IN RE: the Application of Olivia M. as Parent of ZOE K. Q. (2026)

Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219 [a] of the papers considered in the review of this (these) motion(s):

Paper Numbered

Petition, Notice of Petition, Affid in Support, Proof of Service 1

T.Q. Affid in Opp 2

Upon the foregoing papers, the decision and order of the Court is as follows:

This is a contested name change proceeding. Petitioner Olivia M. ("O.M.") is the parent and primary caregiver of her two minor children, Zoe K. Q. and Amir H. Q., and seeks to change the minors' surnames to align with her own. Petitioner does not have consent from the minors' other parent, and provided proof of service of the petition on the other parent. On or before the return date of this proceeding, the Court received written opposition from the other parent, Talib Q. ("T.Q."), to the proposed name change.

Pursuant to an Interim Order dated July 24, 2026, this Court ordered a hearing to resolve the dispute between the minors' parents as to whether the proposed name change would substantially promote the children's best interests. The Court held that hearing on August 18, 2026 at 2:15 PM. Both O.M. and T.Q. appeared and testified in the narrative. Each side was given an opportunity to cross-examine the other side, and both parties submitted documents to the Court after an opportunity by their adversary to review same and raise any objections. Based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed.

Findings of Fact

O.M. and T.Q. were in a romantic relationship for several years, which resulted in the birth of the two minor children which are the subject of this proceeding, Zoe and Amir. Both children have the same surname as their father, T.Q. As of the date of the hearing, Zoe is two years old and Amir is one year old.

The two minor children have always resided with O.M., along with O.M.'s older daughter, Niema M., who is five years old. Niema has O.M.'s surname, and O.M. testified that Niema has noticed that her younger siblings do not have the same last name as her and has begun asking questions about their names.

O.M. began the hearing by stating that the proposed name change was not brought to punish T.Q. Petitioner testified that she sought this name change to make things easier for her family and so that her younger children's names are consistent with hers and Niema's so that when they go to the doctor's appointments and school, there is no confusion. O.M. is responsible for the children's daily care, education, and medical needs. Zoe is enrolled in 3K beginning this fall. O.M. is supported by her family members: her mom watched Zoe and Amir while O.M. appeared in court during the hearing and O.M.'s siblings also help with the children.

In or about December 2025, O.M. and T.Q.'s romantic relationship ended. There is no dispute that T.Q. has only seen the children once this year. However, T.Q. explained that he has kept his distance from O.M. and the children because the situation has been volatile between him and O.M.

T.Q. plainly testified that he wants to coparent Zoe and Amir with O.M. "in a safe way for the children." T.Q. does not have any other children and voluntarily pays $1,200 per month to O.M. to help support Zoe and Amir. There is no child support order and the parties have never been to court to obtain relief in relation to custody or setting a visitation schedule.

The parties' text communications, submitted into evidence, reflect ongoing hostility and difficulty establishing any consistent coparenting structure. As of the date of the hearing, the parties have been unable to come to an agreement as to when T.Q. is permitted to visit his children. Both parties admit that they have had difficulties communicating with each other. O.M. asked T.Q. to use a coparenting communication app so their discussions could be organized in one place. T.Q. testified that he did not believe this app was necessary but failed to show that O.M.'s request to use this app was unreasonable or unnecessary. O.M. further explained that she has reservations about where T.Q. will take their children and is concerned about him leaving the children with their paternal grandmother.

T.Q. testified that prior to the end of his relationship with O.M., he was consistently present in the children's lives. He maintains that he has always been available as a parent and is not difficult to deal with. T.Q. further stated that it is important to him for the children to keep his last name so that they know who their father is and so that they remain connected to his family and heritage.

O.M. maintains that T.Q. has not attended the children's medical appointments, but T.Q. counters that he was not aware of these dates. O.M. is concerned that T.Q. wants to exert control over her and her children. O.M. closed by saying that she believes a father should do more than pay money to support the children.

Conclusions of Law

As the Court explained to the parties during the hearing, and now takes this opportunity to reiterate, this proceeding is not about altering the parental relationship between the parties and the minor children, nor is custody, visitation or child support the subject of this proceeding. The sole question before the Court is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, Zoe and Amir's best interests would be substantially promoted by changing their last names from Q. to M. (Matter of Niethe (McCarthy—DePerno), 151 AD3d 1952, 1953 [4th Dept 2017] ["the issue is not whether it is in the infant's best interests to have the surname of the mother or father, but whether the interests of the infant will be promoted substantially by changing his or her surname."]).

This proceeding was brought pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 63, which provides that "[i]f the court to which the petition is presented is satisfied that the petition is true, and that there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed, and if the petition be to change the name of an infant, that the interests of the infant will be substantially promoted by the change, the court shall make an order authorizing the petitioner to assume the name proposed." An application to change the name of a minor may not be denied on the merits without a hearing (see Matter of Kobra (Hossain), 46 Misc 3d 54 [App Term 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). When a hearing is warranted, the court must "engage in a fact-intensive inquiry into a myriad of factors and circumstances" on the merits (Matter of Siveski (Novakovic), 42 Misc 3d 130(A) [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]).

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to show that the interests of the minor will be substantially promoted by the proposed name change and the Court must consider the totality of the circumstances when determining such an application (Matter of Eberhardt, 83 AD3d 116 [2d Dept 2011]). A non-exhaustive list of factors the Court may consider include "(1) the extent to which a child identifies with and uses a particular surname; (2) the child's expressed preference, if of sufficient age and maturity to articulate a basis for preferring a particular surname; (3) whether the child's surname differs from the surname of the custodial parent; (4) the effect of the proposed name change on the child's relationship with either parent; (5) whether the child's surname is different from any of her siblings and the degree to which she associates and identifies with siblings on either side of her family; (6) whether the child is known by a particular surname in the community; (7) the misconduct, if any, of a parent, such as the failure to support or visit with the child; and (8) the difficulties, harassment, or embarrassment that the child may experience by bearing the current or proposed surname" (id. at 123-124.; see e.g. Matter of Tyler F., 239 AD3d 1496 [4th Dept 2025]).

