State on behalf of Connor H. v. Blake G., 856 N.W.2d 295

Connor H. was born out of wedlock to Blake G. and Amanda H. in October 2008; Connor was initially given Amanda’s maiden surname on his birth certificate.
Amanda later married and began using her husband’s surname; Blake sought to change Connor’s surname to Blake’s in paternity proceedings, while Amanda sought to change it to Amanda’s married surname in a separate petition.
Connor’s custodial status: Amanda has been the custodial parent since birth; Connor had leukemia and was covered by Amanda’s insurance; both parents participated in his medical care.
District court proceedings in October 2013 granted Blake’s surname-change request, denied Amanda’s petition, and held no presumption in favor of the paternal surname, applying a “substantial evidence” standard.
Nebraska law requires a best-interests-of-the-child analysis for name changes; the court acknowledged nonexclusive factors but treated the standard as a blend of best interests and substantial welfare.
On de novo review, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that there is no automatic preference for paternal or maternal surnames; the evidence did not show Connor’s best interests required a change to either surname.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there a presumption favoring paternal or maternal surname in Nebraska name changes for a child born out of wedlock?	Amanda argues there is no custodial-presumption, and the court’s prior reasoning favored Blake’s surname.	Blake contends the court should consider the child’s best interests with possible preference for paternal name.	There is no presumption for either surname; best interests control.
What standard governs a petition to change a minor’s surname in Nebraska?	Amanda asserts the district court applied correct best-interests standard with no extra burden.	Blake asserts the court used a “substantial evidence” standard.	Best interests governs; no separate substantial-welfare threshold.
Did the court properly apply the burden of proof on the party seeking a name change?	Amanda contends the burden was misapplied by conflating substantial evidence with best interests.	Blake argues the burden favored his proposed name.	Burden on the proponent to show the change is in the child’s best interests.
Did the evidence establish that changing Connor’s surname to Blake’s or Amanda’s married surname would be in his best interests?	Amanda argues her name change would better reflect family integration and Connor’s identity.	Blake argues the current name already reflects connections and changing would be unnecessary or disruptive.	Evidence was insufficient to show a best-interests-based change to either surname.

In re Change of Name of Slingsby, 276 Neb. 114, 752 N.W.2d 564 (Nebraska 2008) (best-interests standard; no presumption for custodial-parent surname)
Cohee v. Cohee, 210 Neb. 855, 317 N.W.2d 381 (Nebraska 1982) (no custodial-parent surname presumption)
In re Change of Name of Andrews, 235 Neb. 170, 454 N.W.2d 488 (Nebraska 1990) (case law on best interests in name changes)
Spatz v. Spatz, 199 Neb. 332, 258 N.W.2d 814 (Nebraska 1977) (nonexclusive factors in name-change context)
Carter v. Reddell, 75 Ark. App. 8, 52 S.W.3d 506 (Arkansas 2001) (considerations of best interests in name changes; community impact)
M.L.M. ex rel. Froggatte v. Millen, 28 Kan. App. 2d 392, 15 P.3d 857 (Kansas App. 2000) (child’s established identity and potential disruption)
In re Berger ex rel. K.C.F., 778 N.W.2d 579 (North Dakota 2010) (denial of name change where no strong best-interests support)
Grad ex rel. Janda v. Jepson, 652 N.W.2d 324 (North Dakota 2002) (awkwardness of name changes acknowledged; case-by-case approach)