PATRICIA IRENE HAYHURST, AS MOTHER OF VINCENTE JAMES ROMANO, A MINOR AND CATHERINE PATRICIA ROMANO, A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES ALFRED ROMANO, 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.
A former wife appealed a trial court's denial of her petition to change her minor children's surnames from Romano to a hyphenated form (Romano-Hayhurst or Hayhurst-Romano). The appellate court affirmed, holding that name changes for minor children require a clear showing that the change is in the children's best interests, which was not established here.
The court held that the former wife failed to make the required showing that the name change was in the children's best interests. Name changes for minor children are a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly; they require affirmative evidence that the change is necessary for the children's welfare.
[1] A court may change the name of a minor only when the record affirmatively shows that the change is required for the welfare of the minor.
[2] The best interests of the child are paramount when considering a petition to change a minor's surname.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“to change the name of a minor ... is a serious matter, and such action may be taken only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfare of the minor.”
Establishes the legal standard from Lazow that name changes require affirmative evidence of necessity for the child's welfare
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties retained their respective surnames during marriage (Hayhurst for the wife, Romano for the husband), and their two children were given the …
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 Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
The appellant former wife appeals a post-dissolution order denying her petition to change the names of the parties’ minor children. We affirm.
During the parties’ marriage, the appellant wife and appellee husband retained their respective surnames, Hayhurst (wife) and Romano (husband). The parties’ two children were given the husband’s surname, Romano, by which they were known throughout the marriage.
Several months after the parties’ 1996 dissolution of marriage, the former wife filed a petition seeking to change the names of the minor children, ages four and seven, to a hyphenated form, either Romano-Hayhurst or Hayhurst-Romano. The former husband objected.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which the former wife and former husband testified. The former wife has not filed a transcript. The parties have stipulated that the written order accurately reflects the testimony. According to the order, the former wife testified that the name change “would be in the best interests of the children in that the proposed name change would show a familial connection between her and the children.”
The trial court denied the petition, stating:
The evidence was insufficient to show that the proposed name change is in the best interest of the children. See Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) wherein the Court stated:
[T]o change the name of a minor ... is a serious matter, and such action may be taken only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfare of the minor. [Id. at 14].
In our view, the trial court correctly applied the Lazow decision. Where minor children are involved, the Lazow decision indicates that the children’s names should remain unchanged, unless there is a showing that the name change is in their best interests.
We concur with the trial court that the required showing has not been made in this case. The former wife concedes, and we agree, that what is most important by far is the quality of the relationship between parent and child. We recognize that the issue of what surname to use is a matter of importance to the former wife, who elected to keep her own name throughout the parties’ marriage. By the same token, however, during the marriage the parties made a conscious decision how the children would be named. We view the Lazow decision as standing for the proposition that renaming children should not be lightly undertaken, and then only on a showing that such a step is in their best interests. The necessary showing has not been made here.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coolidge v. Ulbrich, 733 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…rriage. Under the circumstances of this case, we affirm the decision of the trial court on the name change. A child’s surname should remain unchanged absent evidence that the change is necessary for the welfare of the child. See Hayhurst v. Romano, 703 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Collinsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Azzara v. Waller, 495 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). A trial court’s decision whether to permit such a name change is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Levine v.…
-
Airsman v. Airsman, 179 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…cessitated by the. welfare of the child.”); Coolidge v. Ulbrich, 733 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“A child’s surname should remain unchanged absent evidence that, the change is necessary for the welfare of the child.”); Hayhurst v. Romano, 703 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (“To change the name of a minor ... is a serious matter, and such action may be taken only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfa…
-
Wilson v. Smith, 126 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…necessitated by the welfare of the child.”); Coolidge v. Ulbrich, 733 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“A child’s surname should remain unchanged absent evidence that the change is necessary for the welfare of the child.”); Hayhurst v. Romano, 703 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (“To change the name of a minor ... is a serious matter, and such action may be taken only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfa…
Authorities Cited
- Lazow v. Eleanore Lazow, 147 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)