Whose surname should a child carry when parents disagree?

Malta’s Civil Court (Family Section) has ordered a child to carry both parents’ surnames, rejecting a request to use the father’s surname alone. Its reasoning brings together equality between parents and the child’s interests.

In AB v CD, in her own name and on behalf of the minor EF, and the Director of the Public Registry (Application 70/2025 BS), the court considered how a child’s surname should be decided when the parents disagree. Judgment was delivered on 24 September 2026 by Hon. Dr Brigitte Sultana (ECLI:MT:FMLJ:2026:163525).

The proceedings concerned the recognition of paternity and corrections to the child’s birth record. The father asked for his surname alone. The mother asked for a surname that includes both parents’ names. The court chose the second approach.

Both parents’ place in the child’s identity

The court considered that using both surnames would more fairly reflect the child’s parentage.

Its reasoning rested on articles 86 and 92 of the Civil Code. Under article 92, a child born outside marriage, once recognised by the other parent, takes the surname of either parent or the surnames of both.

The parents had not agreed and had put the question to the court. The judge therefore resolved it by looking at the child’s best interests. In the circumstances, the court preferred a surname that reflects both parents over the father’s surname alone.

Why an automatic preference matters

The judgment also dealt with equality between parents.

The court referred to two decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, Cusan and Fazzo v Italy and León Madrid v Spain. Both concerned surname rules that automatically favoured fathers, and both found discriminatory treatment under article 14, read with article 8 on private and family life.

Drawing on those cases, the Maltese court considered that automatically preferring the father’s surname, without looking at the circumstances, raises a discrimination issue.

What the decision means

The judgment shows that two questions are separate: recognising paternity, and choosing a child’s surname. Recognising a father does not by itself settle a disagreement about whether the child should carry his surname alone.

The court’s reasoning also puts the child’s identity at the centre of the dispute. The question was how the surname should reflect the child’s parentage, and not which parent’s preference should win automatically.

The decision does not mean that every child must carry both parents’ surnames. It concerns one disagreement, decided under the relevant Civil Code provisions and by reference to that child’s interests.

For parents facing a similar disagreement, it points to the matters a court may look at: the choices the law allows, the circumstances of the child, and equal treatment of both parents. If you are in this position, a conversation about your own circumstances is the right first step. See children.

Editorial note

This note uses the anonymised party designations in the court’s caption. Family names, personal chronology and medical details have been left out. The discussion of the surname issue draws mainly on pages 11 to 14 of the judgment.