name change o.k?

[confused mother]

What is the name of your state? california


my son is a junior. will i be able to change his middle and last name without the consent of the father. he hasn't been a part of the child's life since the child was born, and want's nothing to do with me or my son. for those not fully understanding my question, let me explain a little more. my son is 5 years old. his bio father wants nothing to do with me or my son. he has no legal documentation what so ever in any way linking him to my son. therfore my question is, can i change his middle and last name if the bio father is not leagally documented the father and doesn't have any contact with child, nor has he been in child's life ever since birth? the reason my son is a junior is because when i was pregnant the bio father of my son threatend my life if the child wasn't named after him, regardless of if he wanted nothing at all to do with child.

 

[Wizard of Law!]

What is the name of your state? california


my son is a junior. will i be able to change his middle and last name without the consent of the father. he hasn't been a part of the child's life since the child was born, and want's nothing to do with me or my son.

No, you won't be able to - - and not for the reasons you think. The court will not change your minor son's name because your son is "established" with those names. However, when your son is 18, he can file a Petition for Name Change at that time.

 

[casa]

What is the name of your state? california


my son is a junior. will i be able to change his middle and last name without the consent of the father. he hasn't been a part of the child's life since the child was born, and want's nothing to do with me or my son.

It depends...has the father legally established paternity?

And, why would you name your child after the father- only to want to take that away? Depending on the age of the child, it's not impossible that the father won't come back into the child's life.

You also say the father hasn't been in the child's life since he was born, but you don't say how old the child is. Are we talking months or years? And how many? (You must take into account your child's emotional welfare~ If the child is accustomed to his name, why would you suddenly want to call him something else?) What if someone wanted to change your name/identity suddenly?

 

[Wizard of Law!]

It depends...has the father legally established paternity?

And, why would you name your child after the father- only to want to take that away? Depending on the age of the child, it's not impossible that the father won't come back into the child's life.

You also say the father hasn't been in the child's life since he was born, but you don't say how old the child is. Are we talking months or years? And how many? (You must take into account your child's emotional welfare~ If the child is accustomed to his name, why would you suddenly want to call him something else?) What if someone wanted to change your name/identity suddenly?

Casa, all of your points are irrelevant in California. Believe me, I know. All a California court cares about is that the child is established with a certain name.

Do you know who I am?

Nothing in the law requires that a minor child bear the paternal surname; nor is there any authority giving preference to the father's surname over the mother's. Any common law notion that the father has a "pri**** right" or "protectible interest" in having minor children of the marriage bear his surname has been abolished. [Marriage of Schiffman (1980) 28 Cal.3d 640, 647, 169 Cal.Rptr. 918, 922; Marriage of Douglass (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1046, 1054, 252 Cal.Rptr. 839, 843]

Question of child's best interest:
Instead, when the parents contest the surname issue, the sole consideration is the child's best interest. [Marriage of Schiffman, supra, 28 Cal.3d at 647, 169 Cal.Rptr. at 922; see Marriage of McManamy & Templeton (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 607, 609, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 216, 217]

Relevant factors:
Factors to consider in determining the child's best interest on the surname issue include:

• the length of time the child has used the existing surname;

• the effect of a name change on preservation of the child's relationship with the other parent; and

• an identification of the child as part of a family unit. [Marriage of Schiffman, supra, 28 Cal.3d at 647, 169 Cal.Rptr. at 922-923; see Marriage of McManamy & Templeton, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at 609-610, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d at 217]

The court will also balance the "symbolic role that a surname other than the natural father's may play in easing relations with a new family" against "the importance of maintaining the biological father-child relationship"; and should evaluate the "embarrassment or discomfort that a child may experience when he [or she] bears a surname different from the rest of his [or her] family . . ." [Marriage of Schiffman, supra, 28 Cal.3d at 642, 169 Cal.Rptr. at 923 (brackets added); see Marriage of McManamy & Templeton, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at 610, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d at 217]

IAAL

 

[casa]

Casa, all of your points are irrelevant in California. Believe me, I know. All a California court cares about is that the child is established with a certain name.

Do you know who I am?

Nothing in the law requires that a minor child bear the paternal surname; nor is there any authority giving preference to the father's surname over the mother's. Any common law notion that the father has a "pri**** right" or "protectible interest" in having minor children of the marriage bear his surname has been abolished. [Marriage of Schiffman (1980) 28 Cal.3d 640, 647, 169 Cal.Rptr. 918, 922; Marriage of Douglass (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1046, 1054, 252 Cal.Rptr. 839, 843]

Question of child's best interest:
Instead, when the parents contest the surname issue, the sole consideration is the child's best interest. [Marriage of Schiffman, supra, 28 Cal.3d at 647, 169 Cal.Rptr. at 922; see Marriage of McManamy & Templeton (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 607, 609, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 216, 217]

Relevant factors:
Factors to consider in determining the child's best interest on the surname issue include:

• the length of time the child has used the existing surname;

• the effect of a name change on preservation of the child's relationship with the other parent; and

• an identification of the child as part of a family unit. [Marriage of Schiffman, supra, 28 Cal.3d at 647, 169 Cal.Rptr. at 922-923; see Marriage of McManamy & Templeton, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at 609-610, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d at 217]

The court will also balance the "symbolic role that a surname other than the natural father's may play in easing relations with a new family" against "the importance of maintaining the biological father-child relationship"; and should evaluate the "embarrassment or discomfort that a child may experience when he [or she] bears a surname different from the rest of his [or her] family . . ." [Marriage of Schiffman, supra, 28 Cal.3d at 642, 169 Cal.Rptr. at 923 (brackets added); see Marriage of McManamy & Templeton, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at 610, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d at 217]

IAAL

I understand your points IAAL. OP hadn't clarified the situation with the father~ ie; didn't say they were married, didn't say if Paternity was established...that is why it would depend. If there is no legal father, there is no legal debate re; name.

Most of my input was emotional- true. I think posters who come here upset or in desperation could always benefit from a view outside the box.

I have witnessed many, many name changes in CA. And factors to be considered are as you wrote in your post, hence my question of how old the child is (changes occur more often for infants/young children- and rarely for children past school-age).

BTW was visiting with someone who swears he knows you this last week in LA. Big-shot dentist in Bev. Hills- his daughter is the model with twins. Sound familiar?

 

[Wizard of Law!]

I understand your points IAAL. OP hadn't clarified the situation with the father~ ie; didn't say they were married, didn't say if Paternity was established...that is why it would depend. If there is no legal father, there is no legal debate re; name.

Most of my input was emotional- true. I think posters who come here upset or in desperation could always benefit from a view outside the box.

I have witnessed many, many name changes in CA. And factors to be considered are as you wrote in your post, hence my question of how old the child is (changes occur more often for infants/young children- and rarely for children past school-age).

BTW was visiting with someone who swears he knows you this last week in LA. Big-shot dentist in Bev. Hills- his daughter is the model with twins. Sound familiar?

Sounds familiar. But then, I know a lot of people. It's a side element of practicing law.

Anyway, our writer said, "my son is a junior" - - meaning, in high school. That further means her son is 17. So, she may as well wait another year. Hell, she's waited THIS long, why not wait another year?

Also, it makes no difference in California (for the most part) whether there's a known father or not. All that really matters is whether the name has been used by the child to become established in society with a certain name; e.g., friends, school, work, etc.

There is no likelihood that our writer would be successful. It would have been easier when her son was "of tender years." Not now, though.

IAAL

 

[casa]

Sounds familiar. But then, I know a lot of people. It's a side element of practicing law.

Anyway, our writer said, "my son is a junior" - - meaning, in high school. That further means her son is 17. So, she may as well wait another year. Hell, she's waited THIS long, why not wait another year?

Also, it makes no difference in California (for the most part) whether there's a known father or not. All that really matters is whether the name has been used by the child to become established in society with a certain name; e.g., friends, school, work, etc.

There is no likelihood that our writer would be successful. It would have been easier when her son was "of tender years." Not now, though.

IAAL

aaahhhhh.....I took OP's statement of "son is a junior" to mean he is a II. ie; John Smith II, AKA John Jr. And, saw no mention of age.

Therein lies the mystery.

On the O/T~ Daughter's wedding was early 2001 at the Bev. Hills Hotel. If it was You, you were invited.

 

[casa]

Oh, and the issue re; Paternity wasn't so much whether or not there was a 'known father'...it was: If a father hasn't legally established paternity and is absent in a child's life, the odds of him fighting a name change are slim to none.

 

[JBMD]

aaahhhhh.....I took OP's statement of "son is a junior" to mean he is a II. ie; John Smith II, AKA John Jr. And, saw no mention of age.

Therein lies the mystery.

On the O/T~ Daughter's wedding was early 2001 at the Bev. Hills Hotel. If it was You, you were invited.

Actually OP stated in her original post that her son is 5! Would he be established at 5?

 

[casa]

Actually OP stated in her original post that her son is 5! Would he be established at 5?

Then OP should act fast...the longer the child is in school- the less likely she'll succeed in the name change (that's IF the bio. Dad even shows up to fight it).

 

[LdiJ]

Then OP should act fast...the longer the child is in school- the less likely she'll succeed in the name change (that's IF the bio. Dad even shows up to fight it).

I suspect that bio dad wouldn't show....at least with the scenario that's in place.

 

[casa]

I suspect that bio dad wouldn't show....at least with the scenario that's in place.

That's the impression I got also. And if Mom does the name change now...then Dad can't pop up years later- and win fighting the name change because the child's name will (by Then) be 'established'.