Bringing Shame on the Family Name

From In re: Name Change of L.L.N., decided Monday by Pennsylvania Superior Court Presiding Judge Anne Lazarus, joined by Judges Jill Beck and John Bender:

The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case as follows:

[Child] was born [in May 2020,] during the marriage of [the parties, who] divorced on December 19, 2022[. Mother] resumed using her prior surname of K[.], and [ ] desire[d] to change the name of [Child] from L.L.N. to L.L.K. for the following reasons: [

1. Father has not had contact with Child since shortly before her first birthday, in May 2021;
2. Father has been convicted of multiple counts of DUI as well as harassment, is currently in prison, and will not be released from prison until November 2026, at the earliest;
3. Father is precluded from having contact with Mother as a condition of his probationary sentence for harassment;
4. Mother desires to protect Child from any stigma and/or emotional or psychological trauma that may result from having Father's last name while living in the same community in which he committed the above crimes; and
5. Mother desires to share the same last name with Child, as well as to have Child share the same last name with her 8-year-old half-brother.] …

[Father filed a response to Mother's petition.] While [Father] does not deny his record of criminal convictions as alleged by [Mother], he does note that[, due to a correction in one of his sentencing orders, he "]should be released from SCI not later than November 2025.” [Father] also alleges that [Mother] ["]has been shamelessly alienating [ ] Child from [him] long before Father ever pled guilty to DUI and began serving his sentence for it. [Mother] is apparently using this name change petition as part of her ongoing and stubborn attempt to [a]lienate [ ] Child from [ ] Father.["] …

[At the hearing, Mother presented two news articles that were returned in a Google search of "[Father's name] Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.” The articles, from the York Daily Record and FOX43 websites, detailed an incident in which Father was “found sleeping half-naked in his car at a Rutter’s store” and offered an investigating officer $50 instead of his license. The articles indicate that Father was charged with DUI, indecent exposure, open lewdness, and other related charges.] …

The appellate standard of review involving a petition for change of name is whether or not there was an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court has rendered a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, has failed to apply the law, or was motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.

When considering a petition to change the name of a minor child, the best interests of the child should be the standard by which a trial court exercises its discretion….

Specific guidelines [for a child's best interests] 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….

Here, the record supports the court’s decision to grant Mother’s name-change petition. The court made credibility determinations—supplemented by its review of the custody record—and concluded that Child’s best interests would be best served by a name change where: (1) Father’s contact with Child has been extremely limited; (2) Child would likely not recognize Father; (3) Father has not had any contact with Child since his most recent incarceration in 2022; (4) Child knows her name to be L.L.K. and her daycare providers refer to her as such; (5) Child would benefit by sharing a last name with the family with whom she resides and interacts; and (6) there is a stigma attached to Father’s name as a result of publicity surrounding his legal issues. We can discern no abuse of discretion.

Finally, as the trial court astutely noted, “it must be remembered that a parent’s goal ‘to forge a strong and nurturing relationship with [his child]‘ is not dependent upon an identity of their surnames, inasmuch as ‘redress for visitation and custodial rights’ is separately available through the courts.” Should Father genuinely wish to pursue a relationship with Child in the future, a name change would have no impact on his ability to do so.

Father’s 19-year-old son, K.N. also testified to say that, “when [he] was a freshman in high school[,] a classmate discovered, through a Google search utilizing the [N.] name, [one of] the article[s] referenced above, head[lin]ed “Man with pants down offers cop money, police say,” containing his father’s mug shot, and it [ ] caused [K.N.] embarrassment.” K.N. “considered changing his last name but decided against it after re-establishing a relationship with his paternal grandparents. K.N. testified that he realized it would upset his grandfather, as K.N. is his only biological grandson with his last name.”

The post Bringing Shame on the Family Name appeared first on Reason.com.