X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant, Stephanie Ford, appeals from the order of the trial court granting the name change of her child M.C.F. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. While the court recognizes that a name change in connection with a paternity action under chapter 160 is not the same as a name change under chapter 45, the court believes that the chapter 45 cases may be looked to in determining a child’s best interest regarding the name change in a paternity action. Newman v. King, 433 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1968). Thus, when reviewing the decision of a trial court to determine whether good cause was shown for changing a child’s name in a proceeding to establish paternity under chapter 160, the court concludes that the trial court must then also consider whether the change is in the best interest of the child. The court holds that the appellee did not meet his burden with respect to showing good cause for changing the name of the child from Ford to Estes. He presented no evidence whatsoever. Moreover, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court failed to state its basis for finding good cause to change the child’s name. Therefore, the court holds that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of good cause and sustain appellant’s third issue. The appellee presented no evidence of how or why the name change would be in the child’s best interest. Therefore, the court concludes that there is legally insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that changing the child’s name would be in his best interest. Because the court determines that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that good cause existed for the name change or that a change would be in the child’s best interest, and that the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles with regard to the name change, the court holds that the court abused its discretion in changing the child’s name from Ford to Estes. OPINION:Livingston, J.; Livingston, Dauphinot and Holman, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.