J-S07034-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: PETITION OF A.K., Parent of 

S.S.

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: E.S. : No. 1239 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order entered June 27, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,

Civil Division, No(s): 2016-CV-2033

BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J: FILED APRIL 13, 2017

E.S. (“Father”) appeals the Order granting the Petition filed by A.K. 

(“Mother”) to change the name of the parties’ male child, S.S. (“Child”), to 

combine the surnames of Father and Mother. We affirm.

Mother and Father are the biological parents of Child, a minor (born 

8/24/14).1 At birth, Child was given Father’s surname. Mother has two 

children from a prior marriage, who share her surname. Mother filed a 

Petition seeking to change Child’s surname from “S.” to “K.-S.,” so that Child 

would share not only Father’s surname, but also the surname of Mother and 

Child’s maternal siblings. Father filed Objections to the Petition. Following a 

hearing, the trial court entered an Order on June 27, 2016, overruling 

Father’s Objections, and granting Mother’s Petition. Father filed a timely 

Notice of Appeal.

 

1 Mother and Father were never married. 
J-S70034-17

- 2 -

On appeal, Father raises the following issue for our review: “Whether 

the trial court abused its discretion in granting Mother’s Petition for Change 

of the name of the Child[,] where Mother presented no credible or 

competent evidence to establish that the change of name is in the best 

interest of [C]hild?” Father’s Brief at 5. 

Father contends that Mother presented no competent evidence that 

the change of name is in Child’s best interest. Id. at 17. Father asserts 

that the testimony considered by the trial court consisted solely of Mother’s 

“desires, beliefs, concerns and unfounded speculation that Child will endure 

life[-]long interrogation about why his name differs from Mother and his 

maternal siblings.” Id. Father claims that Mother failed to testify to any 

difficulties caused by the difference in surnames between her and Child. Id. 

Father argues that Mother’s concerns are disingenuous because she testified 

that Child is bonded with Mother and his maternal siblings. Id. at 17-18. 

Father contends that Mother presented no evidence that there is a stigma 

attached to Father’s surname, nor any evidence that Mother’s surname is 

held in a higher regard in the community. Id. at 18. Father further 

contends that Mother presented no evidence that a name change to include 

Mother’s surname is necessary to solidify the bond between Mother and 

Child, or that it will protect Child’s physical, mental or emotional well-being. 

Id. at 19. Father claims that the trial court abused its discretion by granting 

Mother’s Petition. Id. at 20. 
J-S70034-17

- 3 -

Our standard of review involving a petition for change of 

name, regardless of the age of the petitioner, is whether there 

was an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion exists if the 

trial court has overridden or misapplied the law, or if the 

evidence is insufficient to sustain the order. Further, resolution 

of factual issues is for the trial court, and a reviewing court will 

not disturb the trial court’s findings if those findings are 

supported by competent evidence. It is not enough for reversal 

that we, if sitting as a trial court, may have made a differing 

finding or reached a different result.

T.W. v. D.A., 127 A.3d 826, 827 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal citations 

omitted).

In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Father’s issue, and determined 

that a name change would be in Child’s best interest, as it would solidify his 

relationship with Mother and Mother’s family, including his maternal siblings. 

See Trial Court Opinion, 9/27/16, at 1. Because we are bound by the trial 

court’s credibility findings that are supported in the record, and our narrow 

standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in concluding that Mother met her burden of establishing that a 

name change was in Child’s best interest. See id., see also D.K. v. S.P.K., 

102 A.3d 467, 478 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that in light of the appellate 

court’s deferential review of trial court’s factual findings and determinations 

of weight and credibility, we must accept findings and determinations 

supported in the certified record). 
J-S70034-17

- 4 -

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/13/2017
83 

is not of a sufficient age to understand the significance of changing his name. 

that the name,. •• ,, lacks a.DY respect in the community or otherwise. Finally, the child 

evidence regarding the social stigma for his surname, but there was no evidence presented 

t<. 

with Mother and Mother's family, including his two half brothers. Father presented 

will not hinder the child's relationship with Father, rather it will solidify his relationship 

natural bonds with both parents. Changing the child's name to include Mother's surname 

name. In re Name Change of C.R. C., 819 A.2d 558, 561 (2003). In this case, the child has 

the child intellectually and rationally understands the significance of changing his or her 

to a particular name within the community, and, where the child is of sufficient age, whether 

considering the natural bonds between parent and child, the social stigma or respect afforded 

The standard for name change of a minor is best interest of the child when 

granting the name change. Father filed a Notice of Appeal on July 26, 2016. 

matter on June 21, 2016 before this Jurist. This Court entered an Order dated June 27, 2016 

, A Minor on May 26, 2016. A hearing was held on the 

"child"), who was born on August 21, 2014. Mother filed a Change ofName Petition on 

~.$. A.K. 

March 22, 2016. Father filed Objections of to the Petition of • p to 

S.S. 

Change the Name of•••• 

This case concerns the name change of a minor child. (hereinafter 

• _ f.5. _ 

"Mother") and- (hereinafter "Father") are the natural parents of S.S. (hereinafter 

OPINION ·, HARHUT, S.J. 

''· I I ~ H 

I!,, IN RE: A .I<. u,f k"i.}/\ ~W~roURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

I

'· PA'.,EsTITIONOF······'r:;ih c;:;p ')"/ ._;"'.-T' .. ·.i. •1ortACKAWANNACOUNTY 

l I ~Jiu v ... , L .... • I 'I Parent and Natural Guardian of S.S. . No. 2016-CIV-2033 I . ~; CLE fr.:< .. ~;_j·~·- -~ ; .• ~..: .. , .. : .. 1 .. ·:- .. L . I ································ ···· i:tfcoi0·s""c·:,~·:ic6·1·/f sloff· ······· ·········································· 

11 

11 L 

I 

I I 

I 

! 

I 

I ti 

l 

( 

j 

I 

Circulated 03/07/2017 12:42 PM 
84 2 

i ~ 

i ! 

1

11 

: l 

i I ii 

1 I ; I 

) 1 

i 

l 

/ 

I 

I 

l 

! 

I, Ii 

'I ! I 

H ! .I 

I 

I 

l 

Ii I I 

... , 

, S.J. 

rBYrtCOURT: 

- ~ ,::,{ 

'\l,___ • =-~ L 

CHESTEK HARHUT · 

i 

l 

! 

L 

II 

11 

i DATE: ~ 

1-~-!, \ '70 I ~ 

I 1l. . .,, 

I I "'' i .. , I 

11 

II 

I 

I 

' I 

I 

q i I 

ii 

! I 

H 1 j Based on the foregoing, this Court granted Mother's Change ofName Petition as it is 

~ l I ! in the best interest of the child.