If the petitioner meets their burden of proof on an opposed name change petition, the burden then shifts to the opponent to raise a reasonable objection to the petition (In re Niethe, 151 AD3d 1952 [4th Dept 2017]). "An objection to a proposed name change for a minor child 'must relate to the child's best interests or bear on the parent's relationship with the child.' " (Matter of Eberhardt, supra [internal quotations omitted]; see also Matter of Niethe (McCarthy—DePerno), supra).

Neither parent has a superior right to determine the surname of their child and an objection based upon traditional values that a child should bear the father's surname is not reasonable as a matter of law (Matter of Eberhardt, supra at 123; see also Matter of Brothers, 2015 NY Slip Op 30726(U) [Sup Ct, Madison County 2015]).

Here, the Court finds that neither parent sought or opposed the requested name change for improper purposes; rather, both expressed reasons tied to family identity and stability. In terms of stability, the Court acknowledges that daily life may be easier for O.M. and the children if they share the same surname, especially given that Zoe and Amir presently reside with O.M. and O.M.'s older daughter, who also bears O.M.'s last name. However, these conveniences must be balanced against T.Q.'s reasonable objections and his argument that the children should keep his last name.

Both children were given T.Q.'s surname at birth, as reflected by their birth certificates, which list T.Q. as their father. O.M. brought this application approximately seven months after her romantic relationship with T.Q. ended because she claims T.Q. only saw the children once this year, Niema has noticed that her younger siblings have a different last name and for convenience and consistency when taking Zoe and Amir to doctor appointments and school. O.M. has not specifically explained what issues she or the children have faced because they bear a different surname from her and neither child has started school yet, although Zoe has successfully been enrolled in 3K. Although courts have noted that a child sharing their surname with the custodial parent minimizes embarrassment, harassment and confusion in school and social contacts (Matter of John Phillip M.-P., 307 AD2d 318 [2d Dept 2003]; see also Matter of Caraballo, 13 Misc 3d 1229(A) [Civ Ct, NY County 2006]; Matter of D.Z ("G"), 73 Misc 3d 775 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2021]), it is common for families to include children and parents with differing surnames (see also Matter of Trevellian v. Wilson, 19 Misc 3d 137(A) [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008] ["It is no longer uncommon in today's society for a child to have a different surname than that of a parent, and, to the contrary, it has become commonplace for siblings to have different surnames."]).

Even assuming arguendo that aligning surnames within the household would substantially promote the children's interests, the Court nevertheless finds that T.Q. has articulated reasonable objections that outweigh any such benefit. O.M. stated that it is important for the children to have a relationship with their father, and the Court agrees. Maintaining the surname helps preserve and foster T.Q.'s developing bond with Zoe and Amir and their connection to T.Q.'s family. The Court notes that this is not a case where T.Q. wants his children to keep his surname for vanity or superficial purposes. The Court gives substantial weight to his credible testimony that he loves his children and wants to be present in their lives. Further, the Court gives great weight to T.Q.'s testimony that keeping his last name is important to him so that the children have ties to his family and heritage and know where they came from.

Although O.M. claims that T.Q. is not present in Zoe and Amir's lives, the Court disagrees. It is true that T.Q. has not seen the children more than once since the relationship ended. However, T.Q. established through his credible testimony and documentary submissions to the court that he was present in their day-to-day lives before his relationship with O.M. ended, he has tried to set up a coparenting agreement with O.M. since the relationship ended, and he desires to be a present father in their lives going forward. Unfortunately, the parties have not been able to reach an agreement as to visitation or custody to date, which is beyond the scope of this Court's inquiry on this application.

O.M. did not dispute that Zoe and Amir had a relationship with T.Q. from birth through December 2025, and T.Q. wants to coparent the children with O.M. going forward. T.Q. has otherwise presented a reasonable excuse for his recent day-to-day absence from the children's lives, namely, his relatively recent break-up with O.M. and his desire to not expose Zoe and Amir to a hostile or unstable environment due to personal conflict between the parents and their inability to coparent to date. Both parties concede that communication has been difficult between them.

This is not a case where one parent has been unexplainably absent from the children's lives for an extended period of time, or where one parent has committed some type of misconduct. Here, T.Q. voluntarily provides money to O.M. to support the children and has been communicating with O.M. for months asking to see and spend time with his children. Taken together, these facts demonstrate that T.Q. continues to occupy a meaningful role in Zoe and Amir's lives, and maintaining their surname supports continuity of their paternal identity and connection to their father.

Upon balancing all of the testimony and evidence presented, the Court concludes that maintaining the surname Q. at this juncture better serves the children's present and future interests. While O.M. has established that aligning Zoe and Amir's surnames with her own and Niema's would promote consistency and stability, this factor is outweighed by the effect the proposed name change will have on Zoe and Amir's relationship with T.Q. Further, maintaining the surname Q. will better serve Zoe and Amir's interests because it will promote continuity of their paternal identity and connection to their father and his heritage.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that after a testimonial hearing at which evidence was taken and considered, the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed.

This constitutes the Order of the Court.

Dated: 8/21/2026

Bronx, New York

Hon. Eric J. Wursthorn, J.C.C.

Eric J. Wursthorn, J.