Calloway v. Shirley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calloway v. Shirley

61 So. 3d 1240, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7426, 2011 WL 1938241

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 2011

Docket1D10-6174

StatusPublished

This text of 61 So. 3d 1240 (Calloway v. Shirley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calloway v. Shirley, 61 So. 3d 1240, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7426, 2011 WL 1938241 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this appeal concerns whether, after ruling that Appellee is the biological father of the child born out of wedlock on March 31, 2004, to Appellant, the trial court erred in changing the child’s legal surname at Appellee’s request. We conclude the record lacks competent, substantial evidence establishing the name change is in the child’s best interests. See Hutcheson v. Taylor, 43 So.3d 921, 922-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Bardin v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 720 So.2d 609, 612-13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and cases cited therein; Collinsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So.2d 744, 746-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the Final Judgment on Father’s Amended Complaint for Paternity rendered October 19, 2010, changing the child’s last name, and remand with directions to enter an order returning the child’s name to that listed on her birth certificate.

*1241 VACATED in part and REMANDED with directions.

BENTON, C.J., CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this appeal concerns whether, after ruling that Appellee is the biological father of the child born out of wedlock on March 31, 2004, to Appellant, the trial court erred in changing the child’s legal surname at Appellee’s request. We conclude the record lacks competent, substantial evidence establishing the name change is in the child’s best interests. See Hutcheson v. Taylor, 43 So.3d 921, 922-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Bardin v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 720 So.2d 609, 612-13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and cases cited therein; Collinsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So.2d 744, 746-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the Final Judgment on Father’s Amended Complaint for Paternity rendered October 19, 2010, changing the child’s last name, and remand with directions to enter an order returning the child’s name to that listed on her birth certificate.

*1241 VACATED in part and REMANDED with directions.

BENTON, C.J., CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 3d 1240, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7426, 2011 WL 1938241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calloway-v-shirley-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack