T.W.
v. D.A. – Superior Court – November 10,
2015
The statute pertaining to name changes provides: “The court of common
pleas of any county may by order change the name of any person resident in the
county.” 54 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(a). Other than providing for the granting of a
petition in the absence of any lawful objection, the statute sets forth no
standards for the court’s exercise of its discretion. Our Supreme Court has
directed the lower courts to exercise their discretion, in name change cases,
in such a way as to “comport with good sense, common decency and fairness to
all concerned and to the public.” Petition
of Falcucci, 50 A.2d 200, 202 (Pa. 1947).
best
interest of child
When considering a contested petition to change the name of a minor
child, the best interest of the child is the standard by which a trial court
exercises its
discretion. See
Grimes, 609 A.2d at 161 (Pa. 1992) (citing
comprehensive list of jurisdictions that apply best interest of child
standard). In adopting
the “best interests of the child” standard, our Supreme Court stated:
The statutory scheme sets forth no
criteria for the court toconsider when exercising its discretion upon a
petition for
change of name. The only prohibition within the statute appears at § 705: “Any
person violating the provisions of
this chapter for purpose of avoiding payment of
taxes or other debts commits a summary offense.” . . . Specific
guidelines [for a child’s best interests] are
difficult to establish, for the
circumstances in each case will be
unique, as each child has individual physical,
intellectual,moral, social and spiritual needs. However, general
considerations should include the
natural bonds between parent and child, the social stigma or respect afforded a
particular name within the community,
and, where the child is of sufficient age, whether the child intellectually
and rationally understands the
significance of changing his or her name.
Id. at 160,
161 (emphasis added). The Court further stated: “Beyond requiring compliance
with the notice provisions, the statute provides no additional guidance for
courts considering petitions for change of name.” Id. at 160
(quoting Petition of Falcucci, supra at 202. See also In re Change of Name of
E.M.L. to E.M.S., 19 A.3d 1068 (Pa. Super. 2011).
burden of
proof
In In re: C.R.C., 819 A.2d 558 (Pa. Super. 2003), the court stated that the party
petitioning for the minor child’s change of name has the burden of coming
forward with evidence that the name change would be in the child’s best
interest. Id. at 560. Further, where a petition to change a child’s name is
contested, the court must carefully evaluate all of the
relevant factual circumstances to determine if the petitioning parent
has established that the change is in the child’s best interest. Id.; see also Petition of Christjohn, 428 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 1981).
In this case, the trial court concluded that Father did not meet his
burden of showing that the proposed name change was in the child’s best
interests. Instead, the court determined that Father sought to change the
child’s name to further his own interest in the survival of his surname. Those
findings are amply supported by the evidence.
---------------------
If the case is old, the link
may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court,
and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google
Scholar)
