OR Appeal On Child's Surname

The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court decision giving a
child her father's last name. The parents were not married. The mother
appealed asking the court to allow her to give her daughter her former
spouses last name and the name used by her other three children.

The father argued there is long standing law for naming a child using their
father's surname and the child had "no blood" in her from his girlfriend's
former husband so giving her an unrelated man's surname was not appropriate.
The mother argued as a unmarried mother she should have the right to name
the child using any surname she chose.

The appeals court ruled in favor of the mother using two new standards
created by this case based on "the best interests of the child" theory.
First, the reasonable preference of the custodial parent should be used.
And second, the importance of avoiding any confusion or embarrassment that
could result from the child using a surname different from that used by her
custodial parent and three siblings.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127262.htm

Now for my comments - This is just another example of the courts giving
mothers more and more options. And this is another example of protecting
the mother's reputation after she has a child out of wedlock. I don't see
where either of those factors are really in the best interests of the child.
If this mother remarries is she going to change the names of all four
children to her new husband's surname to avoid further embarrassment?

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
.................................................. ....

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127262.htm

Now for my comments - This is just another example of the courts giving
mothers more and more options. And this is another example of protecting
the mother's reputation after she has a child out of wedlock. I don't see
where either of those factors are really in the best interests of the
child.
If this mother remarries is she going to change the names of all four
children to her new husband's surname to avoid further embarrassment?
==
Well, there may be other gotchas as well. In FL., consenting to giving a
non-bio child
a man's last name could interfere with future CS proceedings. One of the
matters for consideration
when a non-bio man tries to get CS waived is whether the man consented to
the child having his surname.
OTOH, I posted here years back that my son's ex (divorce wasn't final)
wanted her new baby to have my son's surname because she
wanted them all to have the same last name. The letter from the PA Vital
Records Bureau came certified/restricted delivery
to my son telling him that he should let them know, in writing, if he
objects. The letter also stated that he was known to
not be the baby's father and had no financial or other obligation to the
child unless he wished to assert parental rights of the child.
He allowed the name with no acceptance of parental rights. So, there are
some statutory nuances in this area that men need to be aware of/
alert to.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court decision giving a
child her father's last name. The parents were not married. The mother
appealed asking the court to allow her to give her daughter her former
spouses last name and the name used by her other three children.

The father argued there is long standing law for naming a child using their
father's surname and the child had "no blood" in her from his girlfriend's
former husband so giving her an unrelated man's surname was not appropriate.
The mother argued as a unmarried mother she should have the right to name
the child using any surname she chose.

The appeals court ruled in favor of the mother using two new standards
created by this case based on "the best interests of the child" theory.
First, the reasonable preference of the custodial parent should be used.
And second, the importance of avoiding any confusion or embarrassment that
could result from the child using a surname different from that used by her
custodial parent and three siblings.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127262.htm

...
This decision's reasoning has merit for this particular, individual
case where there are several other siblings and where the child is in
the physical and legal custody of the mother. But it would probably
not apply where there is only one child, there is joint custody and
where a mother, now divorced, has kept her married surname and then
wants a new, out-of-wedlock child to have her surname (that is, her
ex-husband's name) rather than the surname of the natural father.
There ARE many such situations that I've heard of..

Now for my comments - This is just another example of the courts giving
mothers more and more options. And this is another example of protecting
the mother's reputation after she has a child out of wedlock. I don't see
where either of those factors are really in the best interests of the child.
If this mother remarries is she going to change the names of all four
children to her new husband's surname to avoid further embarrassment?

okay, Bob, I don't have any alcohol nearby so I'm going to have to take
this one slowly. Could somebody first off explain to me what lush, call
the cops on the batterer one minute cry about her baby not doing
anything wrong the next, logic could explain giving a child your
_former_ spouse's last name. Not your last name, your former spouses
last name?
Secondly, after somebody leads the honorable judges on the Oregon Court
of Appeals by the hand for a nice electroshock therapy session, they
should explain to these kooks in black muumuus that any embarrassment
the child saves by having the same last name as its mother will be
offset by the fact that she's this person's child in the first place.
This is pretty much a slap in the face of a father. Basically put,
Oregon has said that he's enough of a father to keep writing those
checks, but not enough of a father for the child to have his last name.
Hell, I'm a liberal even, so if they had gone with a hyphenated last
name, either way, it's good. But this is not what they have done.
Bob Whiteside wrote:
The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court decision giving a
child her father's last name. The parents were not married. The mother
appealed asking the court to allow her to give her daughter her former
spouses last name and the name used by her other three children.

The father argued there is long standing law for naming a child using their
father's surname and the child had "no blood" in her from his girlfriend's
former husband so giving her an unrelated man's surname was not appropriate.
The mother argued as a unmarried mother she should have the right to name
the child using any surname she chose.

The appeals court ruled in favor of the mother using two new standards
created by this case based on "the best interests of the child" theory.
First, the reasonable preference of the custodial parent should be used.
And second, the importance of avoiding any confusion or embarrassment that
could result from the child using a surname different from that used by her
custodial parent and three siblings.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127262.htm

Now for my comments - This is just another example of the courts giving
mothers more and more options. And this is another example of protecting
the mother's reputation after she has a child out of wedlock. I don't see
where either of those factors are really in the best interests of the child.
If this mother remarries is she going to change the names of all four
children to her new husband's surname to avoid further embarrassment?