HERBERT LEVINE, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN BEST, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Herbert Levine appealed a trial court judgment establishing his paternity and ordering child support. The appellate court affirmed the refusal to change the child's surname from the mother's to the father's name, but reversed and remanded the child support award because the trial court failed to explain the basis for imputing income.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to change the child's surname because the record did not affirmatively show that a name change was required for the child's welfare, and the established practice of calling the child by his mother's surname weighed against the change. However, the trial court erred in awarding child support by imputing income to the father without setting forth what amounts were imputed or their sources.
[1] A court must apply the best interest standard when determining whether to change a child's surname.
[2] A child's surname may be changed only when the record affirmatively shows that the change is required for the minor's welfare.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a minor's name may be changed only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the minor's welfare”
Establishes the best interest standard for name changes, the governing legal test the trial court properly applied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerbert Levine and Susan Best are parents of Christopher Scott Levine Best, born June 24, 1986. The child's surname at birth was his mother's surname …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The father, Herbert Levine, appeals from a final judgment establishing paternity and providing for child support. We affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand. Herbert Levine and Susan Best are the parents of Christopher Scott Levine Best, who was born on June 24, 1986. In accordance with section 382.16(5)(d), Florida Statutes (1985), the child’s surname was, at birth, the legal surname of his mother. In July, 1989, the father filed a petition for visitation and other rights asking the trial court to adjudicate his paternity and to order that the child bear his last name. The trial court determined that the child’s name would not be changed because everyone, especially his doctors, knew him as Best. Additionally, the trial court ordered the father to pay $525.00 per month in child support. The father appeals.
The first issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to change the surname of a child born out-of-wedlock from his mother’s surname to his father’s surname. The standard to applied in changing a child’s name is the best interest standard. See Collingsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Azzara v. Waller, 495 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Arnett v. Matthews, 259 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
In Lazow, 147 So. 2d at 12, the court applied a best interest test and concluded that a minor’s name may be changed only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the minor’s welfare. To apply the best interest standard a court must look at same factors as in custody cases. Collingsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Hamman v. County Court, Jefferson County, 753 P. 2d 743 (Colo.1988); Bobo v. Jewell, 38 Ohio St.3d 330, 528 N.E. 2d 180, 185 (Ohio 1988).
In the instant case, the trial court properly determined that the child’s name should not be changed because everyone, especially his doctors, knew him as Best. We do not find that the record affirmatively shows that a change of name is needed for the welfare of the minor child. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to change the child’s surname.
The second issue presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in awarding child support without clearly stating on the record what income it was basing the award on. We find that the trial court erred in determining the amount of child support. According to the father’s financial affidavit, his net income was $800.00 per month. The only way the court could have found that the father could pay $525.00 per month in child support, is by imputing income to him. However, the trial court erred in imputing income to the father without setting forth what amounts it imputed and the sources of this income. See Seilkop v. Seilkop, 575 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Hogle v. Hogle, 535 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
For the foregoing reason, we reverse the child support award and remand this issue to the trial court with directions to make findings as to imputed income or to set forth its reasons for adjusting the guidelines amount in accordance with section 61.30(10)(i), Florida Statutes (1991).
Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Bart L. Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ngs level, and the adjustments to income, the trial court’s final judgment was deficient. See id.; accord Bimonte v. Martin-Bimonte, 679 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Viscito v. Menditto, 644 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Levine v. Best, 595 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Without the requisite factual determinations, this court is unable to ascertain whether the trial court’s child support award was within the guide [*989] lines or exceeded the guidelines by more than five percent.3 Therefor…
-
Polizzi v. Polizzi, 600 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…I don’t know how anybody could do anything. . Perhaps it is time that we join the Third District in requiring that if the trial court imputes income to a party, it must set forth the amounts it imputed and the source of this income. Levine v. Best, 595 So. 2d 278 (1992); Seilkop v. Seilkop, 575 So. 2d 269 (Fla.3d DCA 1991). This would help avoid the injustices created by judicially imposed presumptions. . The dissent suggests there are often reasons for a delayed decision — continued hearings, additional re…
-
Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…er husband, but factual findings as to the probable and potential earnings level, source of imputed and actual income and adjustments to income must also be set forth. See § 61.30(b); Wood v. Wood, 632 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Levine v. Best, 595 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Neal v. Meek, 591 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Seilkop v. Seilkop, 575 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). This requirement is equally important in modification proceedings as in the initial proceeding, especially where the amount…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Lazow v. Eleanore Lazow, 147 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Seilkop v. Seilkop, 575 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Hogle v. Hogle, 535 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Azzara v. Waller, 495 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Arnett v. Matthews, 259 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)