Wilson v. Smith, 126 So. 3d 413

Mother (Smith) petitioned to change her then-minor daughter's name from Z.A.W. to M.A.S.; father (Wilson) objected as not in child's best interests.
Matter was referred to a magistrate; Wilson sought to appear by telephone because he was incarcerated. Initial hearing was reset; Wilson later appeared telephonically at the rescheduled hearing.
At the magistrate hearing, testimony focused on parental preferences and Wilson’s incarceration and lack of support; magistrate recommended granting the name change "under the totality of the circumstances."
Wilson timely filed written exceptions to the magistrate’s recommended order; the circuit court adopted the recommendation without a proper exceptions hearing, prompting an earlier appeal and remand for a hearing on exceptions.
On remand the circuit court denied Wilson’s request to use his appellate brief as his memorandum, curtailed his argument at the exceptions hearing, adopted the magistrate’s findings, and granted the name change; Wilson appealed.
The appellate court found three reversible errors: wrong legal standard (best-interest/welfare of child required), improper allocation of burden (mother must prove need), and several factual findings lacked competent, substantial evidence; also abuse of discretion in denying Wilson’s memorandum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Proper legal standard for minor name change	Magistrate used improper focus on parental circumstances; standard is child’s best interests/welfare	Mother argued change appropriate given circumstances	Court: Magistrate applied incorrect legal standard; must evaluate whether change is in child’s best interests or necessary for welfare
Allocation of burden of proof	Burden should be on Smith to prove change is in child’s best interests; magistrate improperly asked Wilson to justify objection	Mother implicitly argued father should justify objection	Court: Magistrate improperly shifted burden to father; mother must prove need for change
Sufficiency of factual findings	Several magistrate findings (child known as M.A.S., forced naming, protective shelter) unsupported by record	Magistrate’s factual findings justified recommendation	Court: Many factual findings lacked competent, substantial evidence; circuit court erred in adopting them
Procedural fairness re: memorandum and exceptions hearing	Court abused discretion by refusing to accept Wilson’s appellate brief as his memorandum and curtailed his argument at exceptions hearing	Court justified form-based denial of brief as memorandum	Court: Denial was an abuse of discretion on these facts; appellate brief should be considered on remand; full review required

Azzara v. Waller, 495 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (name change over parental objection requires showing necessity for child’s welfare)
Coolidge v. Ulbrich, 733 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (surname should remain unless change necessary for child’s welfare)
Hayhurst v. Romano, 703 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (same best-interest/welfare principle for name changes)
Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (name change is serious and allowed only when required for welfare of minor)
In re Drummond, 69 So.3d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (appellate court may review magistrate findings de novo and trial court must independently examine evidence)
Quincoces v. Quincoces, 10 So.3d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (trial court must examine evidence and make its own determination when adopting magistrate’s recommendations)
Bell v. Bell, 307 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (entry of judgment on master’s findings is not mere formality; court must make judicial determination)
Henderson v. Lyons, 93 So.3d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (denial of opportunity to present witnesses or testify violates due process)