Opinion
No. 05-07-01772-CV
Opinion Filed February 17, 2009.
On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 06-4579.
Before Justices WRIGHT, O'NEILL, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
R.D. appeals the trial court's judgment denying his request to change his biological child's last name in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to adjudicate parentage under chapter 160 of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.636(e) (Vernon 2008). In a single issue, he asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it specifically denied his request to change the child's name because his pleadings were not verified. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
When A.R. notified R.D. she was pregnant with his child, he denied paternity. A.R. and R.D. were not married. The child was born on September 16, 2004, and A.R. gave the child her fiancé's last name. On March 20, 2006, R.D. filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to adjudicate parentage under chapter 160 of the Texas Family Code. See id. §§ 160.601-.637. The trial court issued temporary orders that appointed R.D. and A.R. temporary joint managing conservators, granted R.D. visitation rights, and gave A.R. the exclusive right to designate the child's primary residence. The case was mediated and all issues were resolved except the name of the child and the amount, if any, of retroactive child support. On September 14, 2007, ten days before trial, R.D. filed an amended petition to include his request that the child's last name be changed to his. See id. § 160.636(e). The amended petition was not verified.
At trial, the request for retroactive support was granted and R.D. was ordered to pay $1,000 in retroactive child support. In its order of March 10, 2008 the trial court found R.D.'s pleadings "were not verified as required for the name change request" and denied the name change request. R.D. appeals only the trial court's denial of his name change request.
II. NAME CHANGE
R.D. asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the name change request because a verified pleading is not required for a child's name change in a proceeding to adjudicate parentage under chapter 160 of the Texas Family Code. See id. Specifically, he argues the verified pleading requirement in section 45.002 of the family code exclusively addresses petitions filed only to change the name of a child and does not apply to a suit filed under chapter 160. See id. §§ 45.002(a), 160.636(e). A.R. responds section 45.002 is the only family code provision that establishes the verified pleading requirement to change a minor child's name, sections 45.002 and 160.636(e) must be read together, and, therefore, a petition is required to be verified when a name change is requested in a proceeding to adjudicate parentage pursuant to chapter 160.
A. Standard of Review
An appellate court reviews a trial court's denial of a name change under an abuse of discretion standard. See In re Guthrie, 45 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (citing Bennett v. Northcutt, 544 S.W.2d 703, 706-08 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1976, no writ) (per curiam)). The test for abuse of discretion is not whether the facts "present an appropriate case for the trial court's actions," but whether the trial court "acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles." Id. (citing Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241 (Tex. 1985)). A trial court abuses its discretion "as to legal matters when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly." Id. (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)).
B. Applicable Law
An application to change the name of a child is controlled by subchapter A of chapter 45 of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 45.001-.005. Section 45.002 sets out the requirements of a petition to change the name of a child, including that the petition must be verified. Id. § 45.002. The trial court may order the name of a child changed if the change is in the "best interest of the child." Id. § 45.004(a)(1).
Chapter 160 of the Texas Family Code, the Uniform Parentage Act, controls proceedings to adjudicate parentage. See id. §§ 160.601-.637. Section 160.610(a) provides a proceeding to adjudicate parentage may be joined with other proceedings, including "adoption, termination of parental rights, possession of or access to a child, child support, divorce, annulment, or probate or administration of an estate or another appropriate proceeding." Id. § 160.610(a). Section 160.636(e) provides a court may order the name of a child be changed "[o]n request of a party and for good cause shown." Id. § 160.636(e). Finally, section 160.002 states that "[i]f a provision of this chapter conflicts with another provision of this title or another state statute or rule and the conflict cannot be reconciled, this chapter prevails." Id. § 160.002.
C. Application of Law to Facts
R.D. contends the verified pleading requirement in section 45.002 of the family code does not apply to a suit filed under chapter 160. He asserts a name change brought pursuant to chapter 45 is different than one sought under chapter 160 because those chapters have different standards for changing the name of a minor. Section 45.004(a) provides that a "court may order the name of a child changed if the change is in the best interest of the child," whereas section 160.636(e) allows a court to order the name of a child be changed "for good cause shown." He asserts the verification requirement of chapter 45 may be invoked where a name change is the only relief requested. Hence, R.D. contends the verification requirement in section 45.002 cannot apply to a chapter 160 proceeding.
As support for his position, R.D. cites the Fort Worth Court of Appeals case In re M.C.F. See In re M.C.F., 121 S.W.3d 891, 895 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). R.D. contends that case demonstrates a chapter 160 proceeding is not the same as a name change proceeding under chapter 45. However, In re M.C.F. did not stop, as R.D. does, by noting the "difference" between chapters 45 and 160. Rather, the court of appeals recognized that while "a name change in connection with a paternity action under chapter 160 is not the same as a name change under chapter 45, we believe that the chapter 45 cases may be looked to in determining a child's best interest regarding the name change in a paternity action." Id. The court determined the petitioner in that action was required to show "good cause to justify a name change" under section 160.636(e) and, in addition, that it was in the "best interest of the child" to do so as required in section 45.004(a), as well as generally in the family code. Id. at 895; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.002. In re M.C.F. does not support R.D.'s position. Rather, marking the differences between a chapter 160 and a chapter 45 proceeding, that court concluded the provisions were not in conflict. See In re M.C.F., 121 S.W.3d at 895. Then, it read, harmonized, and applied them together. See id.
Chapter 160 is silent regarding the form of the pleading required when one seeks an order pursuant to section 160.636(e) for a child's name change in a proceeding to adjudicate parentage. However, section 160.610 provides that a proceeding to adjudicate parentage may be joined with other proceedings, including "adoption, termination of parental rights, possession of or access to a child, child support, divorce, annulment, or probate or administration of an estate or another appropriate proceeding." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.610(a). It is clearly contemplated that the proceedings under chapter 160 for a determination of parentage may be combined with "another appropriate proceeding." Although the name change of a child is not specifically listed in section 160.610(a), the list of proceedings is not exclusive as demonstrated by the statutory language. Importantly, section 160.636(e) has expressly provided a request for a child's name change may be included in a proceeding adjudicating parentage. Further, section 160.002 provides "[i]f a provision of this chapter conflicts with another provision of this title or another state statute or rule and the conflict cannot be reconciled, this chapter prevails." Id. § 160.002. We are obliged to read the provisions of the family code together and harmonize them. See Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697, 706 (Tex. 2002); Russell v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 629, 638-39 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. dism'd). Chapter 160 contains no requirement regarding the form of a petition for a child's name change, and section 45.002 is the only section of the family code that addresses the precise form of such a pleading. The verification requirement of section 45.002 is not in conflict with chapter 160. Accordingly, we read, harmonize, and apply the provisions together. See In re M.C.F., 121 S.W.3d at 895. We conclude section 45.002's requirement that a petition seeking a name change of a child must be verified is applicable where a prayer for a child's name change is made a part of a chapter 160 proceeding to adjudicate parentage. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied R.D.'s name change request. R.D.'s issue is decided against him.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied R.D.'s name change request. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.