Norris (a pseudonym) v Hewitt (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 545
•29 August 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not restricted Suitable for Publication |
| ADOPTIONS, SURROGACY AND NAME CHANGE LIST |
| CLAUDIA NORRIS (a pseudonym) | Applicant |
| v | |
| SAMUEL HEWITT (a pseudonym) | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE TSIKARIS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 6 May 2025 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 29 August 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Norris (a pseudonym) v Hewitt (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 545 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION
Catchwords: Application for an approval of proposed change of name of children – mother seeking hyphenated surname – objection by the father – whether a change of name is in the best interests of the children.
Legislation Cited: Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (Vic)
Cases Cited: In the marriage of Chapman, A.L and Palmer, R.J. [1978] FamCA 86; Chou & Parsons [2017] FamCA 65; Devlin & Barta [2007] FamCA 512; In the marriage of George, TJ and Radford JM (1976) 25 FLR 40; Hurley & Simpson [2016] FamCA 139; Jordan & Klemmer [2014] FCCA 2233; Judd v Cotton [2016] FCCA 2306; Lewis & Hing [2011] FamCA 30; Minchini & Stacey [2012] FamCA 738; Porritt & Dunford [2019] FCCA 1146; Sakhagi & Brawn [2017] FamCA 178; Soler & Berendt [2013] FamCA 853; Vine & Wands [2013] FCCA 2284
Judgment: The application is granted.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors | |
| For the Applicant | Mr J Langford (a pseudonym) from Emma House Domestic & Family Violence Services | ||
| For the Respondent | In person | ||
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1The applicant is the mother of Riley Sam Hewitt[1] and Jesse Rory Hewitt[2] (“the children”) who were both born in March 2018 in Victoria. The respondent is the father of the children. The applicant seeks approval of a proposed change of name of her children pursuant to section 26(4) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (Vic) (‘the Act’).
[1] A pseudonym
[2] A pseudonym
2The applicant seeks to change the children’s surname to Norris-Hewitt, a hyphenated surname.
3The respondent objects to the hyphenated surname.
4In support of her application, the applicant has affirmed affidavits:
(a) on 23 May 2024 together with the exhibits referred to therein; and
(b) on 25 March 2025.
5The respondent relies on the following affidavits he has:
(a) sworn on 5 August 2024; and
(b) affirmed on 6 March 2025.
6The applicant’s solicitor, Mr Langford[3], and the respondent made submissions at the hearing which took place on 6 May 2025.
[3] A pseudonym
Background
7The applicant and the respondent commenced a de-facto relationship in 2008.
8The children were born in March 2018. The applicant last resided with the respondent on or about 18 May 2018.
9On 4 March 2020 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia made the following parenting orders:
a)The applicant have sole parental responsibility of the children;
b)The children live with the applicant;
c)The respondent is entitled to have contact with the children as outlined in the Orders; and
d)The applicant be allowed to obtain passports for the children and take them overseas without the respondent’s consent.
10On 20 January 2023, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria made a Family Violence Final Intervention Order (‘FVIO’) which expires on 19 January 2028, against the respondent, protecting the applicant and children as the affected family members. The FVIO contains the exception that the respondent may have contact, through a lawyer or mediator, for matters under the Family Law Act1975 Cth, provided the respondent does not engage in prohibited conduct.
11The applicant sought the respondent’s consent to the name change on several occasions in 2023, which was not forthcoming, prior to making this application.
12The applicant deposed that the respondent last had personal contact with the children on 21 April 2024. The respondent was having supervised contact with the children every second weekend, but contact ceased pending mediation pursuant to the parenting orders.
13The respondent disputes this and deposed that he had contact with the children on 27 and 28 July 2024 and was maintaining ongoing involvement and regular contact with them on a fortnightly basis. He deposed that he was seeking legal advice, and it was his intention to obtain joint parental responsibility. At the time of the hearing, the respondent had not progressed any application to vary the parenting orders.
14The respondent has not made any financial contribution to the children apart from one year of school fees for each child.
15On 10 December 2024, at a Directions Hearing before her Honour Judge Sanger, the respondent was initially prepared to agree to hyphenating the children’s surnames to ‘Hewitt-Norris’. The respondent subsequently withdrew any such agreement and maintains his opposition to the application.
