An unmarried father who objects to the forenames chosen by his estranged partner for their baby daughter has secured a temporary High Court order restraining the registration of the month-old child's birth.
Mr Justice Frank Clarke heard yesterday that the father had proposed dozens of different forenames for the child but that the mother was not happy with any of them. The father was objecting not just to the names chosen but to the process under which details of a child's birth are registered, a process which was a "grave inequality" to him.
The mother, the court was told, has now picked three names which she intends to register. The father said he is unhappy with the first name and the "insensitive use" of his deceased mother's name as a second name without his agreement. He said the mother had told him the naming of the child is non-negotiable and he is upset at being excluded from the process.
The judge granted a temporary injunction to Conor Power BL, for the man, returnable to Monday next, restraining the registration, which the court was told was due to proceed today, of the details of his daughter's birth. The injunction is against the Registrar of Births and the State, while the child's mother is a notice party to the proceedings.
The injunction was granted on an ex parte basis - only one side represented - and, on the application of the father's counsel, another injunction was granted restraining the identification of any of the parties involved.
In an affidavit, the father said he was extremely concerned the mother would proceed with registration and that his child's names would be chosen without any meaningful engagement with him and without any regard for his wishes.
The court heard the woman, who had a five-year relationship with the child's father, had indicated she intended registering the birth today and intended to go away as soon as the child's passport was issued.
The man wrote to the superintendent registrar of the Health Service Executive Eastern Region in Lombard Street requesting he delay the registration of the child's name until the father could be engaged in the decision-making process by the mother.
However, the superintendent was powerless to prevent the proposed registration.
In his proceedings, the father is challenging the validity of Sections 19 and 22 of the Civil Registration Act 2004, which require the parents of a child to register the details of the birth within three months.
He contends there is no obligation on the unmarried father of a child to register the birth details, and therefore no right to require that the birth details, including the forenames of the child, are entered on the register.
In his affidavit, the father said he regretted the demise of his relationship with the child's mother, and it had caused him great sadness.
Last January, the woman realised she was pregnant, he said. He was happy with the news and was present at the birth of the child last month. While they had had difficulties prior to that, he had hoped they would remain together for the sake of their child. It was likely now, however, he believed, that their personal difficulties would not allow their relationship to continue as before.
The man said he intends to be a full and attentive father to his baby daughter and will give her all the support, love and affection he can. The birth of his daughter was a joyful event and touched him deeply, he said.
During the pregnancy, the couple had discussed names, he said. He believed the naming of a child to be particularly important and they had animated discussions in which he eagerly suggested dozens of names to which he had given a great deal of thought.
The mother had forwarded a list of about 10 male and female names and other names were also discussed.
However, he said, the couple did not come to any agreement about a name before the birth and, once their baby was born, a serious disagreement arose not just as to what the child's forename would be, but about the process of making the decision.
The child's surname was not at issue.
The man is claiming that the legislation which permits the situation represents a grave inequality to him. If the couple were married, the matter of registration would not arise because the father would automatically be guardian of the child, counsel said. While it may seem to the outsider to be relatively unimportant, it was of some significance to the parties, counsel added.
