The Indiana Court of Appeals has reached a rather patriarchal result in a family-law case, ruling that a noncustodial father can change his son's surname over the objections of the custodial mother.
A trial judge last year found a name change was in the best interest of the child “based on Father's testimony that sharing his name will increase the emotional bond between Father and the Child.” The child, identified only as N.D.F., has been using the name “Fulp,” the surname of his mother's stepfather.
In appealing the trial court's decision, the mother, Jill Petersen, invoked an Indiana law which recognizes a presumption in favor of the parent “who has been making support payments and fulfilling other duties in accordance with a decree” such as a custody or child-support order and objects to the proposed name change.
The presumption should benefit her, Petersen argued, since she provides financial support and performs other duties for her son.
But the appeals court agreed with the father, Marty Burton, that “as the statute currently reads, the presumption applies only to noncustodial parents ... who actually make support payments pursuant to the terms of a court order.”
“Limiting the application of this statutory presumption to noncustodial parents, primarily fathers, who object to proposed name changes may appear to be outdated in light of modern attitudes and practices regarding the surnames of children born out of wedlock,” the opinion written by Judge Terry A. Crone said. “However, it is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to make any revisions it may feel are appropriate in this regard.”
In the absence of a statutory presumption, Burton was only required to present sufficient -- rather than clear and convincing -- evidence supporting the name change. Finding Burton had met that burden, Crone relied in part on the notion that “the mother-child relationship is generally less affected by the child's surname.”
The Oregon Court of Appeals followed a more enlightened approach last year in ruling that the father of a two-year-old girl did not have a legal right to require her to use his surname.
“The custom of children using the father's surname has for centuries disregarded, in the words of one commentator, 'a mother's pride in her own ancestry and her desire to have her children perpetuate her name,'” it noted in Doherty v. Wizner.
At the time of the trial court's order, N.D.F was three years old. “Certainly any confusion as a result of a name change can be minimized in light of the child’s tender years,” Johnson Circuit Court Judge K. Mark Loyd said.
By Matthew Heller
8/21/07 
A disabled high-school janitor has sued a New Jersey school district, alleging co-workers laced his pizza with LSD as part of a campaign to ridicule him because of his impairment.
Dominick Rao suffers from a visual condition known as bilateral ocular albinism and, according to his complaint, the pizza incident at an office party was "just the culmination" of efforts by other janitors at Fair Lawn High School to doctor his food with LSD.
"He said he felt like his body and system were melting from the inside out, like he was living in a kaleidoscope," Rao's attorney told the Bergen Record newspaper.
8/21/07
