Judgment of the Rotterdam District Court on March 10, 2021

The petitioner recently had her first name changed by the court but, upon the conclusion of the three-month appeals process, she deeply regretted the name change. She now wishes to reverse the name change through a new request. She explains that around 2019, she was experiencing psychological issues, which partly led to her dissatisfaction with her name. She had hoped that the name change would allow her to start fresh. In 2020, she went through a difficult year, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which ultimately led to a psychotic episode. Choosing to change her name was a mistake for her. She no longer stands by her original decision to change her first name. It now feels strange for her to suddenly have a new first name. In 2020, she sought therapy for her issues, and partly because of this, starting a name change procedure in June 2020 proved to be an unfortunate decision. She thought the name change would benefit her, but it did not bring her the outcome she had hoped for. The petitioner wants to rebuild her identity, with the assistance of therapy. She claims that she was not capable of adequately considering the consequences of the name change.

Because a name change involves weighing personal interests against the societal interest in maintaining consistent first names, the request must be carefully substantiated. The petitioner can provide evidence, including a psychological report, demonstrating that she suffered from psychological issues, which were at the root of her decision to change her name. Based on this, she believes she has a substantial interest in a new request for a name change. She is convinced that she no longer stands behind her original request to change her first name.

In the end, this request is also successful: the court grants the request for a name change. This means the petitioner will have her original first names back.