Teen molested by father may change name: court

Family surname caused ‘anxiety and distress’; judge’s ruling closes gap in legislation

A B.C. teenager who was molested by her father and associates her surname with the trauma she suffered has been given court approval to change her name.

The teen, who is identified by the initials S.M.H. in a judge’s ruling on the case, was removed from her family home and placed in the interim custody of the director of child, family and community services in 2015 and then placed in a foster home.

She suffered traumatic emotional and physical abuse in her family home, which resulted in her father being charged criminally and convicted of sexual interference of a person under the age of 16, sexual assault and incest.

In her ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sheila Tucker noted the evidence in the case included a declaration by the girl that as a result of the trauma she suffered at the hands of her father, the use of the surname increased the pain she felt arising from the past and a change of name would reduce bouts of anxiety.

Because she was a minor, the director sought to bring an application under the Name Act to change the girl’s surname to that of her foster mother.

The application, filed in July, was supported by the foster mother, the girl’s clinical counsellor and the girl herself.

But in August, the application was refused by the regional manager of the Vital Statistics Agency of B.C., who said the law restricts those who may apply for a minor to a parent only and suggested if the birth mother was still accessible, an option would be to get the mother’s approval.

S.M.H. contacted her mother by text, but the communication did not go well, noted the judge. The foster mother said in an affidavit that the impact of the exchange rendered the girl “inconsolable” and she had to be placed on a 72hour suicide watch. The director then appealed the matter to the court.

The judge, who said the vital statistics agency was right to refuse the application, found there was a gap in the legislation because although S.M.H. had birth parents, she was in the director’s continuing custody and the law made the director her sole personal guardian.

S.M.H. had no “parent” with guardianship or custody, and the director had guardianship and custody but was not a parent, said the judge.

Due to the gap in the law, the judge said it was appropriate to exercise the court’s power to provide the name change.

“I am satisfied on the evidence before me that using and answering to her family surname causes S.M.H. significant ongoing anxiety and distress that is injurious to her well-being and an obstacle to and distraction from her efforts to heal.”