Change of Name of:A.M.S. a minor Appeal of: A.C.D.

Opinion

J-A23042-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF: : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF A.M.S., A MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA :

:

APPEAL OF: A.C.D. : No. 1632 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Dated September 9, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Orphans’ Court at No(s): No. 10220 of 2014, C.A.

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., AND MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 26, 2015 Appellant, A.C.D. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, denying his petition for change of name of A.M.S., a minor. We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case.1 Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

Father raises the following issue for our review:

THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT FATHER HAD NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE NAME CHANGE WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF [A.M.S.]

(Father’s Brief at 5).

1 The court denied Father’s petition for change of name on September 9, 2014. Father timely filed a notice of appeal on October 7, 2014. On October 16, 2014, the court ordered Father to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Father timely complied on November 6, 2014.

J-A23042-15

This Court has stated:

The appellate standard of review involving a petition for change of name, regardless of the age of the petitioner, is whether or not there was an abuse of discretion. When considering a petition to change the name of a minor child, the best interest of the child should be the standard by which a trial court exercises its discretion. This Court has further held:

[T]he party petitioning for the minor child’s change of name has the burden of coming forward with evidence that the name change requested would be in the child’s best interest, and that where a petition to change a child’s name is contested, the court must carefully evaluate all of the relevant factual circumstances to determine if the petitioning parent has established that the change is in the child's best interest.

In re E.M.L., 19 A.3d 1068, 1069 (Pa.Super. 2011) (internal citations omitted).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable John W. Hodge, we conclude Father’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 9, 2014, at 2-5) (finding: both parties presented themselves as wonderful and capable parents who have strong support systems and respectable families in community; based upon positive attributes of Mother and Father, court cannot conclude Father met his burden to prove name change is in A.M.S.’s best interest; A.M.S. is still very young, and if he should choose to change or modify his name when he

3

J-A23042-15

reaches maturity, court will entertain request at that time; there is insufficient justification to warrant name change, given factors presented to court, including A.M.S.’s health and happiness in both homes, his strong bond with his Father, stepmother, and half-brother, despite having different last names, and no indication that Father’s name is held in higher esteem in community). The record supports the trial court’s decision; therefore, we have no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/26/2015

Circulated

Circ ted 10/15/2015

10/15/2015 01:29 PM

IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME . LAWRENCE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF: A;, tAr So . NO. 10220 OF 2014, C.A( >''

V

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner: Heather M. Papp -Sicignano, Esq.

SWEENEY LAW OFFICES

8001 Rowan Road, Suite 212 Cranberry Township, PA 16066

For the Respondent: Philip L. Clark, Jr., Esq.

Leymarie, Clark & Long, P.C.

Suite 8, 2nd Floor

1429 New Butler Road

New Castle, PA 16101

OPINION

Hodge, J. September 9, 2014 Before the Court for disposition is a Petition for Name Change related to the minor child, AIM, 6 born , 2010. The Petitioner, AD Co O.

(hereinafter, "Father "), and the Respondent, 1,7Pv.51 (hereinafter, "Mother ") are the natural parents of the minor child. Father is requesting the minor child's name be changed to include his surname, D. Prior to addressing the merits of Father's petition, the Court provides the following summation of the procedural and historical facts associated with

this case.

53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

WRENCE COUNTY 2014 SEP 1 0 A b' .ENNSY LVA NIA

HELEN

PRO AND C.E?w

Circulated

Circulated 10/15/2015

10/15/2015 01:29 PM

PM

Mother and Father were dating at the time of Á,I164IS conception. They were not married and never lived together.

Two weeks before A46.5.'5 birth, Mother and Father met to discuss his name. At this time, Mother told Father that she had decided unilaterally that the minor child's middle name would be M.

and the last name would be S.

X17 2010, Mother gave birth to the minor child in her home at approximately 5:15 a.m.; Mother and the minor child were subsequently transported to the Medical Center by ambulance. Due to the emergency nature of the child's birth, Father was not notified that the minor child was born until the following day. Consequently, Father was not present at the hospital when Mother signed the birth certificate. Mother signed the certificate, which formally identified the minor child as t\ .S. Mother was served with a copy of the instant Petition for Name Change on March 13, 2014.

Mother filed timely objections, and hearings were scheduled before this Court on May 13, 2014 and Tu1f7j, 2014.

Father testified about his relationship with .A;t' &, and the reasons he requests the Court to change ;A =M.,'$ last name to

reflect that of his own. Father stated that he made a place for Á446$0 in his home prior to his birth. ,$, has always been a

53Rd part of his household and family, and he has a strong JUDICIAL DISTRICT relationship with his half -brother and step -mother. Father is

VRENCE COUNTY 'EN NSY LVANIA 2014 SEP 10 A 26` 5 `?

HELEN

PRO AND.

