IN RE: the Application of D.M.C.P. (2025)

The following papers numbered 1 through and including 36 were read on Petitioner's application pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 63 for an Order granting the relief requested in her Petition:

Petition/Affidavit of Service/Exhibits 1-4 1-6

Father's Affirmation in Opposition/Affidavit of Service/Exhibits A-M 7-21

Affirmation in Reply/Affidavit of Service/Exhibits 1-13 22-36

Upon reading the foregoing papers, the Petition is disposed as follows:

BACKGROUND

On November 4, 2024, Petitioner-mother ("Mother") filed a Petition with the Rockland County Clerk's Office for an Order changing the name of her thirteen-year-old daughter ("Child") by removing one of her two middle names and adding the surname of the Child's stepfather by hyphenating it with the Child's patronymic name. The Mother and the Child's biological Father ("Father") have been separated since, at the latest, 2016, when the Child was four years old. The Mother possesses sole physical and legal custody of the Child. The Father has had visitation and communication rights with the Child, although they have not had contact in quite some time, despite the Father indicating to this Court that he does wish to be active and present in his daughter's life. He alleges that the Mother has estranged Father and daughter.

The Mother failed to notice the Father to the within Petition or obtain and attach his written consent thereto as required by Civil Rights Law § 62. As such, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on December 6, 2024 sua sponte, directing the Mother to serve the instant Petition and supporting papers on the Father via text message — the method calculated to most likely make the Father aware of these proceedings — and appear before the undersigned on December 23, 2024 and show cause why an Order should not be entered granting the Petition to change the Child's name. At the December 23rd conference, the parties appeared, the Court issued a briefing schedule, and the Court adjourned pending the issuance of the within Decision.

On March 6, 2025, to ensure that the Child's position was accurately represented and to provide her with an opportunity to be heard, the Court issued an Order appointing Margaret Regan Smith, Esq. as Attorney for the Child, directing that Attorney Smith confer with the Child, and for all parties to further appear before this Court for a conference. When the parties appeared before the undersigned on May 2, 2025 and May 8, 2025, the Attorney for the Child reported that the Child supported the proposed change to her surname but took no position with regard to the proposed removal of one of her two middle names. In addition, at the May 8, 2025 conference, the Mother withdrew the branch of her Petition for the removal of one the Child's middle name. The Court adjourned pending the issuance of a Decision on the proposed change to the Child's surname by hyphenation.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

In support of the proposed name change, the Mother contends, among other things, the following: (1) that the Child has lived with her stepfather since 2016 when she was four years old; (2) that the Child has a strong bond with her stepfather and his family, who have accepted the Child as their own; (3) that the Child has had minimal contact with her biological father in the four years preceding the filing of the within Petition and no contact with the Father in the eight months preceding the filing of the within Petition; (4) that the Father does not call, email or text to inquire about the Child's physical or mental health, emotional well-being, or school performance; (5) that in the past six years, the Father has provided no financial support for the Child, accruing $82,822.93 in child support arrears, and has made no attempt to actively co-parent; and (6) that after a year of deliberation with the Mother, the Child has requested that her name be changed as requested herein, the Mother stating "she wants to carry the same last name as the family she is connected to" (Petition ¶18). Notably, attached to the Mother's Petition was a Family Court Order dated June 24, 2019 granting the Mother sole legal custody of the Child.

The Father opposes the proposed name change, requesting that the application be denied in its entirety and insisting that any change in the Child's name should occur when the Child is old enough to elect to do so without his consent. In opposition to the Mother's Petition, the Father contends, in pertinent part, the following: that the proposed name change is "unnecessary, lacks legal justification, and would disrupt [the Child's] connection to her family heritage" (Affirmation in Opposition); that the Mother does not possess sole legal and physical custody of the Child, as represented by the Mother in her Petition, attaching a Custody/Visitation/Communication Agreement so-ordered by the Family Court on June 13, 2016 as proof thereof; that the Mother does not comply with the visitation schedule ordered by the Family Court, noting that the scheduled calls with the Child have become sporadic and often go unanswered and unreturned, prompting the Father to file a contempt petition against the Mother in December 2024; that the Mother has "systematically" estranged the Child from him, the Child's maternal grandparents, and extended family; and that changing the Child's name would disrupt her sense of identity and heritage, noting that the Child's middle name, which the Mother originally sought to eliminate herein, was chosen by the Father to honor his late aunt and link the Child to his family.

In reply, the Mother contends, in pertinent part, that the within Petition reflects the best interests of the Child and is not an attempt to sever ties with any part of her family or her cultural heritage. Rather, the Mother maintains, the proposed name change reflects the Child's identity with her blended family and was made after a year-long, thoughtful discussion with the Child. Further, the Mother avers that the decision reflects the best interests of the Child as she, the Child's brother, and Child's stepsister share the stepfather's last name. In response to the Father's contentions, the Mother reaffirms that she possesses sole legal custody over the Child and that the so-ordered Custody / Visitation / Communication Agreement referenced by the Father has been supplanted by the more recent Family Court Order dated June 24, 2019.

With regard to the Father's visitation with the Child, the Mother contends that the Father initially had regularly adhered to the visitation schedule set forth in their agreement, but that since 2016, the Father has failed to exercise his visitation rights for extended periods of time, prompting the Mother to petition and obtain from the Family Court sole legal custody over the child. Additionally, the Mother states that the last attempt by the Father to see the Child occurred in late February 2024, which could not be effectuated by the parties due to a purported miscommunication between them. According to the Mother, since February 2024, the Father has had no contact with her or the Child.

