M.R. v. B.I. CA6

Filed 3/16/23 M.R. v. B.I. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

M.R., H049624 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 20CP000104)

v.

B.I.,

Defendant and Appellant.

M.R. (Mother) petitioned the trial court to change the surname of her minor child (Minor) by adding her surname to the surname of B.I. (Father). The court granted the requested change over the opposition of Father, who now appeals. We affirm. Although the evidence presented by the parties was limited, the trial court had adequate grounds for finding that the name change supports the mother-child relationship and therefore is in Minor’s best interests. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND When Minor was born in April 2019, Mother and Father were unmarried, but they nonetheless agreed to give Minor Father’s middle name and surname. The relationship between Mother and Father ended in January 2020, and the next month Mother filed a proceeding under the Uniform Parentage Act (Fam. Code, § 7600 et seq.) asking, among other things, for sole legal custody and joint physical custody. In response, Father

acknowledged being Minor’s parent but sought joint legal and sole physical custody. In September 2020, the trial court ordered joint legal as well as physical custody. Ten months later, in July 2021, Mother requested an order changing Minor’s surname from Father’s surname, as originally given, to a hyphenated combination of both parents’ surnames (Mother’s surname-Father’s surname). Father opposed the request, objecting that, when Minor was born, Mother had agreed to give him Father’s surname. Father also objected that Mother had not made this request when the proceedings began in February of 2020. Finally, Father argued that Minor already knew his full name and changing it would confuse him, that the proposed hyphenated name would be longer and more difficult, and that the name would require burdensome changes with the Social Security office and other government agencies. In September 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the name change. Father testified that Mother had agreed with him on Minor’s first, middle, and last names, and that the full name has a “special meaning,” albeit unspecified, to each of them. Referencing a video, Father also testified that Minor already knew his full name and asserted that changing it “would be confusing to him.” Father asserted as well that the proposed name was so complicated that it “would make [Minor] feel even more different.” Mother testified that, when Minor was born, she and Father “had big plans for the future” and she had not thought to hyphenate Minor’s surname. On October 25, 2021, the trial court granted Mother’s request and ordered Minor’s name changed. The court did not make any explicit findings or explain its reasoning. It simply declared that “Mother’s request to change the minor’s name is granted” and ordered how that would be done. Although Father did not request a statement of decision, he timely appealed, proceeding by way of a settled statement. II. DISCUSSION More than four decades ago our Supreme Court abolished the common law right of fathers to have children bear their surnames and held that the “sole consideration when