REED v. REMMERT
2016 OK CIV APP 65
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Mother (Remmert) and Father (Reed) were never married; paternity of minor child S.H.R. (b. 1/28/2014) was determined in a paternity proceeding.
- After paternity was established, Father moved to change the child’s surname from Mother’s (Remmert) to Father’s (Reed) under 10 O.S. § 90.4.
- Parties and trial court briefly disputed whether the name change should proceed under 10 O.S. § 90.4 (paternity context) or the separate general name-change statute, 12 O.S. §§ 1631–1637.
- Mother opposed the requested surname change; the trial court held a hearing (oral arguments) and issued a written order analyzing enumerated best-interest factors and granted the requested change.
- Trial court found both parents wanted the child to share their respective family names, noted Mother’s remarriage (she uses maiden name Remmert) and another child with a different surname, and found the infant too young to express a preference.
- Father appealed the name change order; the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reed) | Defendant's Argument (Remmert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper statutory authority for name change | § 90.4 authorizes changing child’s surname after paternity determination | Trial court should follow general name-change statute (12 O.S. §§1631–1637) or, per UPA §7700-636(E), cannot change if no parental agreement | Court: § 90.4 is appropriate in paternity proceedings; §7700-636(E) does not preclude court-ordered change when parents disagree |
| Standard and factors for deciding name change | Court should apply best-interest analysis using established factors (James list) | Same (argued against change on those factors) | Court applied the non-mandatory James factors, addressed each, and found change was in child’s best interest |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion | The trial court properly balanced factors; no abuse | The change was not in child’s best interest; court misapplied law/statutes | Court: No abuse of discretion; decision affirmed |
| Child’s preference and age relevance | Child too young to express a meaningful preference; other factors predominate | Same | Court found child’s age made preference irrelevant and relied on other best-interest factors |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Hopmann, 907 P.2d 1098 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995) (lists and applies non-mandatory best-interest factors for child surname change in paternity context)
- In re M.J.T., 189 P.3d 745 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008) (applies § 90.4 surname change procedure after paternity determination)
- Abel v. Tisdale, 619 P.2d 608 (Okla. 1980) (defines abuse of discretion standard)