The Court of Appeal (CoA) was faced with a question regarding a change of given name. 

Background:

C is one of three children caught up in bitter litigation between their parents regarding their living and contact arrangements. When C was 12, ‘they’ told their parents that they believed themselves to be non-binary. They wished to be known by a new given name, which, while retaining the initials of their male given name, was substituted by a gender-neutral name.

C’s decision to be non-binary led to a serious rift between them and their father. In December 2021 the mother took C to their GP for a referral to the Gender Identification Service. The father did not consider C to be sufficiently mature to make decisions about their gender identity. The father also refuses to use C's preferred given name, while C refused to have their medical information passed on to their father. 

The father issued an application on the 31st of August 2023 under the Children Act 1989 to have access to medical information and other procedures regarding their gender change. The mother responded on the 13th of September 2023 with an application for a Specific Issue Order which would permit C to change their given name and surname. This application was dismissed in June 2024. The Children’s Guardian appealed against that decision. 

Decision: 

The CoA overturned the High Court’s decision by ruling in favour of a non-binary teenager's request to legally change their given name. The Court noted that the established law is identical for both a surname change and a forename change.

Lady Justice King emphasised that the welfare of the child is paramount. The fact that C consistently used their chosen name over a significant period of 3 years should be legally recognised. The previous decision failed to give sufficient weight to C's wishes and feelings which is against the welfare principle. The Lower Court also erred by not looking at the “challenges C faces both physically and emotionally”. Their wishes concerning their name “relate to their strongly held sense of social personal identity and not simply to their gender identity, and their desire for legal recognition of their chosen given name is not solely anchored to being non-binary, although that was the reason for the initial change.”

The right of C under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is fully engaged for a name change and would normally outweigh the rights of those with parental responsibility. 
The Court also made it clear that the Judge of the Lower Court should have referred to C using their gender-neutral name. The Court also rejected the argument that C would be able to ‘undertake all legal formalities for himself in a short while’ as C would have to wait much longer due to the child arrangement order in place. 

Implications:

This is a significant judgement for non-binary people. The child’s welfare is paramount and Article 8 of the ECHR empowers minors to have their voice heard, even in case of parental objections. This judgement emphasised this judgement is not only regarding gender identity but more broadly concerns a young person’s right to self-identity. 

This case also makes it clear that a change in a given name should be treated with equal importance as a request for changing a surname.