From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Change of

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 16, 2016
No. 271 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2016)

Opinion

J-A22045-16 No. 271 MDA 2016

09-16-2016

IN RE: CHANGE OF NAME OF: D.J.G. APPEAL OF: A.D.


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered January 13, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Civil Division at No(s): CI-15-02812 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:

Appellant, A.D. ("Mother"), appeals from the order entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, which denied Mother's petition to change the surname of D.J.G. ("Child"). We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. We add only that Mother timely filed a notice of appeal on February 12, 2016. The trial court ordered Mother on February 17, 2016, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Mother timely complied on March 4, 2016.

Mother raises the following issues for our review:

DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING A CHANGE IN THE CHILD'S NAME WAS NOT IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST?

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ENTERING AN ORDER DENYING MOTHER'S PETITION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF
THE MINOR WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE DECISION, SPECIFICALLY WHERE TWO OF THE THREE CRITERIA FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD STANDARD WEIGHED HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF MOTHER AND WHERE THE THIRD CRITERIA WAS NOT CONSIDERED?

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN NOT GIVING CONSIDERABLE WEIGHT TO THE FACT THAT FATHER'S OBJECTION WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY BASED IN CONTINUING THE TRADITION AND CUSTOM OF PATRILINEAL NAMING?
(Mother's Brief at 6).

Appellate review of an order denying a petition for a name change implicates the following principles:

Our standard of review involving a petition for change of name, regardless of the age of the petitioner, is whether there was an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion exists if the trial court has overridden or misapplied the law, or if the evidence is insufficient to sustain the order. Further, resolution of factual issues is for the trial court, and a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's findings if those findings are supported by competent evidence. It is not enough for reversal that we, if sitting as a trial court, may have made a differing finding or reached a different result.
T.W. v. D.A., 127 A.3d 826, 827 (Pa.Super. 2015) (internal citations omitted).

Pennsylvania's name change statute provides:

§ 702. Change by order of court

(a) General rule.— The court of common pleas of any county may by order change the name of any person resident in the county.
54 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(a). When the petition is filed on behalf of a minor child, the court must determine if the change is in the best interests of the child, and the petitioner has the burden of proof. In re C.R.C., 819 A.2d 558 (Pa.Super. 2003). A petitioner's mere allegations that a name change will be in the child's best interests, without any supporting evidence, are not sufficient to meet the burden. Id. at 562.
Specific guidelines are difficult to establish, for the circumstances in each case will be unique, as each child has individual physical, intellectual, moral, social and spiritual needs. However, general considerations should include the natural bonds between parent and child, the social stigma or respect afforded a particular name within the community, and, where the child is of sufficient age, whether the child intellectually and rationally understands the significance of changing his or her name.
In re Change of Name of Zachary Thomas Andrew Grimes to Zachary Thomas Andrew Grimes-Palaia , 530 Pa. 388, 394, 609 A.2d 158, 161 (1992).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Howard F. Knisely, we conclude Mother's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the issues presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed March 17, 2016, at 3-7) (finding: (1)-(3) Mother and Father were not married at time of Child's birth, and agreed to give Child Father's last name in anticipation of getting married; Mother and Father permanently separated thereafter, and Mother and Child currently live with Mother's family; Mother's testimony regarding why Child's name should be changed to match her birth name centered around Mother's own desires, beliefs, and concerns, rather than consideration of Child's best interests; Mother offered no evidence to show Child has struggled to accept himself or feel secure in his home owing to his different last name; Child has not been subjected to harassment or embarrassment in community; Mother has not had any difficulty with Child's medical or dental appointments because of his last name; Mother failed to present any evidence to support her contention that her surname was afforded more respect in community than Father's surname; both Mother and Father have been active in Child's life; Child has strong, supportive, and loving relationship with each parent; change of Child's name would not enhance stability or bond in mother-son relationship; name change would unnecessarily deprive Child of another link to Father; Mother's entire family already accepts and loves Child; Mother indicated she would change her last name if she remarried, which would result in Mother and Child again having different last names; Father's desire to preserve his family name would be insufficient to support name change, but Father is not petitioner advocating for Child's name change; thus, Mother failed to meet her burden to show name change would be in Child's best interest). The record supports the court's decision; therefore, we have no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/16/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

In re Change of

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 16, 2016
No. 271 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2016)
Case details for

In re Change of

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: CHANGE OF NAME OF: D.J.G. APPEAL OF: A.D.

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 16, 2016

Citations

No. 271 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2016)