Opinion ID: 1143700
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Name Change

Text: At trial Charles requested that Dalarie's last name be changed from Peters to Lone Wolf. [4] The trial court denied this request based on Carol's objections and its determination that it lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief in a divorce proceeding. Charles argues that the trial court erred because it had the power to order the name change under two separate theories: (1) through specific performance of the custody agreement; and/or (2) because Dalarie is a party to the divorce action within the meaning of AS 25.24.160(5). Neither argument is persuasive. First, McClain makes it clear that custody agreements have no binding force on the court. 716 P.2d at 385. Consequently, there was no error in the trial court's refusal to change Dalarie's name under this theory. Second, a child is not a party to a divorce action within the meaning of AS 25.24.160(5). [5] It is clear from the context of that statute that it was meant to encompass only the parents/spouses and not the children. Charles' reliance on Veazey v. Veazey, 560 P.2d 382 (Alaska 1977) is inapposite. In Veazey the court was discussing the duties and proper role of a child's GAL when it noted that a child is the person most interested in litigation over his custody, even though his name is not on the caption of the pleadings... . Id. at 386. This statement of the obvious provides no support for Charles' position. Even assuming, arguendo, that a child could be considered a party to a divorce action within the meaning of AS 25.24.160(a)(5), it does not necessarily follow that the trial court must change the child's name. AS 25.24.160(a)(5) states that the court may change the name of a party, it does not require the change to be made. Given this permissive language, whether or not to grant a name change rests within the discretion of the trial court subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard. Based on Carol's objection to the name change, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling.