.
The older child gave a detailed, cogent account explaining why she wished to change her surname; the younger child could not articulate an understanding of the implications but wished to have the same surname as her older sibling.
The father contended he had sought contact and that his surname had cultural significance within his Aboriginal family, asserting possible future harms from a change of surname.
The Tribunal approved both changes: it found the older child's consent valid under s 26, that the younger child could not understand the implications (so s 26(b) applied), and that the change was in the children's best interests under s 25(3).
Why the court decided this way
Statutory framework
s 25(3) grants the Tribunal discretion to approve a child's change of name if satisfied the change is in the child's best interests.
s 26 constrains registration: it requires the child's consent or that the child be unable to understand the meaning and implications of the name change.
Guiding principles
The Tribunal expressly followed the approach applied in ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52, which directs the Tribunal to be guided by Chapman v Palmer (1978) and Beach v Stemmler (1979) factors when assessing best interests for a name-change application. Those factors include short and long-term effects of the change, embarrassment or confusion, the effect on relationships with the parent whose name the child currently bears, the extent of contact with the other parent, and the degree of identification the child has with each parent.
Application to the facts
Consent: By direct private questioning, the Tribunal concluded the older child understood the implications of the change and consented. The younger child could not articulate an understanding, so the Tribunal found she was unable to consent within the meaning of s 26.
Best interests: The Tribunal gave significant weight to the older child's cogent, carefully considered wish. It found short-term benefits, increased confidence, agency, inclusion within the household bearing the same surname, and no material evidence that a name change would presently diminish the children's connection to their Aboriginal heritage. While the father raised important concerns about how a surname can operate within Aboriginal kin networks and the potential for future family recognition difficulties, those concerns were balanced against the lack of current contact, the existence of intervention orders, and the children's active engagement with Aboriginal identity via their mother and local programs.
Sibling unity: The Tribunal accepted the family's articulated preference that both children share the same surname and concluded that it would not be in the younger child's best interests to have a different surname from her sister; thus, the younger child's change was approved despite her inability to demonstrate informed consent.
Overall conclusion: the statutory test of "best interests" was met for each child (for one by valid consent, for the other because maintaining the same surname as her sibling and avoiding differentiation served her interests), hence approval.
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision
The governing statutory provisions (ss 25 and 26) were settled. SACAT had previously applied the Family Court factors articulated in Chapman and Beach in ZXN v TZW to guide its assessment of "best interests" in name-change cases.
This decision
Re KXU & DZM applies and affirms that approach. It reinforces two practical points:
A near-majority child's clear, informed wish is powerful evidence in the best-interests calculus and may be determinative where cogent and well-considered.
Where sibling unity is at stake, tribunals may approve a younger child's name change even if that child cannot understand the implications, provided the change otherwise serves the child's interests.
After this decision
The decision provides a useful, contemporary instance of how SACAT balances parental cultural claims and minimal contact against the immediate psychosocial benefits of a name change for children, and how sibling relationship considerations can be decisive for younger children's interests. It does not change law, but it clarifies application in materially similar fact patterns.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"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." (Statutory framing)
Plain English: The Tribunal can only approve a name change if it is convinced the change benefits the child.
"Section 26 ... a change of a child's name must not be registered unless: (a) The child consents ... or (b) The child is unable to understand the meaning and implications of the change of name."
Plain English: A child's consent is required unless the child is too young or unable to understand what changing a name means.
The Tribunal's finding that the elder child "felt very strongly" and that changing her name would give her "confidence, and sense of agency and control ... and a inclusion in her present family."
Plain English: The older child convincingly said changing her surname would make her feel more accepted at home and improve her wellbeing, and the Tribunal found that persuasive.
The Tribunal's comment that "it would not be in DZM's best interests to have a different surname to KXU."
Plain English: For the younger child, being called by a different family name from her sister would likely be harmful, so it's better for them to share the same surname.
The Tribunal's observation that a name is "not the only connection shared with or identifying family."
Plain English: Losing a surname does not necessarily sever other cultural or familial ties; identity is also formed by involvement, culture and relationships.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most directly relevant where:
One child is near adulthood and expresses a clear, considered desire to change surname.
A younger sibling cannot understand the implications of a name change but wants sibling unity.
The non-applicant parent opposes the change, citing limited or historical contact, or cultural/family recognition concerns.
There is a history of little or no contact between the children and the opposing parent, possibly with intervention orders or family violence context.
The applicant argues benefits of family inclusion, psychological wellbeing and agency for the child who wishes to change name.
Practically, litigants and advisers can rely on this decision when seeking name-change approval for a family with similar dynamics: a strong older child's wish, sibling unity concerns, limited paternal contact, and a balance to be struck with parental cultural concerns.
How later courts have treated it
At the date of this decision the Tribunal referenced its own prior decision ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52 and applied the Chapman/Beach factors. Re KXU & DZM follows that line: it is not a higher-court precedent but serves as persuasive SACAT authority for like factual matrices. Subsequent treatment in higher courts would depend on appeals or analogous Tribunal decisions; practitioners should treat this decision as an authoritative example of how SACAT applies the statutory test and family-law-derived factors in a culturally sensitive context.
(Users should check for any later SACAT or appellate decisions that might have approved, distinguished or reversed the approach; this deep dive does not record post-2020 developments.)
Still-open questions
Weight of Aboriginal cultural claims: The Tribunal balanced the father's claim of cultural significance in his surname against the children's present engagement with Aboriginal culture through their mother and local programs. Questions remain about the evidentiary threshold required for a parent to show that a change of surname will meaningfully impair an Aboriginal child's actual or prospective kinship ties. What documentary or community evidence would be necessary to establish that risk as decisive?
Younger children's best interests where they cannot consent: The decision approves the younger child's change primarily because sibling unity was judged to serve her interests. It leaves open how tribunals will assess cases where sibling desires diverge, or where a younger child's welfare might be objectively disadvantaged by a sibling's wish. How will tribunals weigh marginal harms to a non-consenting child against the benefits to a consenting sibling?
Remedial effect of intervention orders and family violence findings: The Tribunal noted intervention orders and family violence history as contextual facts. Future cases may develop clearer principles on how such findings affect the assessment of the likely future contact with a non-resident parent, and the consequent weight to be accorded to a parent's objections grounded in anticipated future family recognition.
Timing and autonomy: The Tribunal noted the older child's capacity to apply independently at 18. The decision implies that near-majority children's autonomy deserves heavier weight; however, precise guidance about the age-related evidentiary standard for 'cogent and carefully considered' wishes remains underdeveloped.
Standard of factual proof for contact claims: Divergent accounts from parents about past efforts at contact were present. The Tribunal accepted the reality of minimal contact. Future decisions may clarify the kind of evidence (correspondence, lawyer communications, intermediary records) required to reliably establish attempts at contact or their prevention.
Conclusion: Re KXU & DZM is a clear, factual application of the statutory test for children's name changes. It underscores the Tribunal's practical approach: give significant weight to a near-adult child's informed wish; protect sibling unity; sensitively balance parental cultural concerns against present realities of contact and the child's lived cultural engagement; and focus the inquiry on the children's best interests rather than parental disputes.
The mother of KXU and DZM applied to the Tribunal for approval to have the children's surnames changed pursuant to section 25(3) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1996. The applications were heard together for expedition.
[3]
The applicant submitted that the children had not had any contact with their father since 2018 and minimal contact since 2010. She also presented current Intervention Orders in place restricting the father's contact with her and the children.
[4]
The respondent filed written submissions and gave oral submissions without the other parties present opposing any change of the surnames, due to the potential future impact on the children in becoming distanced from their extended family.
[5]
KXU understood the meaning and implication of the change of name and consented to it, but DZM was unable to understand the meaning and implication of the change of name;
there were short and long term benefits to the change of name for the children and the change will not impact the connection to their aboriginal heritage or the relationship with their father;
it was in the best interests of KXU to approve the change of surname and the best interests of the children to maintain the same surname as each other.
[6]
Pursuant to s 25(2) of the Act, the Tribunal approves the proposed change of surname of the child KXU and the child DZM from the father's surname to the mother's surname.
An application for registration of the proposed changes of name may be made by the applicant to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages within one month from the date of this order.
[7]
Births, deaths and marriages - Application to change a child's name - Best interests of a child - Child consents to name change
[8]
Births, deaths and marriages - Application to change a child's name - Best interests of child - Child is unable to understand the meaning and implications of the change of name
[9]
Administrative Tribunals - Procedure - Jurisdiction powers and generally - Conduct of proceedings
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 people the subject of these proceedings have been de-identified and allocated a randomly selected pseudonym for privacy reasons. Other details that may lead to the identification of the parties may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.
[15]
These applications were made by ESR, the mother of children KXU born in South Australia on 21 August 2003, and DZM, born in South Australia on 4 August 2009.
The applications are made under s 25(2)(c) of the Act which permits an application for registration of a change of a child's name to be made by one parent if the Tribunal approves the change of name.
Following a directions hearing on 14 July 2020 the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to advise the children's other parent, YDX, of the applications for the change of the children's surname. YDX provided the Tribunal with a written submission setting out his reasons for opposing the applications, which was provided to ESR and which I take into account, and was also available by telephone at the time of the hearing.
At the hearing of her applications ESR said she had seen YDX's written submission although she had not read it closely. She said she had nothing to say about the submission other than that it was what she expected, and she did not want to respond to it. She told the Tribunal that she did not want to be present in the hearing room when YDX spoke to the Tribunal and did not want to either hear him or respond to what he might tell the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I spoke to YDX after I had heard from ESR and the children, without any of them being present and after they had left the hearing.
[16]
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.
[17]
Section 26 of the Act also provides that a change of a child's name must not be registered unless:
[18]
(a) The child consents to the change of name; or
(b) The child is unable to understand the meaning and implications of the change of name.
[19]
The application in this case is with respect to KXU, who will turn 17 in a week or so after this hearing, and DZM, who has just turned 11.
I considered that both the children were old enough to express their views to the Tribunal on the applications and their consent to the proposed change of name, and I spoke to them together at the hearing, in the absence of their mother and her husband.
KXU is almost 17 and in year 11 at high school. She told me she had wanted to change her name for a long time and that in particular she wanted to share her mother's name. Prior to her mother's recent marriage her mother was known by her maiden name. Her mother has now changed her name to her husband's name, and she now wanted to change her name to that name.
KXU told me that she does not think of YDX as her father as she feels he has never behaved as a father to her. She said that in the past when she lived with her mother and YDX she had seen a great deal of violence from him which had been distressing and frightening, and she also saw him as very neglectful of her. She said he was frequently a very absent father, and then he "just disappeared". She said that after that she found "he had made a whole new family behind my back". She had found this very distressing, and was clearly very distressed about it at the hearing.
KXU said that when she had tried to confront her father with her feelings and concerns he had lied to her and told her that her mother "had just made him the bad guy", and he refused to be responsible for any of her concerns and distress. She said that in about 2018 she had received a letter from him but he had just denied the past. She said she had not seen him for many years and did not want to see him. She said she did not feel he was in any real sense her father, and she did not want to share a name with him.
KXU said that she understood she was Aboriginal and she identified as an Aboriginal woman. She said her mother had supported and encouraged her in this and she was engaged with various Aboriginal groups with her school and for pre-university study and support. She said she did not believe any change in her surname would change the way in which she was able to engage with this part of her culture.
KXU said she had good relationships with her stepfather and his daughters, who are older than her. She said she wanted to share her mother's and their name as this would give her a real sense of inclusion in the wider family. She said she would not want a different surname to DZM.
