179 So. 3d 342
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Parents divorced in 2012; MSA awarded mother primary parental responsibility and supervised visitation to father; MSA required fostering affection between child and each parent.
- Mother (later Conklin) petitioned to change the daughter’s surname to her maiden name in 2014, asserting the child’s family unit was solely the mother and that the father was absent.
- Father opposed; initially out of state and argued his lack of contact was not voluntary and that child support was current (paid with assistance of his parents as allowed by MSA).
- Trial court granted the petition after a telephonic hearing; after father sought rehearing, a full evidentiary hearing was held and the trial court again granted the name change as being in the child’s best interest.
- On appeal, the majority reversed, holding the mother failed to meet the heavy burden to show a name change was necessary for the child’s welfare; dissent would have affirmed, finding competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a child’s surname may be changed over a parent’s objection because the change is in the child’s best interest or necessary for the child’s welfare | Mother: Change is in child’s best interest because mother is sole caregiver, child identifies only with mother, and name would provide stability and avoid embarrassment/feelings of abandonment | Father: Mother’s assertions are conclusory/speculative; father has not voluntarily relinquished relationship and MSA requires fostering parent-child relationship; evidence insufficient to show change is necessary for child’s welfare | Reversed: Majority holds mother failed to present competent, substantial evidence that the name change was required for the child’s welfare; trial court abused its discretion and surname must be restored to father (dissent would have affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coolidge v. Ulbrich, 733 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (standard: abuse of discretion review; name change requires showing it is in child’s best interest/necessary for welfare)
- Wilson v. Smith, 126 So.3d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reiterating best-interest/welfare standard and that parental desires do not control)
- Azzara v. Waller, 495 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (name change over objection only where evidence shows necessity for child’s welfare)
- Chamberlin v. Miller, 47 So.3d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (parental preference to carry family name or speculative future embarrassment insufficient)
- Cothron v. Hadley, 769 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (conclusory testimony insufficient; remand for actual evidence and possible guardian ad litem)
- Collinsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (best-interest standard for name changes should accord with custody factors)
- McKay v. Haikey, 860 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (reversal required where insufficient evidence supports name change; cannot remand on speculation that additional evidence might later appear)