dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that the evidence does not support invoking the statutory presumption in favor of Father created by Indiana Code section 34-28-2-4(d).
Indiana Code section 34-28-2-4(d) provides that in deciding the best interests of the child for purposes of a petition to change the name of a minor child, the trial court shall be guided by the best interests of the child rule under Indiana Code seetion 31-17-2-8 modified by a presumption in favor of a parent of a minor child who "has been making support payments and fulfilling other duties in accordance with a decree issued under IC 31-15, IC 31-16, or IC [31-]17[5] ... and objects to the pro*633posed name change of the child." "Whether [a parent] has been making support payments and fulfilling other duties as contemplated in Indiana Code section 34-28-2-4(d) is a question of fact." Fetkavich, 855 N.E.2d at 756. Onee a parent proves the basic fact of making support payments and fulfilling other court imposed parental duties, the presumption imposes upon the opposing party the burden of producing evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. Indiana Evidence Rule 301; Schultz v. Ford Motor Co., 857 N.E.2d 977, 985 (Ind.2006). Once established, the presumption has a continuing evidentiary ef-feet and the opposing party must present clear and convincing evidence favoring a change of name to rebut the presumption. Eivid. R. 301; In re Petition of Meyer, 471 N.E.2d 718, 720-21 (Ind.Ct.App.1984).
In other words, Father bears the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to raise the presumption. Onee Father has met his burden, Mother may either present contrary evidence to defeat the presumption or may produce evidence of the best interests of the child sufficient to overcome the presumption. In determining the applicability of the presumption, this court has considered whether the parent has paid support, consistently exercised visitation rights and was involved in the child's life. See Meyer, 471 N.E.2d at 719 (noting evidence that father has "paid support and sufficiently exercised his visitation rights" established presumption and mother did not present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption); see also Tibbitts v. Warren (In re Paternity of Tibbitts), 668 N.E.2d 1266, 1268-69 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (where father sought to change child's surname this court considered evidence that the father pays child support, has visitation, and is involved in the child's life and held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the child to receive the father's surname), trams. denied.
"In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence questions, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses." Meyer, 471 N.E.2d at 721. "We consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom." Id. The trial court determined that Father presented sufficient evidence to trigger the statutory presumption, and there is evidence in the form of Father's testimony to support the trial court's finding. However, the majority's opinion requires a non-custodial parent to present absolute proof of compliance with support payments and all other related decrees. Such a burden of proof requires the trial court to presume that the noncustodial parent is in violation of such court orders. Such a negative presumption does not comply with the recognized public policy of "building a strong fortress around" the relationship between parent and child. Id. "For this fortress to be *634vulnerable to encroachment, the one seeking to sever these rights should not only present a preponderance of proof, but such proof should be established by clear and convincing evidence." Id. Of the special nature of a child born out of wedlock bearing the name of the biological father this court has said:
[Blecause of the unique nature of the father-child relationship, a relationship that is not apparent from the onset when it involves a [child born out of wedlock], many benefits flow to the child [carrying the father's name] both tangible and intangible.
[The] indicators that complying with the Father's request is in the child's best interest are that he does pay support, has visitation and participates in the life of his child. Moreover, he wants the child to share his name. This is conduct that society wants to encourage of men who father children outside of marriage.
Although we are not saying that in every case of a [child born out of wedlock], the child should receive the surname of the father whose paternity has been established, it is not an abuse of discretion for the child to receive the father's surname when there is evidence that the natural father acknowledges and supports his [child], takes an interest in the child's welfare, and there are no factors which would make taking the father's name against the child's best interests.
Tibbitts, 668 N.E.2d at 1269. I cannot agree with the majority's requirement that Father present absolute proof of compliance in order to trigger the statutory presumption, especially where, as here, Mother presented no evidence whatsoever to rebut Father's testimony that he was meeting his court ordered obligations.
Sufficient evidence before the trial court established that Father met the statutory requirements to raise the presumption. The evidence demonstrated that Father pays support regularly, paid the medical expenses for M.S.'s birth, attends many of M.S.'s activities, enjoys regular parenting time with M.S., and takes M.S. on weekend trips. Although neither party presented evidence of Father's exact compliance with specific court orders, this court has not discussed such specific evidence in its prior decisions nor have we required perfect performance. See, e.g., Petersen, 871 N.E.2d at 1031 ("Father's parenting, while admittedly not perfect, has improved significantly.... He provides consistent financial support for his son, and he exercises regular visitation."); Tibbitts, 668 N.E.2d at 1269 ("natural father acknowledges and supports his [child], [and] takes an interest in the child's welfare"); Blank, 471 N.E.2d at 719 ("Blank has paid support and consistently exercised his visitation rights."). In light of this court's prior decisions, I would hold that Father has presented sufficient evidence to raise the statutory presumption. The burden of going forward, then, falls to Mother who has presented no evidence that Father is not making support payments and complying with court decrees and therefore has failed to rebut the application of the presumption. Beginning with the presumption, the trial court proceeded to analyze the best interests of M.S. and found that "there is not enough evidence based on 31-17-2-8 that has been presented to this Court to rebut the presumption that the legislature [sic] statute allow [sic] that State of Indiana under 34-28-24(D) has established." The evidence supports the trial court's findings.6
*635M.S. is less than 14 years of age; thus, her wishes are entitled to less consideration. Additionally, M.S. indicated to the guardian ad litem that while she desires the name change, she would be content either way. M.S. is well adjusted, does well in school, is active in extracurricular activities and has several friends. No evidence suggests that any of this would change based on the status of M.S.'s last name.
Finally, I also disagree with the majority's decision to remand this case for the trial court to reevaluate Mother's evidence "without regard to the statutory presumption." In essence, the majority gives Mother a second opportunity to prove her case, while at the same time, depriving Father of a second opportunity to establish that he meets the statutory presumption. At the very least, I would remand this issue to the trial court to hear further evidence from both parties regarding the applicability of the statutory presumption. However, because I believe sufficient evidence supports the trial court's findings that Father is entitled to the statutory presumption and that a change of name is not in the best interests of the child, I would affirm.
. There appears to be a typo in the enacted text of the statute omitting the title number. Indiana Code article 31-15 refers to decrees *633issued pursuant to dissolution proceedings. Indiana Code article 31-16 refers to support decrees. The logical progression of the text should be to Indiana Code article 31-17 that refers to custody and visitation decrees. The statute could not refer to Indiana Code title 17, because that title previously referred to County and Township Government and has been repealed in its entirety.
The statute also omits reference to Indiana Code article 31-14, which refers to support, custody, and visitation orders issued with respect to paternity actions. This latter omission could raise the issue of whether the presumption should apply in this case at all, although prior decisions of this court would seem to foreclose the issue. See Petersen v. Burton, 871 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (analyzing application of the presumption in the context of paternity proceedings); In re Name Change of Fetkavich, 855 N.E.2d 751 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (analyzing application of presumption where father of child born out of wedlock challenged name change sought by biological mother).
. In her Brief of Appellant, Mother argues only that the evidence does not support the *635trial court's decision to invoke the statutory presumption. In her Reply Brief, Mother adds a second argument that "there was sufficient evidence to support that the name change was in the best interest of [M.S.], and the trial court abused its' [sic] discretion in this matter." Reply Brief at 6. However, on review, we consider only whether the trial court's actual decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, not whether the evidence might support an alternate decision. See Petersen, 871 N.E.2d at 1028.