Matter of Trevellian v Wilson (2008 NY Slip Op 50866(U))

Trevellian, Matter of, v Wilson

2008 NY Slip Op 50866(U) [19 Misc 3d 137(A)]

Decided on April 14, 2008

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected in part through May 15, 2008; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

In the Matter of the Application of Christine Trevellian as Parent and Natural Guardian for Leave to Change Minor's Name to Caitlin Clara Trevellian, Appellant,

against

Markus Aldo Wilson, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), dated May 17, 2006. The order, after a hearing, denied a petition for leave to change an infant's name from Caitlin Clara Wilson to Caitlin Clara Trevellian.

A court may change the name of an infant if it determines that "the interests of the infant will be substantially promoted by the change" (Civil Rights Law § 63). "Depriving a child of his or her father's surname is normally a far-reaching action" (Matter of Goldstein, 104 AD2d 616 [1984]; see Githens v Van Orden, 177 Misc 2d 918 [1998], affd 256 AD2d 1247 [1998]; Matter of Pollack, 2 AD2d 756 [1956]).
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 (see Matter of Goldstein, 104 AD2d 616 [1984], supra). Although the child's father failed to appear at the hearing to oppose the petition, petitioner admits that the father in fact is opposed to the name change. Furthermore, petitioner concedes that the father visits both children regularly, pays child support and has an ongoing relationship with them.

Petitioner's contention that the name change would minimize embarrassment, harassment and confusion at school and in social situations does not support the conclusion that changing the child's name to her own surname would promote the child's best interests. 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 (see Matter of Grier, 5 Misc 3d 1011[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51332[U] [2004]). Petitioner's concern over the potential embarrassment the child may experience if required to use her father's surname at school and in social situations is speculative at best (see Swank v Petkovsek, 216 AD2d 920 [*2][1995]) and does not support a conclusion that the interests of the infant will
be substantially promoted by the change (see Matter of Siira, 7 AD3d 803 [2004]; Matter of John Phillip M.-P., 307 AD2d 318 [2003]; Githens v Van Orden, 177 Misc 2d 918 [1998], affd 256 AD2d 1247 [1998], supra).