in the Interest of A.E.M., a Minor Child
455 S.W.3d 684
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Parents could not agree on the child's last name after a negotiation conference with the Attorney General's Office.
- The Office filed a petition for confirmation of a non-agreed child support order; the father sought a name change.
- At the hearing, the father argued for changing the child’s surname to his for family name continuity and military considerations.
- The mother testified her surname has community respect; she suggested keeping the child’s name.
- The trial court ordered the child’s surname to include the father’s surname, which the mother challenged on jurisdiction, sufficiency, and judgment-conformity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to order name change | Higley argues Chapter 233 limits terms; name change not within scope. | Father argues trial court can determine unresolved issues at confirmation hearing. | No jurisdictional bar; trial court had authority to determine the name change. |
| Legal sufficiency of evidence supporting name change | Change not in child’s best interest; insufficient evidence to support change. | Testimony on family unit and sibling relationship supports change. | Evidence insufficient; substantial welfare of the child does not require name change. |
| Written judgment vs. oral pronouncement | Written judgment did not conform to oral ruling. | Oral pronouncement governs; writing should reflect it. | Modify written judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement (mother first, then father). |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (material evidence standard; credibility and weight reside with fact finder)
- In re Guthrie, 45 S.W.3d 719 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2001) (name change guided by best interests; reluctant exercise of power)
- In re H.S.B., 401 S.W.3d 77 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (balancing factors for best interests of child; sibling relationships considered)
- Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2014) (jurisdictional analysis; presence vs. absence of consequences for noncompliance)
- Moore v. Altra Energy Technologies, Inc., 321 S.W.3d 727 (Tex.App.—Houst. [14th Dist.] 2010) (party may waive mandatory non-jurisdictional requirements by failure to object)