Recently, it is considered to have eaten a lot of couples' melons, and the former husband sued the wife who did not have children to divorce, and the current divorce to change the child's surname was sued by the ex-husband. It seems that women must be cautious in doing things, otherwise the backhand is a lawyer's letter warning.
What happened to the former couple?
Ms. Xu and her ex-husband divorced in 2015 and their sons have been raised by Ms. Xu. But in 2018, the ex-husband found that his son had been changed by the child's mother's surname, from following his own surname to his mother's surname.
This place is indeed a bit confusing.
First, in general, even if the parents are divorced, the name change before the child is underage requires the consent of both parents, and if the consent of both parties is not obtained, the relevant departments can refuse to accept it.
Second, although the husband and wife are divorced, the children are still common children. In terms of changing the name, at least I learned that the father of the child will say a word, which is indeed a bit unkind to change the surname privately, and the father also has his own rights and obligations to the son after the divorce.
Whether it is this mother who prejudged her ex-husband's prejudgment and told you that I probably can't change it, this is also unknown.
The ex-husband saw how he could bear it, and whose surname the child was with was not a trivial matter, and had to be changed back, so a complaint sued the child's mother in court to request that my son's name be restored.
The Marriage Act has clearly stipulated that the child may follow the father's surname or the mother's surname, and although the woman did not inform her ex-husband that there was a lack of consideration in not negotiating, it would not restore the name, and the court rejected the man's appeal request.
But the ex-husband still can't bear this breath, a drumbeat to appeal again, will be with the child's mother to go to court, helplessly the court still rejected, maintain the first-instance trial results, and even the child's mother and the child did not show up, the case ended.
A very important point in this case is actually the child's opinion.
If you divorced in 2015, the children are still not small, and they can make basic self-judgments. Therefore, when the child's mother changes, she can ask the child whether she wants to change to the mother's surname.
If the mother unilaterally asks the child to change her surname, or if the child is still young when the surname is changed, then it really should not be. This is equivalent to transferring the contradiction between oneself and the child's father to the child, and the breakdown of the relationship between husband and wife does not mean that the father-son relationship is also dissolved. If the child also wants to take the mother's surname, then the father has no right to interfere, and even needs to review whether he is qualified as a father.
This case has once again brought the issue of the ownership of the "right to a surname" into everyone's field of vision, triggering a heated discussion.
Opinions vary. Some netizens think: who was born with whom surname; some netizens feel that they have to give birth to two, one with his father's surname, one with his mother's surname; and some people think that this problem must find an object with the same surname to solve; of course, some netizens feel that it is not important, I don't care.
This has to say why most people are born with their father's surname?
The way of naming surnames is inherited from traditional society. In the past, the title right directly distinguished between matriarchy and patriarchy, affecting the inheritance of mothers or fathers in the future. Since it has been a patriarchal society for a long time in the past, it is true that in the past it was the father who took on the main work of the family. Therefore, the idea of "taking the father's surname" subtly affects everyone, and it also makes people feel as if following the father's surname is taken for granted, and there is some exploration for people with the mother's surname.
But contemporary society has undergone a great transformation. Whether it is work or family, there are even women who take on more work. Therefore, to adapt to the development of society, you cannot follow the father's surname one-size-fits-all, and naturally you cannot follow the motherhood one-size-fits-all and give you the right to choose your surname. The Marriage Law clearly stipulates that children can follow the father's surname or the mother's surname, which is decided by both parents.
If you attach great importance to the ownership of the child's title and surname, then it is best to discuss with the other party before giving birth to a baby or even before marriage, and choose who the child will follow. Otherwise, it is much more troublesome to change the surname later, and it is easy to get a lot of proof applications, and it is not easy to go to court like this couple.
Of course, some people don't care whose name the child is with, so it doesn't matter. I have to say that this case really makes everyone rise in posture, the child can follow the father's surname can follow the mother's surname, and after your family, the child's surname will give you two small mouths to discuss it.