In re the Paternity of N.R., Selena G. Robey v. Susan Beetham (mem. dec.)
55A01-1707-JP-1706
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Child N.R. was born to Selena Robey and Jacob Searcy (unmarried parents); Selena gave the child her married surname, Robey.
- Jacob filed a paternity petition on Sept. 14, 2016, seeking to establish paternity and change the child’s surname to Searcy; Jacob was murdered one week later.
- Jacob’s mother, Susan Beetham, intervened, sought grandparent visitation, and later moved to change N.R.’s surname to Searcy; the court granted supervised visitation to Susan.
- DNA established Jacob as the biological father; the trial court thereafter considered the separate petition to change the child’s last name to Searcy and held a hearing.
- The trial court found it was in N.R.’s best interests to bear his father’s surname (citing Jacob’s intent, Susan’s involvement, survivor benefits, and the father’s demonstrated interest) and ordered the name change.
- Selena appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changing N.R.’s surname to the deceased father’s name is in the child’s best interests | Robey: name change would confuse the child and is not in his best interests; mother’s testimony raised safety and character concerns about Searcy | Beetham/Jacob: father sought paternity, intended involvement, and family connection; grandmother’s visitation and survivor benefits support the change | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; factors supported best-interest finding (father’s demonstrated intent/support and familial connection) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paternity of Tibbitts, 668 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (upholding name change where father paid support, had visitation, and involvement; such conduct supports best interests)
- Petersen v. Burton, 871 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (statutory presumption for objecting noncustodial parent explained; father’s improved parenting and support can justify name change)
- C.B. v. B.W., 985 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (summarizing split in precedent and reiterating best-interest standard for surname changes)
- In re Paternity of M.O.B., 627 N.E.2d 1317 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (reversing name change where only father’s desire to carry on name supported petition)
- Garrison v. Knauss, 637 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (reversing where father’s paternal sentiment alone was insufficient to justify name change)