REED v. REMMERT
2016 OK CIV APP 65
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Father (Reed) sought to change his minor child's surname from the mother's maiden name (Remmert) to his surname following a paternity determination. The child was born January 28, 2014; parents never married.
- The trial court required Father to file a post-paternity motion under 10 O.S. § 90.4 to request the surname change and then held a hearing with notice to Mother (Remmert).
- At the hearing, counsel for each side presented argument; the court considered established factors bearing on a child’s best interests (e.g., family identification, parental relationships, child’s age and preference, potential embarrassment, length of use of current name).
- The court found both parents wanted extended-family identification; noted Mother was married to someone with a different surname and had another child with a different surname; the child was too young to express a preference.
- Applying the best-interest analysis, the trial court ordered the child’s surname changed to Father’s; Mother appealed alleging statutory and procedural defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to change child’s surname after paternity | Reed: court may order surname change under 10 O.S. § 90.4 after paternity determination | Remmert: name change must follow 12 O.S. §§1631–1637 procedure and/or Uniform Parentage Act limits | Court: 10 O.S. § 90.4 is proper authority in paternity context; required Father to file motion under §90.4 and proceeded accordingly |
| Whether Uniform Parentage Act prevents court-ordered change absent parental agreement | Reed: §90.4 permits court-ordered change when in child’s best interest | Remmert: §7700-636(E) implies name change only by parental agreement | Court: rejects Remmert; §7700-636(E) provides mechanism when parents agree but does not bar court-ordered changes under §90.4 |
| Best-interest factors and application | Reed: change fosters paternal relationship and family identification | Remmert: potential disruption, maternal family ID, mother’s marital surname differs | Court: weighed factors (family ID, parental relationships, child’s age, use of name, etc.) and found change served child’s best interests |
| Standard of review on appeal | Reed: trial court discretion should be upheld | Remmert: trial court erred in balancing factors | Court: review is for abuse of discretion; no abuse found, affirmation warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Hopmann, 907 P.2d 1098 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995) (sets out guiding best-interest factors and affirms deferential abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re M.J.T., 189 P.3d 745 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008) (applies §90.4 surname-change authority in paternity context)
- Abel v. Tisdale, 619 P.2d 608 (Okla. 1980) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)