Circulated 10/15/2015

10/15/2015 01:29 PM

concerned that the minor child's name is not reflective of Father or Father's heritage. Father additionally stated that he repeatedly requested to have the minor child's surname include or be that of his own.

Alternatively, Mother stated she provided the minor child with her surname because she was not married to child's father.

Mother contends that her actions conform to the Pennsylvania Code, which provides that "[t]he child of an unmarried woman may be registered with any surname requested by the mother. If no other surname is so requested, the child shall be registered with the mother's surname." See 28 Pa.Code §1.6. Mother conceded that Father has a good relationship with the minor child, but she does not believe their relationship is contingent upon sharing a common surname.

After considering the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, Father's request to change the minor child's name of Az M0 or in the alternative to Aka l 1c S; De is presently before the Court for a determination.

When considering a petition to change the name of a minor child, the trial court must consider whether doing so is in the best interest of the minor child. In Re: Change of Name of

53RD Zachary Thomas Andrew Grimes-Palaia, 609 A.2d 158 (Pa.1992). JUDICIAL DISTRICT The Superior Court of Pennsylvania l\as further held that

URENCE COUNTY 'ENNSY LVA NIA 2014SEP1ti A8-55

1 ,

IPRO A,HD1lL`

Circulated

Circulated 10/15/2015

10/15/2015 01:29 PM

PM

the party petitioning for the minor child's change of name has the burden of coming forward with evidence that the name change requested would be in the child's best interest, and that where a petition to change a child's name is contested, the court must carefully evaluate all of the relevant factual circumstances to determine if the petitioning parent has established that the change is in the child's best interest.

In Re: Change of Name of E.M.L., 19 A.3d 1068, 1069 (Pa.Super.

3.O1,1 )

(citing In Re: C.R.G., 819 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa.Super.

2003). Relevant factors include the natural bonds between the parent and child, the social stigma relating to or respects afforded to a particular name within the community, and where appropriate, the minor child's preference. In Re: Grimes, 609 A.2d 158, 161 (Pa. 1992).

In reaching a determination, the Court acknowledges that it is more frequently being presented with petitions to change the name of a minor child. The commonality between the cases is often the lack of a relationship between the subject child's biological parents. These cases are often difficult for the Court to decide because the Court infers that the parents associate some measure of love or parental bond is having similar nomenclature with the minor child. In the Court's own experiences, the two are not mutually exclusive. It is often

the love, attention and devotion given to the child by each 53Ro JUDICIAL parent that is fundamental in solidifying the familial unit.

DISTR ICT

WRENCE COUNTY 'ENNSY LVANIA 10 S, 58

2014 SE5'

s1-LEN 1. hLliw: :

QR0 MD a_E(_.b'

Circulated

Circulated 10/15/2015

10/15/2015 01:29 PM

PM

Furthermore, social norms are not what they were fifty or even twenty years ago, where children typically carried the surname of their biological father, regardless of the parents'

marriage status. The Court does not infer a negative connotation will befall the minor child if his last name is different from that of his father's or even his mother's if she ultimately chooses to remarry. Both parties have presented themselves as wonderful and capable parents. Both parties have a strong support system and respectable families in the community.

Based upon the positive attributes of Mother and Father, the Court cannot conclude that the father has met his burden of proof that it is in the minor child's best interest to grant Father's Petition for Name Change. Although the testimony establishes that the minor child is happy in both homes and very healthy, he is still very young. Should the minor child have a

preference to change or modify his last name when he reaches maturity, the Court will gladly entertain such a request, but given the parties' present circumstances and the factors presented to the Court, it cannot conclude that there is sufficient justification to grant Father's request at this time.

53Rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

WRENCE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA A 8`, 58 2C114 SEP 19

I,-

PRO AND

Circulated

Circulated 10/15/2015

10/15/2015 01:29 PM

PM

IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME LAWRENCE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF: Pit4 tA o S© NO. 10220 OF 2014, C.A.

ORDER OF COURT

9th

AND NOW, this day of September, 2014, with this matter

being before the Court on a Petition for Change of Name, with the Petitioner, i6'%4 , appearing and being represented by Heather M. Papp- Sicignano, Esquire, and with the Respondent, TT Su appearing and being represented by Phillip L. Clark, Jr., Esquire and after a hearing held, and in consideration of the testimony and evidence presented, the Court hereby ORDERS and DECREES as follows:

1. Consistent with the attached Opinion, the Petition for Name Change is DENIED.

2. The name of the minor child I AG MC ./P born 2010, shall remain : Ar IAtSe 3. The Prothonotary shall properly serve notice of this

Order of Court upon counsel of record for the parties and upon any unrepresented party at their last known address as contained in the Court's file.

BY THE COURT:

53RD JUDICIAL John W. Hodge DISTRICT Judge DIOR1Ci1Nt,'1

WRENCE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 2044 SEP I 0 A 8 58

HELEN

CLïEiOr.

PRO AND