A dispute over a decision to allow the birth of a boy originally registered under his mother's name to be later reregistered in his father's surname has been settled at the High Court.
The terms of settlement were handed in to Mr Justice Kelly yesterday by Mr Dermot Kelly SC, for the mother. Counsel asked that they be received and filed. They were not disclosed to the court.
There was no appearance by the boy's father, who is estranged from his mother.
The legal action had been taken by the mother against the Superintendent Registrar of Births and Deaths for Dublin. The father was a notice party.
Last May Mr Justice Kelly granted the mother leave to seek an order quashing the reregistration of the birth made by the father on February 4th last.
At the leave hearing, it was said the mother had registered the child's birth in 1997 and he had been known by the mother's surname. The father had got a District Court order in July 1998 appointing him and the mother joint guardians of the child. That order identified the child in the mother's surname.
Mr Kelly said that to change the child's name now would cause embarrassment and difficulty for him in future years. The registration provision was to enable the father to be identified as the father but not to interfere with the name by which the child had become known and established.
Last February the father gave his own surname when reregistering the child and described the mother as "full-time mother", counsel said. This was not the case, and the mother had an occupation. She did not find out about the change until the father called to her mother's house for an access visit.
The mother went to the registration office seeking an amendment and to restore the child to her own surname. A letter from the General Register Office had informed the mother that, when the boy was originally registered, no paternity details were recorded.
Under the Status of Children Act, 1987, the letter stated that a birth entry might be reregistered showing paternity details on production of a certified court order naming the person as father of the child. There was no provision in the Act requiring any confirmation that the other parent had agreed to reregistration or to the particulars to be recorded in the new entry.
The letter added that the Registration of Births Act, 1996 (which came into effect in October 1997) required the registration of any former surnames of the father, the address and occupation of the mother and "most significantly a surname must now be assigned to the child . . ."
The registrar added that he was not in a position to amend the birth registration to the mother's surname at that point but was seeking legal advice.