With regard to the Father's financial support for the Child, the Mother contends that since 2018, the Father has not supported the Child financially, accruing $85,005.58 in child support arrears and an additional $10,548 in medical bills, and is facing a violation hearing for the former. Further, the Mother alleges that the Father is employed, attaching a screen capture of his LinkedIn account as proof thereof, and impliedly able to pay child support, contrary to his representation to the Court at the December 23, 2024 conference that he was unemployed. The Mother also notes that the Father was financially and physically absent from the Child's life during her infancy.

DISCUSSION

Civil Rights Law § 63 states that a court shall grant a petition to change an infant's name if it "is satisfied ...that the petition is true, and that there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed, and...that the interests of the infant will be substantially promoted by the change." For an objection to be reasonable, it must "relate to the child's best interests or bear on the parent's relationship with the child" (In re Eberhardt, 83 AD3d 116, 123 [2d Dept 2011]). Infant name change applications that seek to deprive the child of his or her father's surname should be distinguished from the within application, which seeks in part to add the surname of the stepfather to the Child's patronymic surname and hyphenate the two. "Depriving a child of his or her father's surname is normally a far-reaching action Applications for the change of an infant's surname are usually granted only where the natural father is guilty of misconduct, abandonment, or lack of support" (Matter of Goldstein, 104 AD2d 616, 616 [2d Dept 1984]; Eberhardt, 83 AD3d at 122).

In assessing whether the proposed name change is in the best interests of the child, the Court must consider the totality of the circumstances, with due regard being given to the following factors: (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 (see Eberhardt, 83 AD3d at 123-124). Said factors do not constitute an exhaustive list of factors for the Court to consider (id).

Here, with regard to the proposed addition of the stepfather's surname to the Child's patronymic surname, the Father has not raised a reasonable objection. The Father's principal contention against the proposed change to the Child's surname is that it would disrupt the Child's sense of identity and heritage. However, the proposed change will not deprive the Child of her patronymic surname or the accompanying identity and heritage tied to it which the Father seeks to preserve. To the contrary, considering that the Child identifies with her blended family, with whom the thirteen-year-old has lived for eight years, and is the only member of the household of four who does not carry the stepfather's surname, the Court finds that the addition of the stepfather's surname to the Child's existing surname by hyphenation would accurately reflect the Child's identity as a member of both her blended family and her Father's family.

With no reasonable objection to the proposed surname change for the Child, the Court now considers whether the Mother has demonstrated that the interests of the Child will be substantially promoted by the change. The Court finds that she has. Here, several factors enumerated by the Second Department in Eberhardt weigh in favor of granting the proposed surname change, namely that the Child is of sufficient age and maturity to articulate her preferences and supports the proposed name change (as reported to this Court by the Child's independent attorney appointed by this Court) following lengthy deliberation with her Mother; that the Child identifies with the stepfather's surname and their blended family, as discussed supra; that the stepfather has been a co-parent of and resided with the Child for several years; that the Child is the only person in her household of four, and one of three siblings, who does not bear the stepfather's surname; that assumption of the stepfather's surname will minimize embarrassment, harassment, and confusion in school and social contacts by virtue of the Child sharing a surname with her immediate family (see In re John Phillip M.-P., 307 AD2d 318, 318-319 [2d Dept 2003]); and the Mother's allegation that the Father is delinquent in failing to provide financial support to the Child.¹ Also considered by the Court in assessing the proposed surname change is the Family Court Order dated June 24, 2019 granting the Mother sole legal custody of the Child.

The record is absent of any factors listed in Eberhardt or other authority that militate against granting the Mother her requested change to the Child's surname. As such, the branch of the Mother's application to change the surname of the Child by adding the stepfather's surname and hyphenating it with the Child's patronymic name is granted (see also Matter of DZ ("G"), 73 Misc 3d 775 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2021] [holding that it was in the best interests of the 14-year-old child to assume the last name of her mother and stepfather and eliminate the name of her biological father where the child identified as a member of her blended family, had siblings with the same last name, and the father refused to pay child support despite his ability to do so]).

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the caption of this action is hereby amended to the extent that the Child's middle is corrected in order to conform with the Child's birth certificate; and it is further

ORDERED, that the caption of this action, as so amended, shall read as follows:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ROCKLAND

In the Matter of the Application of

D.M.C.P.

As Parent or Guardian of The Minor Child

Index No. 1167/2024

D.S.M.W.

For an Order Granting Name Change Pursuant to New York

Civil Rights Law § 63

; and it is further

ORDERED, that D.S.M.W. born in Greenwich, Connecticut, and having provided a Connecticut Department of Health Birth Certificate as proof of birth, is authorized to assume the name D.S.M.W.P. in place of the present name, and by no other name; and it is further

ORDERED, that all paper and electronic records of this name change proceeding are SEALED pursuant to this Court's finding that an open record of the Child's name change would jeopardize the Child's personal safety based upon the totality of the circumstances and may be opened only by Court Order for good cause shown or at the request of the Petitioner or the Child at the age of majority; and it is further

ORDERED, that this Order shall be entered and the papers on which it was granted be filed in the office of the County Clerk of Rockland County and that upon said filing, the Child shall be known by the name of D.S.M.W.P. and by no other name.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision & Order of this Court.

Dated: May 19, 2025

New City, New York

E N T E R:

HON. DAVID FRIED, A.J.S.C.

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ROCKLAND

FOOTNOTES

1.   This factor is referenced based upon the allegations of the Mother as against Father, but the Court does not have anything before it reflecting an actual adjudication of delinquency. As such, minimal weight has been assessed relevant to such allegation.

David Fried, J.