In re Marriage of Piegari
67 N.E.3d 386
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Parties: Karyn (petitioner) and Alexander Piegari (respondent) are separated; three young children from the marriage.
- Procedural posture: Karyn filed a petition under 735 ILCS 5/21-101 to hyphenate the children’s surnames to "Piegari-Crider"; trial court denied the petition and entered an injunction barring Karyn from hyphenating the children’s surnames on any "official document." Karyn appealed.
- Parenting plan: Karyn has a majority of parenting time but both parents share equal significant decision-making authority (including school/enrollment decisions).
- Evidence at trial: Karyn offered no testimony or evidentiary proof at the hearing; Alexander submitted a CaringBridge web page showing Karyn already used the hyphenated surname publicly.
- Statutory standard: Name change for a minor requires clear and convincing evidence that the change is necessary to serve the child’s best interests (735 ILCS 5/21-101); courts defer to the manifest weight of the evidence on best-interest determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Piegari) | Defendant's Argument (Piegari) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the children’s surnames should be changed (hyphenated) under 735 ILCS 5/21-101 | Hyphenation avoids future confusion when enrolling children, preserves mother’s maiden name, and honors both cultural heritages | Not in children’s best interests; mother presented no evidence and already unilaterally used the hyphenated name publicly | Denied — court found no clear and convincing evidence; denial not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether an injunction may bar petitioner from using hyphenated surnames on official documents | Implied right to refer to children as she wishes; sought to hyphenate for practical reasons | Injunction needed to prevent unilateral, potentially confusing changes and protect official records; CaringBridge use shows unilateral action | Granted — injunction justified and narrowly tailored per precedent (bars use in legal/official records) |
| Whether greater parenting time entitles parent to control name/enrollment decisions | Majority parenting time (~80%) means mother will handle enrollment and thus control name usage | Parenting time is distinct from decision-making; parties share equal decision-making responsibilities | Court rejected correlation — parenting time does not convert to exclusive decision-making authority |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Presson, 102 Ill. 2d 303 (Ill. 1984) (sets rule limiting injunctions to prevent a custodial parent from changing a child’s name in legal or official records)
- In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247 (Ill. 1989) (discusses when injunctions affecting parties’ everyday activities are appealable under interlocutory review rules)
- In re J.S., 267 Ill. App. 3d 145 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (addresses scope and limits of injunctions involving child name usage)