In re R.M.O.

[Cite as In re R.M.O., 2016-Ohio-5879.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
IN RE: :
R.M.O. : CASE NO. CA2016-02-010
: OPINION
9/19/2016
:
:
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUVENILE DIVISION
Case No. 15-P000002
Kevin D. Hughes, 20 South Main Street, Springboro, Ohio 45066, for appellee, J.W.
John D. Smith Law Co., LPA, Andrew P. Meier, 140 North Main Street, Suite B, Springboro,
Ohio 45066, for appellant, S.O.
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, a mother to a child born out-of-wedlock ("Mother"), appeals a
decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, changing the
name of her child at the request of appellee, the child's father ("Father").
{¶ 2} Mother and Father met when they worked together at a retail store. Mother
became pregnant with the parties' child, and Father attended a few doctor appointments
with Mother. However, the couple separated before the child was born and each parent
Warren CA2016-02-010
retained counsel. Mother and Father then communicated via their respective attorneys.
The child was born in November 2014, and in January of the following year, Father filed a
complaint to establish paternity of the child. After Father's paternity was established, he
was granted supervised visitation with the child, which occurred for three hours a week at
a local mall. Father was also ordered to pay child support.
{¶ 3} After several months of supervised visitation, Father's parenting time was
modified to unsupervised visitation, and was increased in frequency and duration. Father
and Mother filed several motions with the trial court regarding parentage, visitation, and
financial issues. A magistrate held a hearing on the parties' motions, and during that
hearing, Father moved the court to change the child's surname. The magistrate issued a
decision in which Mother was named custodian of the child, her school district was used to
establish where the child would attend school, and Mother and Father were given close to
equal parenting time. However, the magistrate did not address Father's request to change
the child's name.
{¶ 4} Both parties filed objections to the magistrate's decision, and the trial court
then addressed and granted the name-change request by ordering the child's surname to
be a hyphenated combination of Mother's surname and Father's surname. Mother now
appeals the trial court's decision to change the child's last name, raising the following
assignment of error.
{¶ 5} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CHANGING THE
CHILD'S SURNAME BECAUSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO CHANGE THE CHILD'S
SURNAME WAS NOT SATISFIED AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT A NAME CHANGE WAS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST.
{¶ 6} Mother argues in her assignment of error that the trial court erred in changing
the child's name.
-2-
Warren CA2016-02-010
{¶ 7} "When reviewing a trial court's decision determining that a child's name either
should or should not be changed, a reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for
that of the trial court, but it must consider whether the trial court abused its discretion." D.W.
v. T.L., 134 Ohio St. 3d 515, 2012-Ohio-5743, ¶ 10. A trial court's decision regarding a name
change will not be reversed unless there is "insufficient evidence as a matter of law that a
name change is in the best interest of the child." Id.
{¶ 8} The Ohio supreme Court has determined that in making a name-change
decision, a court should consider several factors when determining the best interests of that
child. Bobo v. Jewell, 38 Ohio St. 3d 330 (1988). Those factors include: (1) the length of
time that the child has used a surname, (2) the effect of a name change on the father-child
relationship and on the mother-child relationship, (3) the identification of the child as part of
a family unit, (4) the embarrassment, discomfort or inconvenience that may result when a
child bears a surname different from the custodial parent's name, (5) the preference of the
child if the child is of an age and maturity to express a meaningful preference, (6) any other
factor relevant to the child's best interest, (7) whether the child's surname is different from
the surname of the child's residential parent, and (8) parental failure to maintain contact
with and support of the child. D.W., 2012-Ohio-5743 at ¶ 16. A parent who seeks to alter
the child's name bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to affirmatively
demonstrate that the change is in the child's best interest. Id. at ¶ 17.
{¶ 9} After listing the factors for consideration in its rule section, the trial court
addressed case law that indicated the positive impact a hyphenated name could have on a
child of unmarried parents. See Knauer v. Keener, 143 Ohio App. 3d 789, 793 (2d
Dist.2001) ("a combined surname is a solution that recognizes each parent's legitimate
claims and threatens neither parent's rights" and "a dual name would help the child identify
with both parents * * *"). Thereafter, the trial court considered the evidence as pertinent to
-3-
Warren CA2016-02-010
the factors listed above.
{¶ 10} At the time of the hearing, the child was only several months old, and as
such, was not old enough to identify with her birth name. Despite the fact that Mother is the
residential parent, the court noted Father's intent on being "very involved" in the child's life
and having almost equal parenting time as Mother. The court also considered Father's
testimony that he wanted the child identified with him, and that the child had not yet
developed any identity with the last name Mother gave her because she is not old enough
to speak. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the controlling law,
the court then determined that the name change was in the child's best interest. We find
no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision.
{¶ 11} Mother's assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
-4-