..I didn't care.
My kids didn't, and don't, care.
*shrug*.
..I didn't care.
My kids didn't, and don't, care.
*shrug*.
Well don't you think that the court would want the tie to be between the child and the non-custodial parent because it will show who the non-custodial parent is? I mean if the child is living with the custodial parent then there is no assuming if that child is theirs or not... you know what i mean?
When you're SO concerned about the lineage and naming of your child, the way to accomplish that is to MARRY the mother of your child, and have discussions about naming one's children in ADVANCE of making babies. Yes, you probably have an excellent chance of at least a hyphenated last name for your child, but the problem could have been AVOIDED with more thinking about having a child before ENGAGING in having a child (which holds true for probably 90% of issues that arise with non-married parents).
No, I don't know what you mean. The point of having the same name with the custodial parent is so the child will not be questioned why they don't have the same name as the parent they live with. That can cause the child anxiety. In today's world, as dogmatique posted, it is less important that it once was but since you wish to stand on ancient practices of having to have a male child to carry on your name, it is equally relevant to the situation.
Every time I read a thread like this, I think of the Beyonce song "Put a Ring on it"
basically, if you wanted control of the situation, you should have gotten married. Then you would have much more control over what happens. As it is now, you are at the mercy of the court.
Infamy is often a great reason for a name change - just as Jeffrey Dahmer's sibling got it through with little more than walking in and telling the judge "my last name is Dahmer, and that's just...well....". Judge ruled. Done.