In re Name Change of D.G.S.
2017 Ohio 4110
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (M.L.) and Father (B.S.) adopted minor D.G.S.; parents divorced December 2015 and share legal custody under a shared-parenting plan.
- At adoption, child’s legal name was changed to reflect Mother’s Italian first/middle names and Father’s surname (S.); Mother later resumed use of her maiden name (L.).
- Mother previously applied (and was denied) to change the child’s surname to a hyphenated L.-S.; she continued to use L.-S. for the child over Father’s objection.
- After the divorce became final, Mother filed another name-change application; Father objected and the probate court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL).
- Probate court conducted a hearing and an in camera interview of the child, found the child not sufficiently mature to express an independent preference, and denied Mother’s application as not in the child’s best interest.
- Mother appealed, arguing the decision was against the weight of the evidence and reflected an improper paternalistic standard; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child’s surname should be changed to L.-S. | Mother: change is reasonable and proper; child already identified with L. and practical/embarrassment concerns support change. | Father: opposes change; change would harm father–child relationship and is unnecessary. | Denied — probate court did not abuse discretion; change not shown to be in child’s best interest. |
| Whether the probate court applied a paternalistic standard favoring the father | Mother: court relied on outdated/paternalistic bias giving weight to father’s surname interest. | Father: court properly considered child’s best interests and evidence of relationship impact. | Denied — court applied Willhite factors and did not improperly favor paternal interests. |
| Whether the child’s expressed preference was entitled to weight | Mother: child identified with L.; thus preference favors change. | Father: child’s preference was coached/insufficiently mature to be meaningful. | Held: child lacked sufficient maturity; preference given little weight. |
| Whether name change would cause embarrassment/inconvenience to child | Mother: asserted potential travel/registration embarrassment and inconvenience. | Father/GAL: asserted hypothetical; record did not show clear and convincing evidence of actual harm. | Held: Mother failed to prove embarrassment/inconvenience by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Willhite, 85 Ohio St.3d 28 (Sup. Ct. Ohio) (trial courts must consider child’s best interest and enumerated factors when deciding minor’s surname change)
- Bobo v. Jewell, 38 Ohio St.3d 330 (Sup. Ct. Ohio) (court should not give primary weight to father’s interest in child bearing paternal surname)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Sup. Ct. Ohio) (abuse of discretion standard explained)