she has my surname at the moment. my fiance is not her biological dad. her real dad does see her and provide for her, but we were never married. i would really like her to have the same surname as any future children that i might have. please advice.
2006-07-19 22:15:17 · 8 answers · asked by Mic 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
I don't see why not. You may have to go through a legal process to change the name, but it definitely makes sense. It will probably make your family feel closer too. Go for it while she is still young.
2006-07-19 22:18:46 · answer #1 · answered by im.in.college.so.i.know.stuff 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the biological father does provide for the baby, dont see any wrong why should he be denied the right to name his child after him. That child isn't just for U alone, U shouldn't think only about ur future family but also think about her future, she'll ask you one day...for your future children when they'll get the age of reasoning U will explain to them clearly why do they have a different name with their elder and them...I'm sure they will understand U...Plz dont try to mask things U may regret it later...
2006-07-19 23:23:01 · answer #2 · answered by benird 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, the "you should" and "ensure the child's future" stuff seems a bit melodramatic.
But yes, a name change is a trivial thing to do. Happens all the time.
2006-07-19 22:19:22 · answer #3 · answered by djbreslin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My suggestion: evaluate the custom of passing alongside the mum's surname via utilising it as a center call for the little ones, the two woman and male. This grew to become into often carried out in the two my very own kinfolk and my husband's. They have been English surnames, so the custom labored somewhat nicely. So, whilst Susan Wright marries John Meade, she will become Susan Wright Meade. Their little ones could be George Wright Meade, Jennifer Wright Meade, and so on. In later existence, they are in a position to easily use the middle preliminary "W." fairly in the adventure that your surnames might seem amazing whilst blended, it would be greater perfect to not undertake that obsolescent top-type British custom of hyphenating them. One case of hyphenated surnames i've got truthfully considered: Susan Milbank, a center-elderly lady, nicely-everyday in her occupation and not in any respect married earlier, married Henry Johnson, a guy who'd been divorced. She needed to maintain her very own call extensive-unfold in the employer community, and she or he did not choose to be categorized "the 2nd Mrs. Johnson", so she makes use of the surname "Milbank-Johnson". She has a separate itemizing in the yellow pages, alphabetized under "Milbank-Johnson", besides as a results of fact the kinfolk itemizing under "Johnson". Letters to them as a pair are wisely addressed "Mr. Henry Johnson and Ms. Susan Milbank-Johnson", all on a similar line as a results of fact they seem to be a married couple. ("Mrs." used with a woman first call – Mrs. Susan Milbank-Johnson – isn't ideal.) of path those are all made-up names.
2016-11-02 09:46:28 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That really a good idea. Your future husband need to adopt her.
2006-07-19 22:18:29 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes you can change the childs name.My brother in law adopted his fiancees child legally and had a naming ceremony as part of their wedding,nice touch that.
2006-07-19 22:20:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes you can and you should to insure the child future .
2006-07-19 22:18:25 · answer #7 · answered by Sidd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think u should put her father's surname.
2006-07-19 22:17:38 · answer #8 · answered by Princess illusion 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