Foster v. Foster, 2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 75

Appellant-father Foster and respondent-mother Foster (Jennifer Elizabeth) married in 2004 and have a child born February 2009.
The marriage dissolution proceeding in Hennepin County led to joint physical and joint legal custody, with a parenting-time schedule.
Respondent sought to change the child’s surname from Foster to Soliday-Foster, to reflect her pre-marriage surname Soliday after dissolution.
Appellant opposed; at trial, respondent testified in support while appellant and his father opposed the change.
District court applied Saxton factors and granted the name change, finding it in the child’s best interests and noting potential community acceptance of Soliday.
Court concluded respondent’s plan would reduce future confusion and provide belonging to both families; appeal followed challenging best-interests ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion regarding the best interests determination.	Foster contends the change is not in the child’s best interests.	Foster argues the Saxton factors support the change and the record shows clear and compelling welfare need.	No abuse; change supported by best-interests findings.

In re Welfare of C.M.G., 516 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. App. 1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard in name-change petitions; clear and compelling evidence required)
Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion review; require findings supported by the record)
Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. 1984) (standard for reviewing custody and related name-change issues)
Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 223 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. 1974) (opposing parent must show not clear and compelling evidence to defeat name change)
In re Saxton, 309 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. 1981) (five non-exclusive factors for best-interest determination)
LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151 (Minn. App. 2000) (Saxton factors applied in evaluating name-change decisions)