Court Opinion

ID: 9515353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:55:52.09202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:28.363351
License: Public Domain

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶ 23.] Like Justice Sabers, I would affirm the trial court on all three issues.
[¶ 24.] As far as the child’s surname, Block v. Bartelt, 1998 SD 65, ¶ 11, 580 N.W.2d 152, 154, sets up “a nonexclusive list of factors upon which a trial court might rely to determine a child’s proper surname.” This not being a mandatory checklist, Justice Sabers is correct that the trial court’s conclusion that there appears to be no good cause for changing the child’s surname is sufficient.
[¶ 25.] I also disagree that the trial court placed undue emphasis on the unilateral act of mother naming the child at birth. To begin with, the length of time the surname has been used is one of the Block v. Bartelt factors. The trial court did not simply say mother named the child at birth, instead it said the child has carried mother’s surname since birth (1) because she is the primary caretaker and (2) there is no good cause to change the name.