J-S07034-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: PETITION OF A.K., Parent of : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
S.S. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: E.S. : No. 1239 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order entered June 27, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,
Civil Division, No(s): 2016-CV-2033
BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J: FILED APRIL 13, 2017
E.S. (“Father”) appeals the Order granting the Petition filed by A.K.
(“Mother”) to change the name of the parties’ male child, S.S. (“Child”), to
combine the surnames of Father and Mother. We affirm.
Mother and Father are the biological parents of Child, a minor (born
8/24/14).1 At birth, Child was given Father’s surname. Mother has two
children from a prior marriage, who share her surname. Mother filed a
Petition seeking to change Child’s surname from “S.” to “K.-S.,” so that Child
would share not only Father’s surname, but also the surname of Mother and
Child’s maternal siblings. Father filed Objections to the Petition. Following a
hearing, the trial court entered an Order on June 27, 2016, overruling
Father’s Objections, and granting Mother’s Petition. Father filed a timely
Notice of Appeal.
1
Mother and Father were never married.
J-S70034-17
On appeal, Father raises the following issue for our review: “Whether
the trial court abused its discretion in granting Mother’s Petition for Change
of the name of the Child[,] where Mother presented no credible or
competent evidence to establish that the change of name is in the best
interest of [C]hild?” Father’s Brief at 5.
Father contends that Mother presented no competent evidence that
the change of name is in Child’s best interest. Id. at 17. Father asserts
that the testimony considered by the trial court consisted solely of Mother’s
“desires, beliefs, concerns and unfounded speculation that Child will endure
life[-]long interrogation about why his name differs from Mother and his
maternal siblings.” Id. Father claims that Mother failed to testify to any
difficulties caused by the difference in surnames between her and Child. Id.
Father argues that Mother’s concerns are disingenuous because she testified
that Child is bonded with Mother and his maternal siblings. Id. at 17-18.
Father contends that Mother presented no evidence that there is a stigma
attached to Father’s surname, nor any evidence that Mother’s surname is
held in a higher regard in the community. Id. at 18. Father further
contends that Mother presented no evidence that a name change to include
Mother’s surname is necessary to solidify the bond between Mother and
Child, or that it will protect Child’s physical, mental or emotional well-being.
Id. at 19. Father claims that the trial court abused its discretion by granting
Mother’s Petition. Id. at 20.
-2-
J-S70034-17
Our standard of review involving a petition for change of
name, regardless of the age of the petitioner, is whether there
was an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion exists if the
trial court has overridden or misapplied the law, or if the
evidence is insufficient to sustain the order. Further, resolution
of factual issues is for the trial court, and a reviewing court will
not disturb the trial court’s findings if those findings are
supported by competent evidence. It is not enough for reversal
that we, if sitting as a trial court, may have made a differing
finding or reached a different result.
T.W. v. D.A., 127 A.3d 826, 827 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal citations
omitted).
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Father’s issue, and determined
that a name change would be in Child’s best interest, as it would solidify his
relationship with Mother and Mother’s family, including his maternal siblings.
See Trial Court Opinion, 9/27/16, at 1. Because we are bound by the trial
court’s credibility findings that are supported in the record, and our narrow
standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that Mother met her burden of establishing that a
name change was in Child’s best interest. See id., see also D.K. v. S.P.K.,
102 A.3d 467, 478 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that in light of the appellate
court’s deferential review of trial court’s factual findings and determinations
of weight and credibility, we must accept findings and determinations
supported in the certified record).
-3-
J-S70034-17
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/13/2017
-4-
Circulated 03/07/2017 12:42 PM
'~· I
I
H
I!, IN RE: A .I<. u,f k"i.}/\ ~W~roURT OF COMMON PLEAS
I'I'I·
l
PA'.,EsTITIONOF······'r:;ih
Parent and Natural Guardian of S.S.
~Jiu
c;:;p ')"/ ._;"'.-T' . ·.i. •1ortACKAWANNACOUNTY
v ... , L
.
.... • I
No. 2016-CIV-2033
I . ~; CLE fr.:< . ~;_j·~·- L .
I ································ ···· i:tfcoi0·s""c·:,~·:ic6·1·/f sloff·
-~ ; .• ~..: .. ,..: .. 1 .. ·:- ..
······· ······································· ··
11 ·, OPINION
HARHUT, S.J.
11 This case concerns the name change of a minor child. (hereinafter
L • _ f.5. _
"Mother") and-
I (hereinafter "Father") are the natural parents of S.S. (hereinafter
I I
"child"), who was born on August 21, 2014. Mother filed a Change ofName Petition on
~.$. A.K.
I! March 22, 2016. Father filed Objections of to the Petition of • p to
S.S.
I Change the Name of•••• , A Minor on May 26, 2016. A hearing was held on the
I ti matter on June 21, 2016 before this Jurist. This Court entered an Order dated June 27, 2016
l
( granting the name change. Father filed a Notice of Appeal on July 26, 2016.
j
The standard for name change of a minor is best interest of the child when
I considering the natural bonds between parent and child, the social stigma or respect afforded
to a particular name within the community, and, where the child is of sufficient age, whether
the child intellectually and rationally understands the significance of changing his or her
name. In re Name Change of C.R. C., 819 A.2d 558, 561 (2003). In this case, the child has
natural bonds with both parents. Changing the child's name to include Mother's surname
will not hinder the child's relationship with Father, rather it will solidify his relationship
with Mother and Mother's family, including his two half brothers. Father presented
evidence regarding the social stigma for his surname, but there was no evidence presented
t<.
that the name,. •• ,, lacks a.DY respect in the community or otherwise. Finally, the child
is not of a sufficient age to understand the significance of changing his name.
83
q
iiiI
!I
H1 j Based on the foregoing, this Court granted Mother's Change ofName Petition as it is
~I l! in the best interest of the child.
i
l
! r-
L BYrtCOURT:
I
11
i
I
DATE: ~ 1-~-!, \ '70
~
- ~ '\l,___•
,::,{
CHESTEK HARHUT
L
=-~
·
, S.J.
I
I
I
I "''
1l.
i
. .,,
. ,
11
... ,
I
I
I
'I
Ii
~
i
11
!
1: l
iI
ii
1
; I
I
) 1
i
l
/
I
I
l
!
I,
I'Ii
!I
H! .I
I
I
l
84
Ii I I
2