Collinsworth v. O'Connell

29 Citing cases

  1. In re Zachary Thomas Andrew Grimes

    530 Pa. 388 (Pa. 1992)   Cited 36 times
    In Grimes, the trial court granted the mother's petition to change the child's surname from the father's surname to a hyphenated name which used both the mother's and the father's surnames.

    See, Application of Januskiewicz, 105 N.M. 306, 731 P.2d 1350 (1986). The following jurisdictions apply the "best interest of the child" standard when considering petitions to change the name of minor children: Laks v. Laks, 25 Ariz. App. 58, 540 P.2d 1277 (1975); Stamps v. Rawlins, 297 Ark. 370, 761 S.W.2d 933 (1988); In re: Schiffman's Marriage, 28 Cal.3d 640, 620 P.2d 579, 169 Cal.Rptr. 918 (1980); D.K.W. v. J.L.B., 807 P.2d 1222 (Colo.App. 1990); Don v. Don, 142 Conn. 309, 114 A.2d 203 (1955); Degerberg v. McCormick, 41 Del. Ch. 46, 187 A.2d 436 (1963); Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1987); Fulghum v. Paul, 229 Ga. 463, 192 S.E.2d 376 (1972); In re: Marriage of Presson, 102 Ill.2d 303, 80 Ill.Dec. 294, 465 N.E.2d 85 (1984); Petition of Meyer, 471 N.E.2d 718 (Ind.Ct.App. 1984); Matter of Morehead, 10 Kan. App. 2d 625, 706 P.2d 480 (1985); Likins v. Logsdon, 793 S.W.2d 118 (Ky. 1990); Webber v. Webber, 167 So.2d 519 (La.Ct.App. 1964); In re: Reben, 342 A.2d 688 (Me. 1975); Hardy v. Hardy, 269 Md. 412, 306 A.2d 244 (1973); Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. 517, 131 N.E.2d 758 (1956); Rappleye v. Rappleye, 183 Mich. App. 396, 454 N.W.2d 231 (1990); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 309 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 1981); Marshall v. Marshall, 230 Miss. 719, 93 So.2d 822 (1957); R.K.-T.S. by V.T. v. R.S., 819 S.W.2d 749 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991); Matter of Iverson, 241 Mont. 140, 786 P.2d 1 (1990); In re: Andrews by and through Andrews, 235 Neb. 170, 454 N.W.2d 488 (1990); Magiera v. Luera, 106 Nev. 775, 802 P.2d 6 (1990); Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 118 N.H. 199, 385 A.2d 120 (1978); Application of Rossell v. Yacono, 196

  2. Bardin v. State Dept. of Revenue

    720 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 20 times
    Holding trial court abuses discretion with respect to petition for child support by failing to award support from date of petition, where need for support and ability of the father to pay existed at time petition was filed

    The trial court changed the child's legal surname from Bardin to Bailey despite the fact that Bailey offered no evidence that the change was in the best interests of the child. This court, in Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), held that the change of a child's surname to that of the father, based only on a finding of paternity, is error. The Collinsworth court explained that a child's surname may be modified "`only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfare of the minor.

  3. Levine v. Best

    595 So. 2d 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 17 times
    In Levine, the third district considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to change the surname of a child born out-of-wedlock from his mother's surname (Best) to his father's surname (Levine).

    The standard to applied in changing a child's name is the best interest standard. See Collingsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Azzara v. Waller, 495 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Arnett v. Matthews, 259 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). In Lazow, 147 So.2d at 12, the court applied a best interest test and concluded that a minor's name may be changed only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the minor's welfare.

  4. Lancaster v. Brenneis

    417 N.W.2d 767 (Neb. 1988)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that in filiation proceedings, questions concerning custody and visitation of child are resolved on basis of child's best interests

    01(3), a court, exercising jurisdiction in a filiation proceeding, has the discretionary power to decide whether a child's surname shall be changed from the legal surname of the child's mother to the surname of the child's father. In a filiation proceeding, a court, in deciding whether a child's surname should be changed from the mother's surname to the father's surname, must consider the best interests of the child regarding a change of name. Beyah v. Shelton, 231 Va. 432, 344 S.E.2d 909 (1986); Daves v. Nastos, 105 Wn.2d 24, 711 P.2d 314 (1985); Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. App. 1987). Although designation of a child's surname arose out of a proceeding to dissolve a marriage, this court, in Cohee v. Cohee, 210 Neb. 855, 317 N.W.2d 381 (1982), adopted the "best interests of the child" as the correct criterion or standard applicable to a parental dispute concerning the surname of a child affected by the dissolution.

  5. Neville v. McKibben

    227 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 13 times
    Reversing the final judgment that changed the child's surname to that of the father because the only evidence he presented in support was his own, self-serving testimony that he wished to carry on his family name and the trial court's finding that it would be more convenient for him and the child to have the same last name did not justify the name change

    A name change is proper "only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfare of the minor." Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (quoting Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So.2d 12, 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) ). If only conclusory assertions are provided in the record, "the issue should ordinarily be resolved against the party having the burden of proof, the proponent of change." Collinsworth, 508 So.2d at 747 ; Bardin v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 720 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). A name change may not be based solely on a finding of paternity.

  6. Girten v. Andreu

    698 So. 2d 886 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the name change because the only evidence presented by the father regarding the name change was his desire that the child bear his surname and his concern that the use of the mother's surname would allow her greater influence over the child

    The party seeking the name change bears the burden of proof, and the court's decision must be based on "some evidence other than the parties' conclusory assertions appearing in the record before us . . ." Durham, 659 So.2d at 1292(quoting Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). Having fallen short of carrying this burden, the father's name-change request must fail.

  7. In Interest of S.M.H

    531 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 9 times

    Stepp, 520 So.2d at 316. We agree with Barnes and Stepp and note that our recent decision in Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), while not involving the exact issue before us, is consistent with the spirit of the holdings in Barnes and Stepp.Collinsworth held the shared parental responsibility law applicable to a non-married couple contesting the custody of their illegitimate offspring.

  8. Stepp v. Stepp

    520 So. 2d 314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 9 times

    Without citing Allen, the First and Fourth District Courts of appeal have held contrary to Allen and applied the shared parental responsibility law (section 61.13) to custody battles between unmarried parents. Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Barnes v. Frazier, 509 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); In Re: A.J.R., 440 So.2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The court in Barnes held:

  9. Barnes v. Frazier

    509 So. 2d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 9 times

    See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); DeCosta v. North Broward Hospital District, 497 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Recently in Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), our sister court held the Shared Parental Responsibility law applicable to a non-married couple contesting the custody of their illegitimate offspring. In Collinsworth, however, the mother was given primary residential custody, and therefore no finding of unfitness would have been required.

  10. Cothron v. Hadley

    769 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 8 times
    Reversing the order changing the children's name because the mother's testimony that she wanted to protect the children from any embarrassment they might suffer by having the same last name as their father, a convicted sex offender, was conclusory

    Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).See also Cooledge v. Ulbrich, 733 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Moreover, the party seeking the name change bears the burden of proof and the court's decision must be based on some evidence other than the party's conclusory assertions as appears in the record before us. See, Durham v. McNair, 659 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Collingsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from, and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to appoint a guardian ad litem for the children and to hold another hearing at which additional testimony may be taken, including input from the guardian ad litem, so that the court may determine, based on competent evidence, whether a name change is in the best interests of the children.