In re Two Minors for Change of Name

Massachusetts Appeals Court

In re Two Minors for Change of Name

517 N.E.2d 1291, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 941, 1988 Mass. App. LEXIS 27

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJanuary 21, 1988

DocketNo. 87-556

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 517 N.E.2d 1291 (In re Two Minors for Change of Name) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Two Minors for Change of Name, 517 N.E.2d 1291, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 941, 1988 Mass. App. LEXIS 27 (Mass. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a petition ostensibly brought by two illegitimate children (aged four and two, respectively, at the time of trial), but in reality prosecuted by their mother, to change the childrens’ surname from that of the father to that of the mother. G. L. c. 210, § 12, as appearing in St. 1977, c. 869, § 3. It was the mother who had originally selected the father’s surname for both children. The father has acknowledged paternity and has been making court-ordered payments for the support of the children. An experienced probate judge, after listening to two days of largely irrelevant testimony and receiving numerous exhibits which have not been put before us, filed thorough and thoughtful subsidiary findings of fact which led him to conclude that the requested change of name would not be in the best interests of either child. See Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. 517, 521-522 (1956); Fuss v. Fuss (No. 1), 372 Mass. 64, 69 (1977). Accordingly, the petition was denied. The mother, supposedly acting as the next friend of the children, has appealed. 1. A careful review of the evidence which is before us discloses (a) that each of the judge’s subsidiary findings is amply supported by the evidence, (b) that the critical findings are patterned largely after the decisive findings in the Mark and Fuss cases, and (c) that neither the subsidiary findings nor the judge’s ultimate conclusion can be pronounced plainly wrong. 2. The judge was correct in concluding that the “best interests” standard has not been displaced by the 1977 amendment to G. L. c. 210, §12. A change of name of a minor which is not in the best interest would be “inconsistent with public interests” within the meaning of § 12.

Decree affirmed.

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

This is a petition ostensibly brought by two illegitimate children (aged four and two, respectively, at the time of trial), but in reality prosecuted by their mother, to change the childrens’ surname from that of the father to that of the mother. G. L. c. 210, § 12, as appearing in St. 1977, c. 869, § 3. It was the mother who had originally selected the father’s surname for both children. The father has acknowledged paternity and has been making court-ordered payments for the support of the children. An experienced probate judge, after listening to two days of largely irrelevant testimony and receiving numerous exhibits which have not been put before us, filed thorough and thoughtful subsidiary findings of fact which led him to conclude that the requested change of name would not be in the best interests of either child. See Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. 517, 521-522 (1956); Fuss v. Fuss (No. 1), 372 Mass. 64, 69 (1977). Accordingly, the petition was denied. The mother, supposedly acting as the next friend of the children, has appealed. 1. A careful review of the evidence which is before us discloses (a) that each of the judge’s subsidiary findings is amply supported by the evidence, (b) that the critical findings are patterned largely after the decisive findings in the Mark and Fuss cases, and (c) that neither the subsidiary findings nor the judge’s ultimate conclusion can be pronounced plainly wrong. 2. The judge was correct in concluding that the “best interests” standard has not been displaced by the 1977 amendment to G. L. c. 210, §12. A change of name of a minor which is not in the best interest would be “inconsistent with public interests” within the meaning of § 12.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 N.E.2d 1291, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 941, 1988 Mass. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-two-minors-for-change-of-name-massappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack