With sole legal custody can I change my daughter's last name w/o father's permission?

[Antigone*]

If you took it to court, paid a lawyer and were well prepared I believe you could get the name changed.

Before you do something like that, I can tell first hand that the easiest way to get an uninvolved father interested is serving him court papers.

I'd love to see case law on that one

 

[Zigner]

On what basis?

Ignorance?

 

[Silverplum]

Ignorance?

I'm guessing that one, yes.

 

[LeemonGator]

On what basis?

Re: PETITION OF TWO MINORS FOR CHANGE OF NAME.
65 Mass. App. Ct. 850


In determining a child's best interests with respect to a proposed change in surname, a judge may consider various factors, "includ[ing] the effect of the change of the child's surname on the preservation and development of the child's relationship with each parent and other siblings; the length of time the child has utilized a given name; the age of the child as it may relate to his or her identification with the surname; and the difficulties and embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing the present or proposed surname." Jones v. Roe, 33 Mass. App. Ct. at 664. Richards v. Mason, 54 Mass. App. Ct. at 571-572. [Note 16]

See Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. 517 , 521-522 (1956) ("A change of name may not be in the child's best interest if the effect of such change is to contribute to the further estrangement of the

Page 857

child from a father who exhibits a desire to preserve the parental relationship"). The personal preference of a child of suitable age and maturity should also be considered. See Richards v. Mason, 54 Mass. App. Ct. at 570, 572. See also Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. at 521.



Based on this case which holds the issue at bar, I believe it could be effectively argued in OP's favor, if OP has been accurate in what she has stated, which was that the father was denied visitation, has been uninvolved, documented drug use, etc.

If father shows up to contest, that could be seen as some sort of wish to be involved, so that should certainly be considered. I think mom would have a better than 50/50 shot to get it changed, if her name was changed first obviously.

If the father is indeed absent, and the child is 2, and moms name is changed back to maiden, it would be in the childs best interest to change it. In my opinion.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Zigner]

Re: PETITION OF TWO MINORS FOR CHANGE OF NAME.
65 Mass. App. Ct. 850


In determining a child's best interests with respect to a proposed change in surname, a judge may consider various factors, "includ[ing] the effect of the change of the child's surname on the preservation and development of the child's relationship with each parent and other siblings; the length of time the child has utilized a given name; the age of the child as it may relate to his or her identification with the surname; and the difficulties and embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing the present or proposed surname." Jones v. Roe, 33 Mass. App. Ct. at 664. Richards v. Mason, 54 Mass. App. Ct. at 571-572. [Note 16]

See Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. 517 , 521-522 (1956) ("A change of name may not be in the child's best interest if the effect of such change is to contribute to the further estrangement of the

Page 857

child from a father who exhibits a desire to preserve the parental relationship"). The personal preference of a child of suitable age and maturity should also be considered. See Richards v. Mason, 54 Mass. App. Ct. at 570, 572. See also Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. at 521.



Based on this case which holds the issue at bar, I believe it could be effectively argued in OP's favor, if OP has been accurate in what she has stated, which was that the father was denied visitation, has been uninvolved, documented drug use, etc.

If father shows up to contest, that could be seen as some sort of wish to be involved, so that should certainly be considered. I think mom would have a better than 50/50 shot to get it changed, if her name was changed first obviously.

If the father is indeed absent, and the child is 2, and moms name is changed back to maiden, it would be in the childs best interest to change it. In my opinion.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

This has NOTHING to do with proper notification of the FATHER.

 

[Silverplum]

Re: PETITION OF TWO MINORS FOR CHANGE OF NAME.
65 Mass. App. Ct. 850


In determining a child's best interests with respect to a proposed change in surname, a judge may consider various factors, "includ[ing] the effect of the change of the child's surname on the preservation and development of the child's relationship with each parent and other siblings; the length of time the child has utilized a given name; the age of the child as it may relate to his or her identification with the surname; and the difficulties and embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing the present or proposed surname." Jones v. Roe, 33 Mass. App. Ct. at 664. Richards v. Mason, 54 Mass. App. Ct. at 571-572. [Note 16]

See Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. 517 , 521-522 (1956) ("A change of name may not be in the child's best interest if the effect of such change is to contribute to the further estrangement of the

Page 857

child from a father who exhibits a desire to preserve the parental relationship"). The personal preference of a child of suitable age and maturity should also be considered. See Richards v. Mason, 54 Mass. App. Ct. at 570, 572. See also Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. at 521.



Based on this case which holds the issue at bar, I believe it could be effectively argued in OP's favor, if OP has been accurate in what she has stated, which was that the father was denied visitation, has been uninvolved, documented drug use, etc.

If father shows up to contest, that could be seen as some sort of wish to be involved, so that should certainly be considered. I think mom would have a better than 50/50 shot to get it changed, if her name was changed first obviously.

If the father is indeed absent, and the child is 2, and moms name is changed back to maiden, it would be in the childs best interest to change it. In my opinion.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

That's your opinion, with which I still disagree based upon several factors.

Thanks for posting some MA law on the subject. Is that the most recent?

 

[Proserpina]

This has NOTHING to do with proper notification of the FATHER.

Exactly....

 

[LdiJ]

This has NOTHING to do with proper notification of the FATHER.

I think that its understood that the father would have to be properly served. However, if he is really completely awol, as it appears that he might be, service by publication is not out of the question.

 

[Silverplum]

I think that its understood that the father would have to be properly served. However, if he is really completely awol, as it appears that he might be, service by publication is not out of the question.

The whole thread is about avoiding the father. It's NOT "understood" one bit.

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

Stupid question...

WHY for the love of all things PINK, are we even entertaining a thread that has been resurrected from THREE years ago? No one asked the question!

 

[LeemonGator]

That's your opinion, with which I still disagree based upon several factors.

Thanks for posting some MA law on the subject. Is that the most recent?

Possibly not, I'm still looking. I shouldn't have posted anything until I found out for sure. Its from 2003.

If the OP stated the facts accurately, why wouldn't it be in the childs best interest?

I understand maintaining that last tie to the natural father, but if the father is indeed AWOL wouldn't it benefit the child to share a name with mom?

 

[Zigner]

Possibly not, I'm still looking. I shouldn't have posted anything until I found out for sure. Its from 2003.

If the OP stated the facts accurately, why wouldn't it be in the childs best interest?

I understand maintaining that last tie to the natural father, but if the father is indeed AWOL wouldn't it benefit the child to share a name with mom?

AGAIN - this has NOTHING to do with the topic of the thread.
Furthermore, *I* personally think that they child MAY actually want to have a link to their family...so, no, it's not necessarily in the child's "best interest" to change the name.


I am aware this thread is old, I just wanted to set things straight with some of the posters on this thread.

 

[Silverplum]

Possibly not, I'm still looking. I shouldn't have posted anything until I found out for sure. Its from 2003.

Gotta have the latest.

 

[Isis1]

WHY for the love of all things PINK, are we even entertaining a thread that has been resurrected from THREE years ago? No one asked the question!

that is a wonderful question, lovey. methinks this week has been long and exhausting.

does anyone know if that lady ever made it out of CVS?

 

[Zigner]

that is a wonderful question, lovey. methinks this week has been long and exhausting.

does anyone know if that lady ever made it out of CVS?

I heard she was released but immediately was captured by REI. At least she's got a sleeping bag!