Change of Name of:A.M.S. a minor Appeal of: A.C.D. ( 2015 )

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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
-2-
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
-3-
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