Case Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant

Citation: 162 Vt. 281, 648 A.2d 648

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_WILSON.93-240; 162 Vt. 281; 648 A.2d 648

[Opinion Filed July 1, 1994]


 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 93-240


 In re Alexis G. Wilson                       Supreme Court
   and Terrence M. Wilson
                                              On Appeal from
                                              Chittenden Superior Court


                                              February Term, 1994


 Matthew I. Katz, J.

 Charles T. Shea, Dennis R. Pearson, Craig Weatherly and Lucy T. Brown of
   Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for appellant-Grace Pomerleau

 James W. Murdoch of Murdoch & Hughes, Burlington, for appellee-Randall
 Wilson



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.   Mother appeals from a decision of the superior court
 reversing the probate court order granting her petition to change the
 surnames of her children, Alexis and Terrence, from their father's surname
 to her birth name, Pomerleau.  Mother argues on appeal that the superior
 court (1) improperly employed a presumption in favor of father's surname,
 (2) did not use a sufficiently broad set of factors to determine the
 children's best interests and improperly weighed those factors it did
 consider, and (3) abused its discretion by disregarding the testimony of the
 children's psychologist.  We affirm.

 

      Grace Pomerleau and Randall Wilson were married in 1982.  Upon
 marriage, Grace took the surname Pomerleau-Wilson.  Two children, Alexis and
 Terrence, were born of the marriage.  The parents gave the children the
 Wilson surname.  In 1988, the parents separated.  The children were five and
 one years old at the time.
      Upon divorce, mother resumed use of her birth name.  Mother has had
 both legal and physical responsibility for the children since the divorce.
 Father has the right to visit the children on a set visitation schedule and
 the obligation to pay child support.  Father, however, has failed to pay
 child support for substantial periods even though he was generally employed,
 and visited with the children less than was permitted in the divorce decree.
 Nonetheless, the trial court found that the children "have continued to
 maintain a good relationship with the father although he is quite clearly
 the less dominant parent in their lives."  The trial court also found that
 the children have good relationships with both parents and their extended
 families.  The relationship with the maternal family is closer because the
 children spend significantly more time with their maternal grandparents.
 Since the divorce, both parents have remarried.  Mother retained the
 Pomerleau surname after she married the second time.
      Mother brought the name change petitions in May 1992 when Alexis was 10
 and Terrence was 5.  Alexis had already begun using the Pomerleau name at
 school, and mother had registered Terrence for school under the name
 Pomerleau.  The probate court granted the petitions.  Father appealed to the
 superior court, which reversed, finding that it was in the children's best
 interest to retain father's surname of Wilson.  It is from this decision
 that mother appeals.

 

                                     I.
      The first issue on appeal is the standard a trial court should apply in
 considering a name change petition for a minor child brought under 15 V.S.A.
 { 812.  Mother argues that the superior court improperly presumed that the
 children should retain their father's surname.  She contends that the proper
 rebuttable presumption is in favor of the custodial parent's naming
 preference, or in the alternative, that the presumption should be in favor
 of a "blank slate."
      The trial court employed the clearly established standard for review of
 a name change petition regarding minor children in Vermont and most other
 jurisdictions -- whether the change is in the best interests of the minor
 children.  In re Fletcher, 145 Vt. 209, 212,