They are: "(6) a child's reasonable preference for one of the surnames; . . . (8) the degree of community respect associated with the child's present surname and the proposed surname; (9) the difficulties, harassment, or embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing the present or proposed surname; and (10) the identification of the child as a part of a family unit." Minnig v. Nelson, 9 Neb.App. 427, 613 N.W.2d 24, 27 (2000). The court further recognized as an important factor "the possibility that a different surname may cause insecurity or a lack of identity. . . ."
See, e.g., In re Change of Name of Davenport, 263 Neb. 614, 641 N.W.2d 379 (2002); In re Change of Name of Andrews, supra note 1; Minnig v. Nelson, 9 Neb. App. 427, 613 N.W.2d 24 (2000). Watts testified at trial that she wanted to change Slingsby's surname because she was concerned about Slingsby's potential embarrassment at having a surname different from Watts' and Oxford's, because she desired Slingsby to feel closer to her new husband, because she wanted Slingsby to feel as though he was part of her and her husband's family, and because Slingsby had begun telling his teachers at preschool that his surname is Watts.
The question of whether the name of a minor child should be changed is determined by what is in the best interests of the child. Minnig v. Nelson, 9 Neb.App. 427, 613 N.W.2d 24 (2000). The proponent of the change in surname has the burden to prove that the change in surname is in the child's best interests.