Opinion
A22-0580
10-05-2022
In the Matter of the Application of Brandis Gwen Mager for a Change of Name of a Minor.
Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CV-21-4599
Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Louise Dovre Bjorkman Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In September 2021, respondent Brandis Mager applied to change her 14-year-old son's surname from that of his father, appellant Edward Stahlmann, to her own. She thereafter wrote a letter to Stahlmann, who is in prison, notifying him of the application and a scheduled court hearing and explaining that the child is concerned about others confusing him with Stahlmann. Stahlmann sent a letter to the district court stating that he objects to the name change; his letter was rejected for failure to pay the required filing fee. After the hearing, the district court granted the name change. In its order, the court noted that an interested observer at the hearing stated that Stahlmann "filed correspondence with the court," but explained that "[a]t the time of the hearing there was not any properly filed correspondence." Stahlmann appeals.
2. Stahlmann contends that the seven days' notice he received of the hearing was inadequate and that the district court erred by declining to consider his letter. We disagree. When one parent applies to change a child's name, the other parent is entitled to notice of the application. Minn. Stat. § 259.10 (2020). But the statute does not prescribe a particular notice period. And it is undisputed that Stahlmann did receive notice sufficiently in advance of the hearing to submit an objection. Stahlmann's assertion that the district court erred by not considering that objection is also unpersuasive. Courts may reject a document for filing if it is "tendered without a required filing fee." Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(c)(1). Since Stahlmann's letter was duly rejected for want of the fee, it was not properly before the court when ruling on the name change.
3. Stahlmann next argues that the district court erred by failing to address the child's best interests. A district court "shall grant" an application to change a minor child's name unless the change "is not in the best interests of the child." Minn. Stat. § 259.11(a) (2020); see also Foster v. Foster, 802 N.W.2d 755, 757 (Minn.App. 2011) ("[T]he district court must grant the request after determining that the name change is in the child's best interests."). The district court's order does not address the child's best interests. But we do not assume from this omission that the court failed to consider them; Stahlmann must demonstrate that error. See Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944) (stating that "on appeal error is never presumed"); see also Collins v. Waconia Dodge, Inc., 793 N.W.2d 142, 146 (Minn.App. 2011) (stating that appellant must provide "a record sufficient to show alleged errors"), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 2011). He has not done so.
4. The district court conducted a hearing at which it received testimony from Mager, the child, and other witnesses who know the child. We do not know the details of their testimony or any findings the court made on the record because Stahlmann did not order a transcript. But the available record persuades us that the only possible purpose of the hearing was to consider the child's best interests. Moreover, Stahlmann candidly acknowledges evidence favoring the name change, including that he "has an extremely extensive criminal history of over 21 felony convictions since 2002" and that the child voiced support for the change.
5. Finally, Stahlmann contends that the district court erred by failing to determine whether clear and compelling evidence supports the name change. This standard applies only if a parent objects. See Robinson v. Hansel, 223 N.W.2d 138, 140 (Minn. 1974) (stating that a court may grant name change over a parent's objection only if "the evidence is clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change"). Because Stahlmann did not properly file an objection, the district court was not required to apply this heightened standard.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.