FILED

January 13, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSE

EASTERN SECTION AT KNOXVILLE

)

) KNOX JUVENILE

STATE OF TENNESSEE )

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ) NO. 03A01-9705-JV-00184

SERVICES, )

JOSHUA A. WILLIAMSON, )

) HON. CAREY E. GARRETT

Petitioner/Appellee, ) JUDGE

)

v. )

)

CHRISTINA SANDERS, )

)

Respondent/Appellant ) AFFIRMED

Jean Brown Dyer, Lenoir City, for Appellant.

John R. Rosson, Jr., Knoxville, for Appellee.

O P I N I O N

INMAN, Senior Judge

An Order of Legitimation of the child of Joshua Allen Williamson

and Christina Louise Sanders, born September 13, 1995 in West Germany, was

entered on May 21, 1996.

By order entered September 24, 1996, pursuant to a petition to modify

the Order of Legitimation, the Juvenile Court held it to be in the best interest of

the child, formerly known as Alexander Baldwin Sanders, “to carry the name

of his father . . . and hereafter to be known as Alexander Baldwin

Williamson.”

Mother appeals, insisting that the father failed to carry the burden of
2

proving that changing the surname of the child was in his bet interest. We

affirm, for the reasons following.

The objection of the mother to the change of the name of her son may be

simply stated. Alexander is in her custody and lives in her home. She has

another son who is illegitimate, and believes that it would not be appropriate

for Alexander to have a different surname from his mother and half-brother.

The father believes that his son should bear his surname so that the

family name may be carried on. He testified that he has established a bond

with his son, and that it is in the best interest of Alexander that he share his

father’s name. The guardian ad litem recommended the name change as being

in the best interest of Alexander; so did his paternal grandmother.

Mother argues that T.C.A. § 68-3-305(b)(1) provides that a child’s

surname shall be the surname of the mother when the mother was unmarried at

the time of conception or birth. But a succeeding statute, T.C.A. § 68-3-305(c),

provides that in any case where the paternity of a child is determined by a court

of competent jurisdiction, the name of the father and surname of the child shall

be entered on the birth certificate in accordance with the order of the Court.

The lack of clarity of the statutory scheme was alleviated by Barabas v.

Rogers, 868 S.W.2d 283 (Tenn. App. 1993), wherein we held:

“The courts should not change a child’s surname unless the change

promotes the child’s best interests. Halloran v. Kostka, 778 S.W.2d

454, 456 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); see also In re Marriage of

Schiffman, 169 Cal. Rptr. 918, 921, 620 P.2d 579, 582 (1980); In re

Cardinal, 611 A.2d at 517; Kristine C. Karnezis, Annotation, Rights

and Remedies of Parents Inter Se With Respect to the Name of Their

Children, 92 A.L.R.3d 66 § 8.5 (Supp. 1992). Among the criteria for

determining whether changing a child’s surname will be in the

child’s best interests are: (1) the child’s preference, (2) the change’s

potential effect on the child’s relationship with each parent, (3) the

length of time the child has had its present surname, (4) the degree

of community respect associated with the present and proposed

surname, and (5) the difficulty, harassment, or embarrassment that

the child may experience from bearing either its present or its
3

proposed surname. In re Saxton, 308 N.W.2d 298, 301 (Minn.

1981); Bobo v. Jewell, 528 N.E.2d at 185; Daves v. Nastros, 105

Wash.2d 24, 711 P.2d 314, 318 (1985). The parent seeking to

change the child’s surname has the burden of proving that the change

will further the child’s best interests. In re Petition of Schidlmeier,

344 Pa.Super. 562, 496 A.2d 1249, 1253 (1985); In re M.L.P., 621

S.W.2d 430, 431 (Tex. Ct. App. 1981).”

Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon

the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness

of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. §

50-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tenn.

1995). No finding of the child’s preference can be made in view of his age,

but the remaining criteria reasonably appear satisfied from the proof adduced at

trial. Alexander knows his father, who provides for him; a bond has developed

between them, he has been legitimated and would obviously suffer community

disrespect if he did not bear the surname of his father. We cannot find that the

evidence preponderates against the judgment, which is affirmed at the costs of

the appellant.

__________________________

William H. Inman, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

__________________________

Houston M. Goddard, Judge

__________________________

Herschel P. Franks, Judge