A Father & His Autistic Daughter | What’s In A Name?
Mediated agreements concerning parenting plans for children with autism, severe ADHD and/or other neurodiverse identites/conditions are not made public. As such they cannot be consulted by those parents or professionals curious to know what was included in such plans. Likewise, privately ordered settlement agreements are not generally available for reference by those not a party to that processs. Many legal decisions arising in the family court are often reported however. Here I address a reported decision dealing with a father’s successful claims for his parental status in their autistic child’s life be legally acknowledged. This case also shows his intention to have time with his child and to be n involved, dedicated parent part of her life.
No two cases in the family court are identical, even where the same order is being sought by a parent with a child with autism. That said, there are some concerns routinely expressed by parents that fall under the Best Interests of the Child. The 2017 decision in Roy-Bevington v Rigden in the Ontario Court of Justice involved a 3 year old girl with autism, described in the decision as being ‘severity level 2”. This part of the case is a decision focussing on the child’s best interests in relation to the child’s surname.
With reference to the other issues the father asked the court to decide on, these are listed below.
Joint decision making
That the mother have the birth certificate registered to include the biological father’s information.
To change the child’s name to Kieran Sloan Rigden-Roy.
To expand the father’s access terms
To address financial terms related to child support.
This particular decision has as its primary focus the parties dispute about the fact that the mother had not acknowledged the father on the child’s statement of live birth. As a side issue, I have provided a link to the Trociuk v. British Columbia case below, which addressed the issue in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for folks who are interested.
The mother’s wish was that the child’s surname be that of the child’s step-father which was Rigden.
At the time of this 2017 decision the child was three years old. The Judge notes that the biological father had raised the issue of his own surname, Roy, being included , as well as that of the child’ step-father, and had been doing so from the time the child was a month old.
As the decision sets out, the mother chose not to include her own surname and the child had only the step-father’s surname, which again is Rigden at the time of the decision. The court, providing a detailed analysis of the law, decided this was “not correct”.
Although the biological father requested the court order that the child’s surname be registered as Rigden-Roy, the court in its final analysis decided it ought to be Rigden Roy (no hyphen) prioritizing the child’s biological father in the child’s surname.
It was found to be in the child’s best interests to have her father’s name as an important matter relating to the child’s identity. The order was made that “Pursuant to s. 28(1)(b), the child’s name shall not be changed to anything other than “Kieran Sloan Rigden Roy”. The decision is linked below where readers can examine more closely the statute in question.
A long stemmed red rose with small green leaves
Comment: William Shakespeare’s famous line “What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” came to mind when I first ran across this case. I also remembered that there have been academic papers written about the convention of “maiden” names and “married” names for women, as well as on the long time convention of a child’s surname being that of the father. Interestingly, many social scientists have examined the implications of these practices. Of course the latter practice has been shifting with more and more children being given double-barelled surnames comprised of both parent’s surnames, or combinations there of. The Roy-Bevington v Rigden case is interesting in that the father was highly committed to the legal process he began and he purssued this claim over the course of years. It is also interesting that in this decision the court relates the surname name of a child to a child’s identity and that this issue is named as falling under a Best Interests of the Child analysis. It is further of interest for reasons that go beyond what has been addressed above. It draws in a discussion of the Change of Name Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 7
Based on the facts of this case, the father wants to take on a larger role in his daughter’s life. It is important that where such cases arise that note be taken that there are many cases of father’s with ‘special needs’ children not seeking any parenting time. This can present challenges, not only for the child, but for the other caregiving-parent too.
The issue of a child’s surname needs to be considered in cases where the child is an infant in situations like the above case. Family dispsute resolution professionals might also bear in mind that older children may themselves seek to hyphenate, or otherwise modify their surnames by changing their order or adding a name. Mediators can and have assisted with this process, provided the parent’s consent where children are minors and as such are unable to take such steps on their own.
Cases:
Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 34.
Roy-Bevington v Rigden, 2017 ONCJ 730 CanLii at : https://canlii.ca/t/hmx87
It Takes A Village
It Takes A Plan
Disclaimer: Nothing stated in the ‘Takes A Plan’ Blog (c) comprises legal advice. Consult a practicing lawyer in your province or terrtory if you are looking for legal advice on your matter.