In re Name Change of O.B.A.
2021 Ohio 2212
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Father (Caleb Andronis) sought to change his minor son O.B.L.’s surname from Lore to Andronis after paternity was legally established; mother (Savanna Spencer Lore) is the custodial parent.
- Father has limited parenting time (about six days per month) and applied in probate court; hearing held Feb. 26, 2020 with testimony from father, paternal grandmother, and mother.
- Father’s stated reasons: customary to share a surname, proof of paternity, desire for child to identify with father’s family; mother opposed, saying change would be confusing and she believes the child “deserves” her surname.
- Probate court applied the Willhite eight-factor best-interest test, found six factors weighed against the change, concluded the application appeared motivated to harm the mother, and denied the change.
- Father appealed, arguing abuse of discretion and unfair treatment by the court; appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial (finding most trial findings supported by the record).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate court abused its discretion in denying the child’s name change | Andronis: name change is customary, in child’s best interest (young age minimizes disruption), strengthens paternal-family ID | Lore: change would confuse child, disrupt identification with custodial parent and her family | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed after weighing Willhite factors |
| Whether child and residential parent share the same surname (Willhite factor) | Andronis: mother uses two names (Spencer Lore); surnames already differ so no added confusion | Lore: child and mother share the surname Lore | Court found mother and child share surname Lore; father’s argument rejected |
| Whether the child is mature enough to express a meaningful preference (Willhite factor) | Andronis: child (3 years) too young to have a meaningful preference, so change has minimal effect | Lore: N/A (court treated lack of preference as supporting status quo) | Court found child too young to state a preference; factor neutral/supports status quo |
| Whether applicant’s motive undermines the application (Willhite “other factors”) | Andronis: action is for child’s benefit, not to harm mother | Lore: father’s testimony and texts show hostility; court inferred motive to harm mother | Court inferred improper motive from testimony/texts and weighed that factor against granting change |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Willhite, 706 N.E.2d 778 (Ohio 1999) (sets the eight-factor best-interest test for minor name changes)
- Bobo v. Jewell, 528 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1988) (trial court should consider only factors present in each case)
- Franklin Cty. Sheriff's Dept. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 589 N.E.2d 24 (Ohio 1992) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re Change of Name of E.C.G., 956 N.E.2d 851 (Ohio App. 2011) (applies Willhite best-interest requirement to minor name-change requests)