Traveller wrote:
"Squeaks" wrote in message
...
I am getting married next month and will be taking my Husband's name.
My children both have their father's name (my ex husband)which I
would like them to keep. Will it cause problems travelling with
children with a different surname to me on the passport? If so, is
there any way around this ie hyphonating the name so they have my
surname and their father's surname? What are the legal implications
and would I need their father's permission?


Squeaks: You should carry the children's passports plus (originals
of):
- your own birth certificate
- the childrens' birth certificates (on which I presume you are named
in your first husband's surname?)
- your marriage certificate from your first marriage
- your decree absolute if your first marriage ended in divorce
- a copy of the court order granting you custody of the children
- your marriage certificate from your second marriage

With these documents you will be able to prove that you are in fact
the mother of the children. . It might also be an idea to consult
your solicitor about getting a paper drawn up, signed by your ex,
giving you permission to take the children outside the UK as you see
fit.
T

I would be highly fearful of taking the originals but would readily have
copies available, including electronic versions that are date stamped.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:25:04 +0000, "Clot"
wrote:

Traveller wrote:
"Squeaks" wrote in message
...
I am getting married next month and will be taking my Husband's name.
My children both have their father's name (my ex husband)which I
would like them to keep. Will it cause problems travelling with
children with a different surname to me on the passport? If so, is
there any way around this ie hyphonating the name so they have my
surname and their father's surname? What are the legal implications
and would I need their father's permission?


Squeaks: You should carry the children's passports plus (originals
of):
- your own birth certificate
- the childrens' birth certificates (on which I presume you are named
in your first husband's surname?)
- your marriage certificate from your first marriage
- your decree absolute if your first marriage ended in divorce
- a copy of the court order granting you custody of the children
- your marriage certificate from your second marriage

With these documents you will be able to prove that you are in fact
the mother of the children. . It might also be an idea to consult
your solicitor about getting a paper drawn up, signed by your ex,
giving you permission to take the children outside the UK as you see
fit.
T

I would be highly fearful of taking the originals but would readily have
copies available, including electronic versions that are date stamped.

There is no such thing as an "original" BMD certificate. All such
certificates are, as it says on them "a certified copy of an entry in
the register". They are also, of course, available to anyone who
choses to ask for them, and, as it also says on them, *not* evidence
of identity, although they may be evidence of relationships.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Don Aitken wrote:

There is no such thing as an "original" BMD certificate. All such
certificates are, as it says on them "a certified copy of an entry in
the register". They are also, of course, available to anyone who
choses to ask for them, and, as it also says on them, *not* evidence
of identity, although they may be evidence of relationships.

The government now regards a birth certificate issued within one year of
birth as better evidence of identity than one which is not...
--
John Briggs

In message , at 12:20:09 on Wed,
20 Feb 2008, John Briggs remarked:
The government now regards a birth certificate issued within one year of
birth as better evidence of identity than one which is not...

It always has done. It's the sort of clue that people working in the
identity industry look for.
--
Roland Perry

Don Aitken wrote in
:

[snip]

There is no such thing as an "original" BMD certificate. All such
certificates are, as it says on them "a certified copy of an entry in
the register". They are also, of course, available to anyone who
choses to ask for them, and, as it also says on them, *not* evidence
of identity, although they may be evidence of relationships.

It's frightening the number of people who think a BC is proof of ID. Even
when I point out the wording on the BC about it not being proof of
identity.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:20:09 on Wed,
20 Feb 2008, John Briggs remarked:

The government now regards a birth certificate issued within one
year of birth as better evidence of identity than one which is not...

It always has done. It's the sort of clue that people working in the
identity industry look for.

No, it's a recent idea - and bonkers.
--
John Briggs

In message , at 14:10:12 on
Wed, 20 Feb 2008, John Briggs remarked:
The government now regards a birth certificate issued within one
year of birth as better evidence of identity than one which is not...

It always has done. It's the sort of clue that people working in the
identity industry look for.

No, it's a recent idea - and bonkers.

Nonsense. I've discussed this with practitioners and they've always
looked at the documents they get differently depending on their age.

Nor is it bonkers, it's obviously much harder to get hold of a 30 year
old "original" [1] birth certificate, than a modern one.

[1] Copy of an entry in the register
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:10:12 on
Wed, 20 Feb 2008, John Briggs remarked:
The government now regards a birth certificate issued within one
year of birth as better evidence of identity than one which is
not...

It always has done. It's the sort of clue that people working in the
identity industry look for.

No, it's a recent idea - and bonkers.

Nonsense. I've discussed this with practitioners and they've always
looked at the documents they get differently depending on their age.

Nor is it bonkers, it's obviously much harder to get hold of a 30 year
old "original" [1] birth certificate, than a modern one.

[1] Copy of an entry in the register

Define "always" - the "identity industry" is a new one.
--
John Briggs

In message , at 14:50:04 on
Wed, 20 Feb 2008, John Briggs remarked:
The government now regards a birth certificate issued within one
year of birth as better evidence of identity than one which is
not...

It always has done. It's the sort of clue that people working in the
identity industry look for.

No, it's a recent idea - and bonkers.

Nonsense. I've discussed this with practitioners and they've always
looked at the documents they get differently depending on their age.

Nor is it bonkers, it's obviously much harder to get hold of a 30 year
old "original" [1] birth certificate, than a modern one.

[1] Copy of an entry in the register

Define "always" - the "identity industry" is a new one.

In this context, my evidence goes back maybe 20 years. Passports have
been issued for at least as long as that.
--
Roland Perry