Didn't the article say that this went to court because the parents couldn't agree upon a name? I think it makes some difference here that the father wanted the boy's name to be Martin.
I think that the article is shoddy as it only focuses on one sentence from this judge. I don't agree that she should have even said that, but if she was deciding on who had the right to name the child she might have had a point in saying that Martin would be a better for the boy.