[20]
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) 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.
The following is a summary of the relevant principles and criteria that I must consider as I understand them to now apply:
[21]
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;
2. The short and long term effects of any change of the child's surname;
[22]
Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if his/her name is different from that of the parent with custody or care and control;
[23]
Any confusion of identity which may arise for the child if his or her name is changed or is not changed;
2. The effect which any change in surname may have on the relationship between the child and the parent whose name the child bore during the marriage or relationship;
3. The effect of frequent or random changes of name;
4. The advantages both in the short term and in the long term which will accrue to the child if his or her name remains as it is now;
5. The contact that the other parent has had and is likely to have in the future with the child; and
6. The degree of identification that the child will now have with each parent.
At the hearing ESR told the Tribunal that neither she nor the children have had any contact with or from the father YDX since 2018 when Family Court Orders were finalised, and little contact with him before that since about 2010. She and YDX married in 2001 and KXU was born in 2003, but they separated and divorced in 2006-7. Subsequently they reconciled for a period and in that time DZM was born in 2009. They then finally separated in 2010.
ESR said their relationship was marked by domestic violence and there are intervention orders in place in relation to YDX's contact with her and both children. She said the last contacts the children had with their father had been through family assessments through the Family Court in 2015 and 2018. She said YDX was able to arrange contact with DZM every six weeks through intermediaries, but either he does not do so or DZM does not wish to see him. She said there had never been any Christmas or birthday contacts or gifts from YDX to the children.
ESR said she believed it was in the children's best interests to change their name because they wished to do so, and because they did not want to have a connection with their father who was only a negative aspect of their lives. She said that it would also be valuable in enabling them to feel included in their whole family now that she had changed her name upon her recent marriage.
ESR said that she did not believe that changing their surname would impact on their sense of Aboriginality. She said both girls were aware of this aspect of their heritage and she encouraged them to be involved in Aboriginal school programs and to explore and embrace this aspect of their heritage. She said that she was not aware of any particular Aboriginality in the father's surname and Aboriginality had not seemed a significant issue when she and YDX had lived together.
[24]
The principal consideration governing the Tribunal's decision in relation to these applications is what is in the best interests of the children.
It appeared to me in this matter that the presentation of applications are influenced to a considerable degree by both parents desire to rake over their protracted Family Court proceedings. I am not able to reach any conclusions on the matters raised by the parents concerning their past relationship or the way they have dealt with their children, but in any event these considerations are largely irrelevant. The issue before me is the best interests of the children. However I accept YDX's statements that he loved the children and wanted to and tried to establish ongoing connections with them.
In reaching my conclusions on this matter I am in particular impressed by the statements of KXU at the hearing. She appeared an assured and articulate young woman. I note she is almost 17 and in 12 months or so she will be in a position to make her own application for a change of name and would not need the approval of her parents or the Tribunal. I raised this with her at the hearing and she indicated that if approval was not given to this application this is what she would do once she turns 18, but that she wanted to change her name now as this would give her a better sense of agency in her own life. It was clear at the hearing that she felt very strongly about the matter. DZM was not able to articulate a view on this issue, but it was very clear that the children each feel strongly that they want to share the same surname. In this sense the wishes of the children are very clear, and I am satisfied that KXU's wishes in wanting to change her name are strongly and cogently held.
I am satisfied that the effect of any change of name in the short term would be positive for KXU. She spoke strongly about her feelings in disassociating herself from her absent father and obtaining an enhanced sense of family if she changed her name to her mother's married name, as she would then share this name with the other members of the household. It does not seem to be the case that any change of name will impact on the contact or relationship either child has with their father since (for whatever reason) there is no contact at the moment and it is likely in the future that any resumption of contact will require some independent act by the children.
[25]
1.1. Pursuant to s 25(2) of the Act, the Tribunal approves the proposed change of surname of the child KXU from the father's surname to the mother's surname.
