Melbourne v. Neal

147 A.3d 1151 (D.C. Ct. App. 2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

W and Marcus Taylor (H) were married and living together in the District of Columbia when the child was born on May 11, 2012. A month later, the couple separated and H moved to Florida. W and the child soon moved to Florida to live with H. The attempt at reconciliation failed, and W and the child moved back to the District of Columbia in September of 2012. The couple was granted an absolute divorce on May 6, 2013. The court ordered joint legal custody of the child. W filed the name change application. W testified that she was having 'difficulties establishing that she is the mother.' W had taken her daughter to temporary childcare and a childcare worker assumed that W and her child shared a last name, and recorded W's name incorrectly, as 'Taylor,' on the pickup sheet. When W came to collect her daughter later that day, her identification showed a different name than that on the pickup sheet and did not match the child's last name. W was initially prevented from leaving with her child. Eventually, after a director was called, 'it all got straightened out,' but it was a 'process' that W wished to avoid in the future. This was not an isolated incident. W explained that her motive was to end those problems, not to cause an estrangement between the child and H. H had not manifested a continuing interest in the child. He had not called, emailed, or contacted her in any other way in order to facilitate the father-child relationship over the preceding twelve months. H testified that he opposed the name change because H and W agreed when the child was born that she would pick the child's first and middle names and the child would bear his last name. H testified that he had made an effort to stay in the child's life, but that his efforts had been thwarted by W. H testified that he had made 'four or five' attempts during the preceding year to exercise his visitation rights but that W always said that the dates did not work for her or the child's schedules. This included the week of the hearing when he was in town, and W told him he could see the child only on the weekend, but he could not afford to stay that long. H state that because he was being prevented from seeing the child, he thought their relationship would be diminished as he believed the only reason the child 'knows who he is because she has his last name.' The court denied the change application finding that: (1) as the child was then only two years old, her name should not be changed because she is unable to make an intelligent choice on the matter; (2) the father's physical absence from the child's life for more than a year - whatever the reason - meant that a name change 'would weaken - and likely destroy - the bond' between the child and H; (3) the father is current in his child support obligations, has demonstrated a continuing interest in the child, has not engaged in any misconduct, and filed a timely objection to the name-change application; and (4) the father has a desire to preserve a parental relationship with the child, but in light of the acrimony between the parents, a name change would 'further estrange the relationship.' P appealed.