47 So. 3d 381
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- In November 2008 Chamberlin learned she was pregnant and informed Miller he was the father; Miller sought pre-birth paternity testing, which Chamberlin declined.
- Chamberlin gave birth to her son on February 3, 2009, using the surname Chamberlin.
- DNA testing in April 2009 confirmed Miller as the child's father.
- In June 2009 Miller filed a Petition to Determine Paternity and for Related Relief, including a request to change the child's surname to Miller.
- Miller testified the name change would allow the child to carry the Miller family name and reduce teasing; he would have signed the birth certificate if informed at birth.
- The trial court granted the petition, but the court’s ruling relied on testimony not showing the change was in the child’s best interests; the record did not demonstrate welfare need for a surname change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in ordering a surname change. | Chamberlin argues the change isn't in the child's best interests. | Miller argues the change serves the child's best interests and reflects family tradition. | Reversed; not shown to be in the child’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutcheson v. Taylor, 43 So.3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (speculative evidence insufficient to establish best interests)
- Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (best interests standard governs name-change decisions)
- Levine v. Best, 595 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (best interests analysis applies to name changes)
- McKay v. Haikey, 860 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (parental desire to carry family name not dispositive)
- Girten v. Andreu, 698 So.2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (custom does not prove best interests of child)