CS v SMR

[2016] QMC 12

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CS v SMR [2016] QMC 12

PARTIES:

CS

v

SMR

FILE NO/S:

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Change of Name Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Redcliffe

DELIVERED ON:

22 March, 2016

HEARING DATE:

25 February, 2016

MAGISTRATE:

M Bucknall

ORDER:

The application is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CASES:

LEGISLATION:

Change of Name, Best interests of a child

Chapman v Palmer [1978] FLC 90-510
Mahoub & Ferrante [2013] Fam CA 905
The Marriage of Beach W.G.R. and Stemmler, G.E. 1979 (FLC) 90-692
In the Marriage of ARTHUR-J R B and COMBEN, S (1977) FLC 90-245

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 (Qld)
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Regulation 2015
Family Law Act 1975

Background

1. This is an application whereby the applicant mother seeks an order of the court that the surnames of the two children the subject of the application be changed from their current surname of “CS” to “C”. 

1. The application first came before the Court on the 6^th of October 2015.

1. On that date the application was adjourned to the Registry to be brought back on after the parties had attended mediation.

1. The Acting Magistrate at the time noted that the father had expressed a strong desire for the children to retain his name and for the matter to proceed to mediation.

1. The matter was before me on 25 February 2016 when a hearing took place. 

1. The hearing was conducted in part on the papers whereby I considered the mother’s application and an affidavit sworn by the mother on 30 April 2015 and further I heard evidence from both the mother and the respondent father

1. It was the case that the matter did proceed to a mediation prior to the hearing and a parenting plan was tendered and received as Exhibit 1.

1. I note that paragraph 1 of that parenting plan provided that each of the parents will have equal shared responsibility for the children and further that the children are to live with the mother and to spend time with the father as set out in the parenting plan.

1. The father gave evidence that he was opposed to the making of an order providing for a change of the children’s names.

1. He further indicated that he wished to play a significant part in the children’s lives and that in his view since the mother had remarried that the applicant had attempted to frustrate his relationship with the two children. 

1. The basis of the mother’s application is that she has remarried and now goes by the hyphenated name of “CT”, “T” being the name of her new husband.

1. She also indicated in the affidavit in support of her application that both children were originally known by the name of “S”.

1. In 2012 following an application made by her names of both children were changed to “CS” so as to include her maiden name.  She also deposes in her affidavit that subsequent to the children’s names being changed in 2012 that Mr T and herself have had a…