Facts
S. R. and A. R. are children from different relationships of their mother, C. R. S. R. is from their mother's previous marriage, while A. R. is the son of K. S. C. R. and K. S. have been living in a domestic partnership since 1985, in which both children are raised. However, K. S. is still married to U. Sch., with whom he has another daughter named F. The R./S. and S.-Sch. families live close to each other and maintain close family relationships.
After the birth of A. R., C. R. applied for a change of the family name R. to the father's name S. This application was rejected by the Police and Military Directorate of the Canton of Bern. Later, S. R. and A. R., represented by their mother, also applied for a name change to the name S. These requests were also rejected by the Directorate and the Government Council of the Canton of Bern.
S. R. and A. R. have appealed the decision of the Government Council to the Federal Supreme Court and requested permission to use the name S.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. It states that according to Art. 30 para. 1 ZGB, the government of the canton of residence of a person can approve a change of name if there are important reasons. In the past, the Federal Supreme Court has developed a relatively generous practice in interpreting important reasons for children.
A name change was approved in particular for children who live with their mother after their parents' divorce, and the mother has resumed her former name. A name change was also generally approved for children living with their mother and stepfather.
Until recently, name changes for children living with their mother and her cohabiting partner were also allowed, provided that the partner is the biological father of the children and the cohabitation relationship appears to be permanent and stable. The Federal Supreme Court assumed that a child of unmarried parents would suffer social disadvantages if their illegitimate…