Introduction. Our name is a part of our identity, we are perceived through its prism in society, and it is used on an everyday basis. A change of name is only possible in cases specified by law and essentially related to the will of the person concerned. In the case of the surname of the stepson, who has reached the age of thirteen, adopted by the stepfather or stepmother, the child cannot refuse to change their current surname. In the event of an adoption, a person may receive a surname created by the addition of the surname of the stepfather or stepmother to their current surname or through taking the surname of the adopting person. Such a solution in the case of a thirteen-year-old who identifies with their name hitherto, may be difficult to accept. Aim. The aim of the study is to answer the question of whether the regulation denying a thirteen-year-old child the right to keep their surname after adoption infringes their interests and if it requires changes in the laws in force. The following paper analyses standards in the field of human rights protection, which provide for the child’s participation in deciding or co-deciding on matters pertaining them. The paper includes solutions from the Family and Guardianship Code, in which a child over the age of thirteen may decide to retain their previous surname despite the changes that have occurred in determining its origin. This is, for instance, in the case of the parents getting married after the birth, when the child is recognized, when paternity is established by court, or when the stepchild is offered the name of their stepfather or stepmother. Materials and methods. As the basic research methods, legal-dogmatic and legal-theoretical methods were used, based on the analysis of the current national and international legal acts and a review of the views of representatives of the legal doctrine. The divagations were supported by an analysis of the judicial decisions of the courts in this regard. A problem-focused examination of the legal problem which is the subject of the study was made. Conclusions. The study shows that the differentiation of the situation of minors over the age of thirteen in terms of the possibility of retaining their current surname is incorrect. Moreover, not allowing the child to remain with the surname under which the child is recognized, has achieved success with, and feels emotionally attached to, should be considered a significant defect of the applicable regulation. For this reason, the paper formulates a postulate regarding a change in the existing regulation in line with the other solutions contained in the Family and Guardianship Code.