Court Opinion

ID: 9736825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:07:50.537716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:54.937008
License: Public Domain

Murphy, P.J.
The issue before this Court is limited. Did the trial court err by including language in a postjudgment divorce order that provided that "the minor child may use the surname of Gregory if she so wishes”?
The parties were married in 1977. Their only child, Adria, was born November 27, 1978. In 1981, the parties separated. Defendant mother took custody of Adria and left South Africa where the parties had been living. By 1982, defendant and Adria were living in the United Kingdom with William Gregory. Plaintiff and defendant were divorced in 1984. The judgment of divorce granted defendant mother physical custody of the child. Following the divorce, defendant married William Gregory. In the fall of 1984, the Gregorys and Adria returned to the United States to live in Jackson, Michigan.
From the time defendant and William Gregory began living together, they called Adria "Adria Gregory” rather than "Adria Rappleye,” the *398child’s birth name. Adria’s medical, dental, and school records state her surname to be Gregory. However, the school administration is aware of her legal name and legal documents such as her passport, social security card, and bank account show the surname Rappleye. Adria’s friends refer to her as Adria Gregory.
When plaintiff learned that his daughter was using Gregory instead of her legal surname, he asked defendant to change Adria’s name back to Rappleye. Later, plaintiff brought a motion to enforce his visitation rights which also asked the court to enjoin defendant from using any surname for Adria other than her legal name.
We are not presented with issues concerning the propriety of a legal name change of a minor under the probate code, MCL 711.1; MSA 27.3178(561). We are not dealing with an order of the court that requires a minor to go by a surname other than that given on her birth certificate pursuant to MCL 333.2824; MSA 14.15(2824). In fact, we are not even facing a legal name change at all. Simply, we have before us an order from the trial court that allows a minor, if she so desires, to continue informal use of a name she has used for the past several years.
At common law a person could adopt any name he or she wished, without resort to any court and without legal proceedings, provided it was not done for fraudulent purposes. Piotrowski v Piotrowski, 71 Mich App 213, 215-216; 247 NW2d 354 (1976). Similarly, the common law would permit a minor who was of sufficient age and maturity to make an intelligent choice to assume any chosen name. 57 Am Jur 2d, Name, § 42, p 679. There is no contention in this case that Adria Rappleye’s use of the surname Gregory was for a fraudulent purpose. If common law allows such use, we are *399hard pressed to conclude that the trial court erred by ordering nothing more than that which is permitted at common law.1
Again, we emphasize that we are not addressing a grant of a legal name change for the parties’ minor child pursuant to the probate code, a decision we would review for an abuse of discretion. MCL 711.1; MSA 27.3178(561). Assuming that this is the correct standard in the present case, we cannot conclude on this record that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that it is in the minor child’s best interest to allow her to continue using the name Gregory, if she so desires. Abuse of discretion implies that the trial court’s decision was not based on fact, logic, and reason. Poet v Traverse City Osteopathic Hosp, 433 Mich 228, 251; 445 NW2d 115 (1989); Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382, 384-385; 94 NW2d 810 (1959). In the present case, the trial court’s decision was clearly based on the facts and on what was right and equitable under the circumstances. See Lagnes v Green, 282 US 531, 541; 51 S Ct 243; 75 L Ed 520 (1931).
The record establishes that Adria, who was almost ten years old at the time of the hearing, expressed her desire to use the name Gregory. She had used that name since she was four years old. She was in the custody of her mother who is remarried and is known by the surname of Gregory. The child was known to her friends and classmates by the name Adria Gregory.
The trial court interviewed the minor child, in camera, to determine whether the use of the Gregory surname was being imposed for the purpose of *400frustrating the plaintiff father’s relationship with his child and to foster ill feelings. The court concluded that it was the child’s true desire to be known as Gregory. The trial court had ample opportunity to determine the child’s maturity level and was apparently satisfied that she was mature enough to understand her own desires and make an intelligent choice.2
We defer to the trial court’s special opportunity to judge the credibility of the parties and, in particular, of the minor child, and will not disturb its findings. MCR 2.613(C).
Affirmed.
Cavanagh, J., concurred.

 We also question the practicality, effectiveness, and enforceability of an order that attempts to restrain the third party, or the individual whose name is at issue, from informally using a surname other than the person’s birth name.

 Although not stated by the court, it is certainly conceivable that forcing a change in the minor child’s commonly used name at this point would only confuse the child and her friends and acquaintances. A forced change might well foster such resentment in the child as to lead to a further breakdown in the already fragile parental relationship between plaintiff and the child.