[26]
1.2. Pursuant to s 25(2) of the Act, the Tribunal approves the proposed change of surname of the child DZM from the father's surname to the mother's surname.
[27]
1.3. An application for registration of the proposed changes of name may be made by the applicant to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages within one month from the date of this order.
Legislation Cited (3)
Deaths and Marriages Act 1996
Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996
Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
AI Analysis
Outcomeplaintiff
Disposition:
Pursuant to s 25(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (SA), the Tribunal approves the proposed change of surname of the child KXU and the child DZM from the father's surname to the mother's surname; application for registration may be made within one month.
I also spoke to DZM. However she was not really able to articulate her views on the proposed change of name, although she made it clear she wanted to have the same surname as KXU.
I am not satisfied that DZM has an understanding of the meaning and implications of a change of name and accordingly it is not clear that she consents to the proposed change of name. However, it is clear that KXU does have a good understanding of the issues here, and I am satisfied that she does consent to the proposed change of name.
I am satisfied that the requirements of s 26 are satisfied. I accept that KXU does consent to the proposed change of name, but that DZM does not have a sufficient understanding of the meaning and implication of a change of name to consent.
I spoke separately to YDX and ESR decided she did not wish to hear what he told the Tribunal or to be in a position to respond to this.
YDX told the Tribunal he had fought for seven years in the Family Court to maintain a connection with the children. He said he had not abandoned the children or made no effort toward them, but that this was the only version the children knew because they only heard what their mother told them. He agreed there had been no relationship between him and the children for the past 10 years, but he said that was because ESR had prevented this.
YDX told the Tribunal that he had attempted to remain in touch with the children but he believed this was prevented by ESR. He said he had sent Christmas presents and cards to the children. He said he was not permitted to do so directly because of the nature of the intervention order in place, but he had sent these through his lawyer. He said he did not know if these were ever sent on or passed to the children by ESR.
He said that as KXU would be 18 next year her name change should wait till then when she could make up her own mind.
YDX also spoke of the cultural significance of his surname. He said this is a well-known Aboriginal name in Grafton NSW where his family comes from. He said he was concerned that if the children changed their surname they might lose their future connection to their family, as it would be more difficult for family to recognise or know they were part of family. He said the children might need or want these family connections in the future.
YDX said he loved his children but felt this was the "last nail in the coffin" of his attempts to keep a connection with them.
YDX raised the issue of the proposed change of name setting up a barrier making it more difficult for the children to have future connections with their Aboriginal family. In my view this is a difficult and important issue. Clearly names are an important familial aspect of making connections in the Aboriginal community (as it is in other communities, but there are special considerations which apply in communities that are often fragmented and separated). However I am satisfied in this matter that the children are growing up with a good understanding of their ethnicity and are connecting to Aboriginal culture in this state. KXU spoke positively about her active engagement with Aboriginal culture and programs and I am satisfied that she is supported by her mother, and that DZM is also aware of her background and this aspect of her culture. I am also satisfied that her desire to change her name is not associated with any desire to discard her Aboriginal identity and this will not be a necessary consequence of it. I appreciate that these considerations do not entirely address the issues raised by YDX, but I must balance those considerations with other matters which affect the children's best interests, as well as recognising the fact that a name is not the only connection shared with or identifying family.
I am quite satisfied that KXU feels very strongly that it is in her best interests to change her name, and this will give her confidence, and sense of agency and control over her own circumstances, and a inclusion in her present family. I accept that this is a carefully considered view. Given her age and her careful consideration of the issue, I accept that the proposed change of name is in her best interests.
ESR, KXU and DZM all expressed the view that they did not want the children to have different names to each other. KXU said she would not change her name unless DZM's name was also changed. I am of the view that it would not be in DZM's best interests to have a different surname to KXU, and under these circumstances the proposed change of name is also in her best interests.
Taking these considerations into account the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed change of name is in the children's best interests and approval for the proposed change will be granted.