NY appeals court reverses child name change order

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has reversed a lower court ruling that approved the name change of a girl despite her father’s opposition.

In January 2024 a state Supreme Court Justice issued an order granting the name change which replaced her father’s surname with her mother’s.

The girl’s father filed a motion objecting to the order, but, in June 2024, state Supreme Court Justice Diane Y. Devlin, in Genesee County, denied the father’s motion to vacate an order authorizing the name change.

The father appealed and, in a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, reversed Devlin’s order.

The court vacated the January 2024 order to change the girl’s name and sent the case back to state Supreme Court in Genesee County.

The girl’s mother initially went to court seeking an order authorizing the name change. At the time of the child’s birth, the father acknowledged paternity, and the child was given his surname.

After the Supreme Court granted the mother’s application and sealed the record the father subsequently learned of the name change application and moved to vacate the order, arguing that he had a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense.

His motion was denied and he appealed.

“We reverse the order insofar as appealed from. We agree with the father that he has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the default inasmuch as he was not served with the statutory notice of the name change application,” the Fourth Department wrote.

New York State Civil Rights Law Section 60 permits a petition for a name change to be brought by a child’s parents, among others.

Civil Rights Law requires that the petitioning parent must serve a notice on the other parent informing them of the application for a name change.

The only statutory exemptions from that notice requirement are when the person to be given notice is deceased or cannot be located with due diligence within the state, and they have no known address outside the state, according to the decision.

“And neither of those exemptions applies here,” the court wrote.

“We further agree with the father that he has a meritorious defense on the basis that he raised reasonable objections to the petition,” the Fourth Department wrote.

While neither parent has a superior right to determine the surname of the child, a father “has a recognized interest in having his child bear his surname,” the court wrote.

“The father also contends that an order granting the petition will have a deleterious effect on his relationship with his child.”

The court reversed Devlin’s order denying the father’s motion, vacated the name change order “upon condition that, until further order of the court, the provisions of the name change order shall remain in effect,” and sent the case back to Supreme Court for a hearing on the petition.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035