DETROIT, MI — A parent\u2019s request for his child to be renamed should not have been granted without a determination that it was in the child\u2019s best interests, the Court of Appeals has ruled in an unpublished decision.<\/p>\n
In September 2023, the plaintiff gave birth to the parties\u2019 son. By the time a trial began in September 2024, the defendant had not met the child, but he had engaged in video visits with him in July 2024.<\/p>\n
The defendant requested that the trial court change the child\u2019s name, alleging that the plaintiff had named the child without his input, including that she gave the child her maiden name rather than the parties\u2019 surname. The trial court did not find that the plaintiff acted with animus when giving the child his first and middle name, but did find that the plaintiff acted with anger or vengeance by giving the minor child her maiden name as his last name. The trial court determined that the child\u2019s last name would be changed to the defendant\u2019s last name.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this case, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the child\u2019s surname be changed without determining that it was in the child\u2019s best interests. … As defendant argues, the trial court thoroughly considered the child\u2019s best interests earlier in its decision as it related to custody. Further, after stating its decision that the child\u2019s last name would change, the trial court cited cases that refer to best interests. See, e.g., In re Warshefski, 331 Mich App 83, 94-95; 951 NW2d 90 (2020). The trial court, however, focused on plaintiff\u2019s motivation when naming the child, rather than on the child\u2019s best interests specifically in regard to his name. As defendant notes, one best-interest factor, MCL 722.23(j), addresses the willingness of a parent to facilitate the child\u2019s relationship with the other parent. Although plaintiff\u2019s motivation when naming the child may have been relevant to her willingness to facilitate the child\u2019s relationship with defendant, the trial court did not explain if it found that the name change was in the child\u2019s best interests. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court must address the child\u2019s best interests specifically as to his name,\u201d a three-judge Court of Appeals panel wrote in a per curiam opinion.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn remand, the trial court should consider the child\u2019s best interests specifically in addressing defendant\u2019s request to change the child\u2019s surname,\u201d the panel added.<\/p>\n
The nine-page decision is Repp v. Repp<\/em>; MiLW No. 08-110774.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A parent\u2019s request for his child to be renamed should not have been granted without a determination that it was in the child\u2019s best interests, the Court of Appeals has ruled in an unpublished decision.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4199,"featured_media":19124,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[52569,2536,71497],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-featured","category-from-the-courts","subscriber_only"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n