The relevant principles
16Section 26(4) of the Act provides that the Court may approve a proposed change of name for a child if the Court is satisfied that the change is in the child’s best interests. In the Family Court of Australia, the issue of the change of name of a child has arisen with some frequency. The leading case is In the marriage of Chapman, A.L. and Palmer, R.J.[4] The Full Court, comprising Evatt CJ, Asche and Marshall SJJ, reviewed a number of relevant authorities, and arrived at a summary of the following factors which a court should have regard to in determining a change of name application:[5]
“To summarise, the factors to which the Courts should have regard in determining whether there should be any change in the surname of a child include the following:
(a)The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration,
(b)The short and long term effects of any change in the child’s surname,
(c)Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if its name is different from that of the parent with custody or care and control,
(d)Any confusion of identity which may arise for the child if his or her name is changed or is not changed,
(e)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,
(f)The effect of frequent or random changes of name.”
[4] [1978] FamCA 86 (‘Chapman’)
[5]Ibid [56]
17The Full Court also made a number of observations which I consider to be of considerable relevance to this application. In relation to the desires of the parents of a child it said:[6]
“In regard to the surname of a child, the change or retention of a particular name may affect the child in a number of ways. The most common situation is one in which the desire of the father to maintain a close relationship and identity with the child is in conflict with the desire of [the] mother, on remarriage, to establish a new family unit, identifiable as such. The desires of the parents are, however, of secondary importance when put alongside the welfare and the wishes of the child in question.”
[6]Chapman [42]
18It emphasised that the promotion of the welfare of the child surpassed the wishes of the parents and stated:[7]
“[T]he issue before the Court is always the same – what should be done to promote the welfare of the child. The Court is concerned only with that issue.”
[7]Ibid [43]
19The approach to be adopted by the Court was stated as follows:[8]
“The general principle appears to be that the Court will not intervene to prevent a parent from changing the surname of a child in the custody or care and control of that parent (or to direct that a name be restored where a change has occurred), unless the Court is satisfied that the change was made without the consent of the other parent and that it does not promote the welfare of the child.”
[8]Ibid [44]
20The reasoning in Chapman has been applied in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Submissions
21The applicant submitted that the name change is in the best interests of the children for the following reasons:[9]
(a) It would prevent any embarrassment or confusion for the children in having to explain their relationship with the applicant, given their surnames have no connection to their mother. This was particularly relevant if they were to travel interstate and overseas, as well as for school and for appointments.
(b) The name change would better reflect the current legal arrangements for the children, as the applicant has sole parental responsibility, and therefore promote their welfare.
(c) Hyphenating the last names of the children would promote the relationship with the applicant without reducing the connection to the respondent. This would provide clarity with respect to the applicant’s relationship with her children.
(d) The hyphenated surnames would reflect both parents’ families and ensure both parents’ families are recognised, providing the children with a connection to both sides of their heritage.
(e) The children have a deceased sibling whose name is engraved on the head stone as ‘Cameron Riley Oscar Hewitt (Norris)’ and hyphenating the children’s surnames would promote their connection to their deceased sibling.
(f) The length of the children’s surnames does not have a bearing on whether the change is in their best interests.
[9] Affidavits of Claudia Norris (a pseudonym) affirmed on 23 May 2024 and 25 March 2025
22The respondent submitted that:[10]
(a) Changing the names that the children have had since birth may cause confusion, identity issues, and instability.
(b) The parenting orders reflect the current legal arrangements and the relationship with both parents. The respondent is the non-custodial parent and changing their names would negatively impact their sense of identity as well as their connection and relationship to the respondent.
(c) The respondent maintains that as the children’s father, he has a right to have a significant say in decisions affecting his children’s life, including any changes to their names. Considerable weight should be given to the respondent’s ongoing involvement and regular contact with the children.
(d) The children may experience embarrassment if their names are different to the names that they have been known by in their community, school and social circles. This does not promote the welfare of the children.
(e) The children should not be subjected to frequent, arbitrary, or random changes of names.
(f) Changing the children’s names would not assist the relationship with the respondent and applicant in relation to co-parenting of the children. The application was brought to alienate the respondent from the children, and it will cause further alienation between the children and the respondent.
[10] Affidavits of Samuel Hewitt (a pseudonym) sworn on 5 August 2024 and 6 March 2025
Discussion
23Both parties referred me to a number of cases and decisions to which I should have regard in determining the best interests of the children.
