IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
IN RE: )
MADISON RENEE BAIRD )
)
WILLIAM ALAN BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellee, )
)
) Rutherford Juvenile
VS. ) No. 1131-C
)
) Appeal No.
MANDY RENEE BAIRD, ) 01A01-9704-JV-00148
)
Defendant/Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT FOR RUTHERFORD COUNTY
THE HONORABLE DAVID LOUGHRY, JUDGE
For the Plaintiff/Appellee: For the Defendant/Appellant:
John B. Melton, III Darrell L. Scarlett
Murfreesboro, Tennessee Murfreesboro, Tennessee
REVERSED AND REMANDED
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
O P I N I O N
This appeal concerns a dispute over a nonmarital child's surname.
Approximately six weeks after the child's birth, the father filed a legitimation
petition in the Rutherford County Juvenile Court seeking to establish paternity,
to set visitation, and to give the child his surname. Following a
bench trial, the juvenile court changed the child's surname from her mother's
name to a hyphenated name that included both parents' surnames. On
this appeal, the mother takes issue with the trial court's order changing
the child's surname. We reverse the portion of the trial court's
order changing the child's surname because we have determined that the
father has not carried his burden of proving that changing the child's
surname is in her best interests.
i.
Mandy Renee Baird gave birth to Madison Renee Baird on July 19,
1996. She declined to include the name of the child's biological
father on the birth certificate and apparently rebuffed the father's attempts
to visit the child. On September 3, 1996, William Alan Brown filed
a legitimation petition in the Rutherford County Juvenile Court requesting
(1) that the child's birth certificate identify him as the biological father,
(2) that the child's surname be changed to Brown, and (3) that he be awarded
liberal visitation with the child.
The juvenile court conducted a hearing on November 21, 1996 during
which Ms. Baird and Mr. Brown were the only witnesses. Mr. Brown
insisted that the child's surname should be changed to "Baird-Brown" in
order to reflect his parentage. Ms. Baird opposed this suggestion
on the grounds that she had the right to name the child and that giving
a child a hyphenated surname would differentiate the child from other children
and could call attention to the fact that she was born out of wedlock.
On December 20, 1996, the juvenile court entered an order concluding that
it would be in the child's best interests to change her name to Madison
Renee Baird-Brown and directing that a new birth certificate be issued
showing the child's new name and that her biological father was Mr. Brown.
II.
The sole issue on this appeal involves the juvenile court's decision
to change the child's surname from Baird to Baird-Brown. Our analysis
must start with the recognition that Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-3-305(b)(1)
(1996) requires that a nonmarital child's surname be that of its mother.
Thereafter, any person desiring to change the child's surname, including
the child's biological father, has the burden of proving that changing
the child's surname is in the child's best interests. See Halloran
v. Kostka,778 S.W.2d 454, 456 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).
The amount of proof required to justify changing a child's surname
is not insubstantial. Minor inconvenience or embarrassment are not
enough. See Layman v. Replogle, App. No. 01A01-9312-CV-00516, 1994
WL 228227, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 1994) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11
application filed); In re Lackey, App. No. 01A01-9010-PB-00358, 1991 WL
45394, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 5, 1991) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application
filed). Among the factors for courts to consider in cases of this
sort are: (1) the child's preference, (2) the change's potential
effect on the child's relationship with each parent, (3) the length of
time the child has had its present surname, (4) the degree of community
respect associated with the present and proposed surname, and (5) the difficulty,
harassment, or embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing
either its present or its proposed surname. See Barabas v. Rogers, 868
S.W.2d 283,287 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
Mr. Brown presented no evidence concerning how changing his daughter's
surname would benefit the child. He stated only that he believed
that the child's surname should "reflect his parentage" and that "the hyphenated
last name would not adversely impact the child." These sorts of general
statements of belief or opinion are insufficient to prove that a proposed
name change is in the child's best interests. SeeIn re Schidlmeier,
496 A.2d 1249, 1253-54 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); In re Grimes, 609 A.2d 158,
161-62 (Pa. 1992) (declining to require a hyphenated surname); In re M.L.P.,
621 S.W.2d 430, ___ (Tex. Civ. App. 1981); Lufft v. Lufft, 424 S.E.2d 266,
___ (W. Va. 1992).
The record before us contains no indication that the child's
original surname is detrimental to her or that the proposed hyphenated
surname would be of some benefit. There is no proof that the child's original
surname has or will have any effect on her relationship with her parents
and extended family or that she will be inconvenienced or embarrassed if
she continues to be known by her original surname. Accordingly, we
find that Mr. Brown failed to carry his burden of proof and that the record
does not contain sufficient competent evidence to support the juvenile
court's conclusion that changing the child's surname from Baird to Baird-Brown
is in the child's best interests. III.
We reverse the portion of the juvenile court's judgment directing
that the child's surname be changed from Baird to Baird-Brown and remand
the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We
also tax the costs of this appeal to William Alan Brown for which execution,
if necessary, may issue.
_____________________________
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
CONCUR:
____________________________________
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
____________________________________
WILLIAM H. INMAN, SENIOR JUDGE