Judgment of the District Court Rotterdam dated October 15, 2020

Requester has a son who is a few years old. At the time of the birth registration of her son, she experienced a hectic period. Requester was unable to arrange the birth registration because she was in the hospital at that time. The biological father then reported their son to the municipality.

At that time, he decided to name his son after himself, while requester and the man had originally agreed that their son would have a different first name. The relationship between the parties broke down shortly after the birth of their son, and requester entered into a new relationship. It is not known where the second given name of their son comes from. The biological father had not acknowledged the child, but this acknowledgment took place through requester’s current partner. As a result, they both became the legal parents of the child by operation of law. This meant that the biological father no longer had any legal authority over his son.

After the birth of their son, requester continued with her life, as the biological father played no significant role in the life of their son. He does not know him at all. For this reason, requesters, especially requester herself, find it objectionable that their son is named after the biological father. Requester believes that at the time of the birth registration, there was an abuse of right by the man, as he did not take into account the wishes of requester. Requester had decided to let it be at the time, but now that it has become clear that the biological father has no intention of playing any significant role in the life of their son, the desire to change the given names (still) has become stronger. Requesters consider the deletion of the second and third given name of their son appropriate and desirable.

The court, given the motivation of the requesters, grants the application (in writing).