24In support of his submissions, the respondent relied on the decisions of Devlin & Barta[11] and Chapman and claimed that in both of these decisions the Court refused the mother’s application for a name change as the change in name was not in the best interests of the children as it would cause them embarrassment and confusion of identity. He also referred me to a number of other decisions in which he submitted that applications for change of name were denied,[12] as well as to the decision of Porritt v Dunford where an application was granted.[13]
[11][2007] FamCA 512 (‘Devlin’)
[12]Lewis & Hing [2011] FamCA 30; Minchini & Stacey [2012] FamCA 738; Sakhagi & Brawn [2017] FamCA 178; Soler & Berendt [2013] FamCA 853; Hurley & Simpson [2016] FamCA 139; Judd v Cotton [2016] FCCA 2306
[13][2019] FCCA 1146
25In addition to referring to the above cases, the solicitor for the applicant referred the Court to Chou & Parsons[14] and Vine and Wands[15] as instances where the Courts had approved a change to a hyphenated surname.
[14][2017] FamCA 65
[15][2013] FCCA 2284
26In Devlin, the Court accepted that the principles governing an application for a name change were clearly set out in Chapman, and that in deciding the issue of a name change, in each case, there was no onus of proof, but the trial judge was vested in a discretion to balance factors for and against such a change. The clear guiding principle was whether it is in the best interests of the children, and that stood above the wishes or proprietary interests of the parents. Rather than denying the application as submitted by the respondent, the Court granted the application and held:[16]
“… it would be in the best interests in the particular and discrete circumstances of the proceedings before me that the children should bear the hyphenated surname as sought. It seems to me that that would be in their best interests, which is the paramount consideration. There are no short-term disadvantages associated with such an order. It seems to me that such an order would provide positive long-term effects advantaging the children’s welfare in the future. It is clear that as matters stand the mother has the essential primary care of the children and is charged with their principal day-to-day care, together with long-term care, welfare and development. The father now has, pursuant to the orders of the court, and consented to by the mother, time to reinforce and maintain a meaningful relationship with the children. It also seems to me that in circumstances where the mother has the primary care of the children yet carries a different name from theirs it could lead to confusion if that were to continue. There is a clear pathway to confusion in relation to such matters as schooling, registration, reports, medical activities and other activities.”
[16]Devlin [22]-[24]
27The respondent also referred to In the marriage of George, TJ and Radford JM,[17] a case where the mother of the children changed the children’s names by deed poll to the name of her new partner, who had no biological connection to the children, and without the consent of the father. The father sought a declaration that the change was invalid. The Court observed that in the case of a divided family, it was always one of the aims of the Court to maintain the child’s contact, respect and affection for both parents so far as the circumstances will permit.[18] It was not in the best interests of a child to deprive them of their father’s surname because it would be injurious to the link between the father and the child. Whilst this was decided before Chapman, the principles guiding the Court were:[19]
“(a) the final decision must be governed not by supposed parental right but must be in the best interests of the children;
(b) short-term embarrassment must be weighed against long-term effects;
(c) where the father has a meaningful relationship with his children they should, unless there is a clear contra-indication bearing on their welfare, bear his name;
(d) children should not be subjected unnecessarily to a confusion of identity;
(e) a parent does not have the right unilaterally to change the surname of children in his or her custody or care and control: such a change requires the consent of both parents, or an order of the relevant court.”
[17](1976) 25 FLR 401
[18] Ibid [12]
[19]Ibid [15]
28The Court accepted that every child has a right to know both parents and to share a relationship with them both. This should not be weakened by unilateral decisions based on experience or some personal motive of the custodial parent.
29In Jordan & Klemmer,[20] the mother was restrained from changing the children’s surname from the father’s surname to hers alone in circumstances where the mother admitted to wanting to eliminate the father from the children’s lives and held entrenched views that the father should not be a part of the children’s lives. The Court made findings that the mother, her husband and the maternal grandmother were actively seeking to undermine the father’s relationship with the children, contrary to the best interests of the child. To avoid further litigation in respect of the naming issue and because of the Court’s findings about the mother’s attitude to parenting, the Court considered it imperative that the children’s names be not changed.
[20][2014] FCCA 2233
30Lewis & Hing[21] was another example of where the mother sought to unilaterally change the child’s name to hers only. The Court observed that the child likely held a view which rejected or diminished her identification by her father’s surname, but this was entirely the creation of the mother who wanted the change as part of her quest to undermine the child’s relationship with the father. The Court was satisfied that to help ensure that the child identified sufficiently with her father, the mother should use only his surname, and her name should not be part of the child’s name whether with or without a hyphen or as one of her middle names.
