Council wins battle over mother's bid to name twins 'Cyanide' and 'Preacher'

A local authority has won a Court of Appeal battle with a mother over her desire to name her twin children ‘Cyanide’ and ‘Preacher’.

In C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 374 (14 April 2016) the mother’s three older children had been made the subject of care orders in 2013. Two now live with long term foster carers and the third lives with a family member under a special guardianship order.

Those proceedings followed local authority concerns relating to the mother’s mental health difficulties, which had seriously impacted upon her ability to care for her children. The mother’s parenting capacity had also been impaired “by drug and alcohol misuse, chaotic home conditions, abusive male relationships and an inability to work with professionals in an ‘open, honest and consistent manner’.”

The mother’s mental health deteriorated further following the conclusion of the care proceedings.

On May 2015 a midwife at a hospital, where the mother had given birth to the twins, contacted the council to tell them of her concern about the names the mother was proposing for the twins – ‘Cyanide’ for the girl and ‘Preacher’ for the boy.

The council brought this to the court’s attention at an interim care order hearing. The authority also decided that, rather than issue an application in relation to the proposed names, it would attempt to work with the mother and encourage her to choose different names.

At a Looked After Children Review, the mother said she had chosen the name ‘Cyanide’ because “this is how Hitler killed himself”. She remained determined that the children should be called by the names she had suggested.

The case was transferred to the High Court for consideration of an application made by the local authority to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court under s. 100 of the Children Act 1989.

Before His Honour Judge Sharpe, the mother said she had a human right to choose the twins’ names and to register those names without the interference of the local authority.

She explained that she had chosen ‘Preacher’ for the boy as it was “a strong spiritual name”, and it was a name that suggested proclamation and advocacy and being able to communicate with a wide community. 
She also insisted that it was “a rather cool name” which would stand her son well for the future.

On the choice of ‘Cyanide’, she said she believed it was “a lovely pretty name” that was linked with flowers and plants. She added that it was a poison that had been used since the ancient Egyptians and it was derived from the Greek meaning dark blue.


“I also consider that Cyanide was responsible for killing Hitler and Goebbels and I consider that this was a good thing and therefore Cyanide can be considered as a positive name, reflecting positive action that destroyed very bad people in the war,” the mother said, adding that she did not not accept that it would have an adverse impact on her daughter during her formative years or later in her life.

By his order in September 2015 HHJ Sharpe:

• declared that the local authority were permitted to restrict the extent to which the mother exercised her parental responsibility so as to prevent her registering the forenames 'Preacher' and 'Cyanide'; and
• made an injunction prohibiting the mother from so registering the children or referring to either of them by those forenames in contact.

The judge also concluded that the council had wrongly sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. Instead he preferred a statutory jurisdictional route, with the mother’s exercise of parental responsibility capable of being limited, including preventing her registering the forenames of her choice pursuant to section 33(3)(b) CA 1989.

In October 2015 the twins moved permanently to live with the foster family with whom their eldest half siblings live. The siblings have chosen names that they would like their brother and sister to be called.

The mother appealed HHJ Sharpe's ruling on four grounds. The council meanwhile sought to uphold the decision of the judge for different reasons, including that the judge was wrong in concluding that the court could not properly invoke the inherent jurisdiction as a means of resolving the issue before the court.

At the Court of Appeal Lady Justice King said: “I have reached the conclusion that there is a small category of cases where, notwithstanding the local authority's powers under section 33(3)(b) CA 1989, the consequences of the exercise of a particular act of parental responsibility are so profound and have such an impact on either the child his or herself, and/or the Article 8 rights of those other parties who share parental responsibility with a local authority, that the matter must come before the court for its consideration and determination.

“It follows that I am also satisfied that there may be rare cases, where a local authority believes that the forename chosen by a parent, and by which he or she intends to register a child, goes beyond the unusual, bizarre, extreme or plain foolish, and instead gives the local authority reasonable cause to believe that by calling him or her that name he or she is likely to be caused significant harm.”

The Court of Appeal judge added: “In those highly unusual circumstances, the proper route by which the local authority seek to ensure that the course it proposes is necessary and in the child's interests is (as was held by Butler-Sloss LJ in Re D, L, and LA supra) by putting the matter before the High Court by way of an application to invoke its inherent jurisdiction.”

Lady Justice King said this was one of those rare cases where the court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, should intervene to protect the girl twin from the emotional harm that she was satisfied she would suffer if called ‘Cyanide’.

The Court of Appeal judge also agreed with the first instance judge that it was not in the best interests of the boy twin to be called ‘Preacher’, “although for rather different reasons”.

She said that “….whilst "Preacher" in itself might not be an objectionable name, there is considerable benefit for the boy twin to be in the same position as his sister and for them each to grow up knowing that their half siblings, with whom they live, chose both of their names for them.”