Court Opinion

ID: 9665181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:42:17.039977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:13.635340
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice (dissenting). I dissent from that portion of the opinion which allows the mother of these children to change their surname from Clinton to Morrow. The Chancellor found that the Clinton name is an honored and respectable name in Fort Smith. There is, therefore, no good reason for changing the surname of these children to that of their stepfather — -Morrow. These two little ones are the children of Carl C. Clinton. He is contributing $100 per month to their support. As long as he is paying for the support of his children, certainly he should have them carry his family name. In allowing Mrs. Morrow to change the surname of these children, I insist that a dangerous precedent is being set by the Chancery Court, in the first instance, and this Court on appeal. I say that this is a precedent that will come back later to plague not only Mrs. Morrow, but the Courts which have allowed her to encourage the children to violate the Commandment which says “Honor thy father . . .” No amount of judicial legerdemain can conceal the fact that, in changing the surname of these children, the mother and the Courts are thereby encouraging the children to dishonor the name of the man who gave them paternity, and who is supporting them. Mr. Justice Ward joins in this dissent.