[21][2011] FamCA 30
31In Soler & Berendt,[22] the mother sought to hyphenate the child’s surname to reflect the father’s name and her new married name. The Court dismissed the application in the context of the inter-parental relationships as it held that it was important for the purposes of the child’s relationship with his father that he retain the father’s surname. This would provide the child a valuable reminder of his relationship with the father, and it was not in the child’s best interests to have the name changed to a hyphenated name including the stepfather’s surname.
[22][2013] FamCA 853
32In Hurley & Simpson,[23] the mother sought an order for sole parental responsibility together with an order that the child’s surname be changed to her surname. The independent children's lawyer proposed that the surname be changed to a hyphenated name and the father proposed that no change be made to the child’s surname. The Court held that it would be useful for the child’s future sense of identity to retain the surname of her father, and retention of the father’s surname might also assist in fostering a more expansive relationship between the child and the father in the future.
[23][2016] FamCA 139
33In Judd v Cotton,[24] the Court was concerned that if the child’s surname was changed to a hyphenated surname, in the absence of goodwill and commitment to the new surname by both parents, this could be a catalyst for further conflict and resentment between the parents. It could also present difficulties for the child and would not be in the child’s best interests, unless both parents were consistently supportive. For those reasons it refused the application for a change.
[24][2016] FCCA 2306
34In Porritt & Dunford, the father wanted the child to retain his surname, and the mother sought for her surname to be hyphenated and included in the child’s surname. The Court held that the child’s surname be hyphenated and reflect surnames of both the father and mother as:[25]
“… a change of surname in the short term, whilst posing some inconvenience to the parties, will not have a lasting negative impact on the child. I therefore find that a change of surname to include the mother’s surname will have a positive long-term impact on the child, as it will provide the child with links to her diversified heritage and identity with both her mother and father, without taking away the importance of the sole surname of “Porritt”, which the child has experienced for the first five years of her life.”
[25][2019] FCCA 1146 [21]-[22]
35Although the respondent relied on Minchini & Stacey as a case where a name change was denied, the Court was satisfied that a hyphenated name was appropriate given the parents shared equal parental responsibility, and “the child henceforth be known as B Stacey-Minchini.”[26]
[26][2012] FamCA 738 [15]
36Sakhagi & Brawn[27] was another decision that the respondent relied on where he stated that the application for a name change was denied. However, this was a case where the Court ordered the child’s name be changed solely to the mother’s surname as the child had been known by this name for the entirety of the child’s life with the father’s knowledge and without objection. Neither party in that instance was interested in a hyphenated name.
[27][2017] FamCA 178
37The applicant referred me to Chou & Parsons[28] where the Court held that in circumstances where parents have separated when children are very young, the advantage of a hyphenated or combined surname is that it combines elements of each part of the children’s heritage. A change to a hyphenated surname would enable each of the children to have their paternal and maternal identity recognised in their name which is in the best interests of both children.
[28][2017] FamCA 65
38In Vine & Wands[29], the Court observed that hyphenated surnames are not uncommon in Australian society and have been so for many years. The parties were not married at the time of the birth of the child and the Court observed that it was of no consequence that at the time of registration, the child was given the name of the father. The child had meaningful relationships with both parents and there was no good reason for the child to bear only his surname.
[29][2013] FCCA 2284
Disposition
39Ultimately, the mother’s application needs to be considered in the context of the particular facts.
40The applicant deposed that there was discussion in relation to hyphenating the children’s surname prior to the birth of the children and the birth of Cameron, but the respondent would not agree to anything other than the children having his surname at that time, so she felt she had no other option but to agree. She deposed that her persistence in having the last name ‘Norris’ engraved on Cameron’s headstone demonstrated her commitment to wanting her children to carry her last name, as well as that of the respondent’s.
41She attempted to enrol the children in school using a hyphenated name at the commencement of their schooling, further demonstrating her commitment to the use of a hyphenated name. After establishing that she was unable to enrol the children with hyphenated names, she commenced this application. However, prior to doing so she sought the respondent’s consent on a number of occasions, which was not forthcoming. The respondent maintains there was no discussion prior to the children’s birth of a hyphenated surname and that they had decided against a hyphenated name when Cameron was born due to the length of the name.
42I accept the applicant’s evidence, given its consistency, that the question of the children’s surname was the subject of discussion at the time of their births, and that at the time, she agreed to the children bearing only the respondent’s last name as she felt she had no other option. In addition, it should be noted that the applicant agreed to this at a time when the parties were still in a relationship and living together. The relationship has since broken down; they are no longer living together; the children spend the bulk of their time with the applicant and the applicant has been granted sole parental responsibility.
