In Re: Sophie Lavoie Boone to Sophie LavoieBoone ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
In Re: SOPHIE LAVOIE BOONE )
)
Petitioner, )
)
to ) C.A. No. CPU4-15-003549
)
SOPHIE LAVOIE BOONE. )
(Sophie LavoieBoone) )
)
)
Submitted: November 16, 2015
Decided: December 21, 2015
Sean M. Lynn, Esquire Gregory A. Morris, Esquire
Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC Liguori & Morris
6 South State Street 46 The Green
Dover, DE 19901 Dover, DE 19901
Attorney for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, Sophie Lavoie Boone, by her next of kin, Nikki Lavoie (“Ms. Lavoie”),
brings this Petition pursuant to 10 Del. C. Chapter 59 and Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 81,
to change the name of her minor child from Sophie Lavoie Boone to Sophie LavoieBoone,
with the child no longer having a middle name of Lavoie, and retaining the name “Lavoie
Boone” as her last name. On November 16, 2015, a hearing was held on the Petition, after
which the Court reserved decision. This is the Court’s final Order and Decision.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Sophie Lavoie Boone (“Sophie” or the “child”) is a five-year-old minor residing with
her mother in Wilmington, Delaware. Daniel Boone (“Respondent”) is the father of the
child, who resides in Middletown, Delaware. Sophie was born on December 28, 2009 in
Newark, Delaware.
On October 14, 2015, Petitioner filed this Petition for a Change of Name. In the
Petition, Ms. Lavoie contends that the proposed name change would preserve and develop
Sophie’s relationship with Ms. Lavoie, enhance the child’s identity as a part of Ms. Lavoie’s
family unit, and “bring [Sophie’s] name into conformity” with Ms. Lavoie’s. In the
Questionnaire attached to the Petition, Petitioner indicates that Respondent has parental
rights, makes contact with Petitioner, and provides support. The Petition satisfied the
statutory prerequisites of filing.
On November 3, 2015, Respondent filed an answer to the Petition. Respondent
denies that the proposed name change is in the best interest of the child. Respondent
contends that this Petition should be denied, in light of the facts this Court considers when
faced with a contested name change.
On November 16, 2015, this Court heard argument, and testimony from Ms. Lavoie
and Respondent. Ms. Lavoie testified that the change is necessary to make contact with
schools, family, and friends less confusing. Ms. Lavoie also contends that the change of
name is important to her since it reminds Ms. Lavoie of her grandparents, who played an
important role in her childhood. Ms. Lavoie wants Sophie to similarly identify with those
2
members of Ms. Lavoie’s family. Respondent contends that the name change benefits only
Ms. Lavoie instead of both her and Sophie. Respondent argues it is not “our right” to take a
five-year-old’s middle name without the child’s consent. Respondent avers that when she is
old enough, Sophie can make this decision on her own. At the conclusion of testimony the
Court took this matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION
The law governing petitions to change a person’s name is found in 10 Del. C. § 5901
et seq. Section 5901 states that these petitions must be brought in the Court of Common
Pleas in the county in which the petitioner resides. Pursuant to Section 5902, if it is a minor
child’s name which is the subject to be changed, the petition must be signed by at least one
of the child’s parents, and that the child must sign it if he or she is over fourteen years of
age. Publication of the petition is governed by Section 5903, which states that the petition
or notice thereof, must be published in a local newspaper once a week during the three
weeks prior to the petition’s filing. Section 5904 states that if all requirements have been
met, and there appears no reason to deny the petition, the petition may be granted. Finally,
Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 81 provides that if only one of the child’s parents sign the
petition, the petition must be served upon the non-signing parent.
When considering a minor child’s change of name petition, this Court has concluded
that such petition shall be analyzed using the “best interest of the child” standard.1 In
making this determination, this Court in In re Gibbs outlined the factors to be considered:
1In re Gibbs, 2008 WL 5160141, at *4 (Del. Com. Pl. July 9, 2008); see also Cardinal v. Perch, 611 A.2d 515, 516
(Del. Fam. Ct. 1991).
3
(1) A parent’s failure to financially support the child;
(2) A parent’s failure to maintain contact with the child;
(3) The length of time that a surname has been used for or by the child;
(4) Misconduct by one of the child’s parents;
(5) Whether the surname is different from the surname of the child’s
custodial parent;
(6) The child’s reasonable preference for a surname;
(7) The effect of the change of the child’s surname on the preservation and
development of the child’s relationship with each parent;
(8) The degree of community respect associated with the child’s present
surname and proposed surname;
(9) The difficulties, harassment, or embarrassment that the child may
experience from bearing the present or proposed name; and
(10) The identification of the child as a part of the family unit.2
Based on the record of the case, it is uncontested that Mr. Boone and Ms.
Lavoie each provide Sophie with financial support, maintain contact with Sophie, and
have no record of relevant misconduct. Therefore, the Court need not address
factors one, two, and four in the analysis.
I will now address the remaining factors seriatim: (3) the child was born
almost six years ago, and has begun to cement her identity and personality within her
friendships at school; (5) Sophie’s parents both take an active role in raising her,
however her surname differs from Ms. Lavoie, with whom she spends a majority of
her time; (6) the child is almost six years old and is unaware of this proceeding,
therefore, there is no basis on which to conclude she has a reasonable preference for
either surname; (7) the change of name is likely to have little effect on the child’s
relationship with either parent; (8) there is no reason to conclude that either surname
elicits a lack of respect within the community; (9) the Court believes the child will
experience relatively little difficulty, harassment, or embarrassment if she retains her
2 Id. at *3 – 4.
4
current surname instead of altering it; (10) because both parents appear to be
positive role models for Sophie, who actively participate in her schooling and
upbringing this change would not affect Sophie’s identification as part of the family
unit.
After balancing each of the contested factors above, I conclude that the
proposed change of name is not in the best interest of the child. The record indicates
that although granting the Petition would simultaneously alleviate the relatively minor
inconveniences experienced by the parents, and superficially execute Ms. Lavoie’s
desire to draw Sophie closer to her heritage, the change would also detrimentally
expose Sophie to the myriad questions and difficulties that accompany a name change
at such a critical stage in the child’s social development. For the reasons set forth
above the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Sophie Lavoie
Boone’s name shall not be changed since it is not in the best interest of the child.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2015, that the
petition is not granted.
Alex J. Smalls
Chief Judge
Boone-MEM OP Dec 2015
5