127 A.3d 826
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Father (T.W.) sought to change his 3-year-old son's surname from Mother’s surname to his, or to hyphenate, while sharing legal and physical custody.
- Father proceeded pro se at the name-change hearing; he previously had counsel in custody matters.
- Trial court denied the petition, finding Father failed to prove the name change was in the child’s best interests and that Father’s motive was largely to preserve his surname.
- Father filed for reconsideration; the trial court denied it. The appeals court consolidated two appeals but quashed the appeal challenging denial of reconsideration as not appealable.
- Appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the name-change petition.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of minor’s name change was contrary to child’s best interests | Name change would reflect both parents, strengthen identity, and be in child’s best interest | Father failed to show name change benefits the child; motive was paternal surname preservation | Court: No abuse of discretion; Father failed to meet burden to show best interest |
| Whether trial court disregarded natural parent-child bonds and community respect for Father’s name | Father emphasized equal custody, community recognition (coaching) and sibling sharing his surname | Evidence did not show name change would strengthen bonds or that community respect favored Father’s name | Court: Shared custody neutral; Father’s evidence speculative; credibility findings supported denial |
| Whether Mother’s reluctance was motivated by hostility (improper motive) | Father claimed Mother’s refusal rooted in hostility toward him | Trial court found Father’s primary motive was survival of his surname, not child welfare | Court: Trial court properly considered motive; improper motive weighed against change |
| Whether court erred by not applying custody statutory factors and by denying reconsideration | Father argued trial court should apply 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 custody factors and fully develop record | Court/Mother: This was a name-change—not a custody—proceeding; §5328 factors inapplicable; denial of reconsideration not appealable | Court: No error; custody factors unnecessary; appeal of reconsideration quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Change of Name of Zachary Thomas Andrew Grimes to Zachary Thomas Andrew Grimes-Palaia, 609 A.2d 158 (Pa. 1992) (adopts "best interests of the child" standard for contested minor name changes)
- Doran v. Doran, 820 A.2d 1279 (Pa.Super. 2003) (appellate review of name-change orders for abuse of discretion; defer to trial court credibility findings)
- Petition of Falcucci, 50 A.2d 200 (Pa. 1947) (statutory discretion in name changes must comport with good sense, decency, and fairness)
- In re: C.R.C., 819 A.2d 558 (Pa.Super. 2003) (petitioning parent bears burden to show name change is in child’s best interest)
- Moore v. Moore, 634 A.2d 163 (Pa. 1993) (trial court duty to develop record in custody disputes—distinguished here as a name-change proceeding)
- Provident Nat’l Bank v. Rooklin, 378 A.2d 893 (Pa.Super. 1977) (denial of reconsideration is not appealable)