43The applicant should not be expected to abide by an agreement made when the parties’ circumstances were entirely different. The Court in Chou & Parsons observed that separated parents should not necessarily be bound by agreements they made prior to separation especially where for reasons relating to the child’s best interests, it is appropriate for the child’s surname to be changed.[30] In my view, these observations are highly apposite.
[30][2017] FamCA 65 [321]
44In today’s society, it is not unusual to have a significant number of children attending school from blended families with names different to their siblings or from one or other parent, or having hyphenated names, and there is a general acceptance of this.
45I see no reason why the children in this application should be known by the last name of the father, to the exclusion of the mother’s last name. The length of the hyphenated name or its spelling are not reasons to reject the application given how common hyphenated names are.
46I see no disadvantage either short term or long term for the children in this application having hyphenated names. The children are still young and have only just commenced primary school. They have only been known by their current name for a relatively short time and are at the beginning of their schooling. In my view, a change of surname can easily be facilitated at this stage of their development and schooling and is unlikely to cause anything other than a minor administrative inconvenience if undertaken at this phase of their lives. Such a change incorporating both parents’ surnames at a relatively young age, is particularly important before they reach adolescence when issues such as identity and sense of self are explored, values and beliefs are tested, and they undergo significant emotional and physical changes.
47The applicant has had sole parental responsibility pursuant to the parenting orders dated 4 March 2020. She has had the primary care of the children and has been responsible for their day-to-day care, as well as their long-term care, welfare and development. The respondent has been able to maintain a meaningful relationship with the children, notwithstanding the relationship breakdown. It is clearly in the children’s best interests to continue to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, and I am of the view that this ought to be reflected in their surname. I am also of the view that in circumstances where the mother has the primary care of the children yet carries a different name to theirs, this could lead to confusion in not only matters concerning their schooling but with matters such as registration, reports, medical activities, and other activities. This is a clear pathway to confusion and embarrassment.
48The applicant is not seeking to change the children’s name solely to her name or to the name of a partner with whom they have no biological connection. Therefore, this application is distinguishable from the facts in Soler & Berendt and In the marriage of George, where the Court found in each case that it was not in the children’s best interests for their names to be changed to reflect a new family unit and take on the name of a stepfather.
49Moreover, the applicant has not sought to change the children’s name to hers alone or to separate the children from their father by making this application. She has recognised the need for the children to have a connection with the respondent’s family, the same way that she seeks the children to have a connection to her family. She has not sought to alienate the father from the children or to encourage the children to reject their identification with their father. On the contrary, she has brought this application so as to reinforce the importance of each parent to the children and to ensure they understand their heritage and connection to both families. I consider that she has demonstrated a mature attitude in her approach in this application unlike the mothers that were criticised by the Courts in Jordan v Klemmer and Lewis & Hing.
50The applicant has specifically deposed that she will not attempt to remove the father’s surname in the future as she recognises the need for her children to have a connection to the respondent’s family as well as her own, and I accept her evidence in this regard.
51I am satisfied that it is in the children’s best interests for their surnames to be changed to Norris-Hewitt. It will assist in the development of their sense of self to know that they are connected to both parents. A change to a hyphenated name acknowledging the applicant’s surname will also honour the children’s connection to their deceased sibling. In addition, as the children grow older and travel overseas with one or the other parent, it would less likely be a cause of embarrassment, inconvenience or confusion to the children if they have a surname that incorporates the surnames of both parents. The potential for embarrassment, confusion or inconvenience is far greater in my view if the children were to travel overseas with the applicant and they do not share a name with her.
52Although the Court has noted that conflict has been a feature of the relationship between the applicant and respondent, it is hoped that with the resolution of the issue of the children’s surname, this will at least remove one source of disagreement between them. The change in name will not undermine the children’s respect or affection for the respondent, nor should it impact on the co-parenting of the children. The hyphenated name will reflect the children’s heritage and origins and should remind both parties that the interests of their children are paramount; that their best interests are advanced by maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents. Having heard submissions from both parents I am confident that there is good will on the part of both parents to act in the best interests of their children. Moreover, I expect that the use of the hyphenated surname will be supported and accepted by the respondent.
53It follows for the reasons set out above, that as I am satisfied the children’s names should be changed to Norris-Hewitt, I will grant the application.
0
11
0