”
Requirements for assigning a new family name to a minor child
\n\n
The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt am Main dealt with the question under what conditions a minor child may be granted a different family name by way of a public-law change of name. The relevant legal bases arise from the Act on Changes of Names (NamÄndG) as well as the related administrative-court and civil-law decisions.
\n
Key statutory requirements
\n\n
Changing the family name of a minor is permissible under § 3(1) NamÄndG only if an “important reason” exists. According to consistent supreme-court case law, the public interest in retaining the existing name is, as a rule, to be given substantial weight. A change can therefore be approved only in extraordinary exceptional cases that reveal a particular need for justification.
\n
The child’s best interests as the central decision criterion
\n\n
The child’s best interests play a fundamental role in the decision-making process. Any tensions within the family, the child’s identification with the name-giving parent, and social and psychological burdens play an essential role. Nevertheless, the wish for name unity with one parent alone is generally not sufficient to meet the legal requirements for a change.
\n
The decision of the OLG Frankfurt am Main
\n\n
In the case decided by the OLG Frankfurt am Main on 5 January 2026 (file no.: 2 WF 115/25, source: urteile.news), the mother applied for the minor child—who had previously borne the father’s name—to be assigned her surname. The mother essentially argued that the child suffered from having a different name and was repeatedly asked about it by the child’s social environment.
\n
Balancing the relevant considerations
\n\n
The OLG explained that the child’s interest in possible protection from emotional distress must be weighed against the interest in continuity of the name, which is in principle to be protected. However, in the court’s view, the subjective burden alone—perceived by the child as a disadvantage due to the difference in names—cannot, as a rule, outweigh the public interest in the stability of the name.
\n\n
In addition, personal and social contact with the name-giving parent remains a key factor. Stressful circumstances must be set out in an objectively comprehensible manner in order for an important reason for a change of name within the meaning of § 3 NamÄndG to be assumed.
\n
Significance for practice
\n\n
The judgment vividly demonstrates the courts’ restraint when it comes to changing children’s names. Protecting the child in their development is the focus, but it requires an impairment that is comprehensible and evidenced by concrete circumstances. The parents’ interests may play a subordinate role within the court’s discretionary decision, insofar as the child’s best interests are not thereby sustainably served.
\n\n
Parents pursuing such a request must therefore carefully consider the legal requirements and current case law. Given the complexity and sensitivity of such proceedings, it is advisable, in the case of specific questions and uncertainties, to have an individual assessment of the facts and legal situation carried out.
\n\n
Do you have legal questions regarding the use of a name or other family-law topics? You can find further information on this as well as contact options under Legal advice in family law.
“
