Cohee v. Cohee
Decision Date | 19 March 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 43923,43923 |
Parties | Elizabeth COHEE, Appellant, v. Rick COHEE, Appellee. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Minors: Names. The question of whether the name of a minor child should be changed is to be determined by what is in the best interests of the child.
2. Statutes. A statute is not to be read as if open to construction as a matter of course. Where the words of a statute
are plain, direct, and unambiguous, no interpretation is needed to ascertain the meaning. In the absence of anything to indicate the contrary, words must be given their ordinary meaning. It is not within the province of the court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the legislative language. Neither is it within the province of a court to read anything plain, direct, and unambiguous out of a statute. Generally speaking, a statute should be construed so that an ordinary person reading it would get from it the usual accepted meaning. Rules of interpretation are resorted to for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity, not of creating it.
3. Minors: Names. No automatic preference as the surname of a legitimate child now exists in Nebraska law. Each parent has an equal right and interest in determining the surname of the child.
4. Minors: Names. The factors to be used in determining the surname of a child include: (1) Misconduct by one of the parents; (2) Failure to support the child; (3) Failure to maintain contact with the child; (4) The length of time a surname has been used; (5) Whether the surname is different from that of the custodial parent; and (6) Which parent has custody of the child.
Rae Ann Schmitz, Scottsbluff, for appellant.
R. L. Gilbert, Morrill, for appellee.
Sarah J. Shofstall of Knapp, Mues, Sidwell, Anderson, Shofstall & Beavers, Kearney, and Judith I. Avner and Phyllis N. Segal, New York City, for amici curiae NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Nat. Center on Women and Family Law, and The Center for a Woman's Own Name.
Heard before KRIVOSHA, C. J., and BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, CLINTON, WHITE, HASTINGS, and CAPORALE, JJ.
A single issue is presented in this marriage dissolution case. When the parents disagree as to the surname of a child, does the District Court have jurisdiction to specify the name of the child, and if so, what standard or standards are to be used to guide the District Court in its decision?
The parties to this short-lived marriage were in their late teens at their marriage date, February 24, 1979. They separated in July 1979. The appellant, Elizabeth Cohee, was pregnant at the time of the separation. A child, which the appellant named Cory Martin Dugger (appellant's maiden name), was delivered February 28, 1980. Issues as to child support, custody, and property settlement were stipulated. The cause was submitted to the District Court.
The parties both agree that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The court, after hearing the evidence, dissolved the marriage, approved the property settlement, ordered appellee, Rick Cohee, to pay child support, approved the restoration of appellant's maiden name Dugger, and ordered the appellant to amend the birth certificate of the child to "(a) the surname of the Respondent, (Cohee) or (b) the hyphenated surnames of both parties, (Dugger-Cohee)." The appellee disputes this reading of the decree insofar as the hyphenated name requiring his surname to be last. However, the record shows that the trial court meant that the hyphenated name should carry the last name of Cohee and not Dugger. Appellant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in requiring that the child should bear the surname of his father, the appellee.
At common law, the interest of a father in having his child bear his surname was one of inherent concern. The custom of patrilineal succession dates back many centuries. Today, patrimonial control of surnames has virtually disappeared. Since the mid-19th century there has been much progression toward marital and parental equality. In Nebraska, we now have "no fault" divorce (Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 42-347 to 42-364 (Reissue 1978)); the "tender years" doctrine has been abolished Turner v. Turner, 205 Neb. 6, 286 N.W.2d 100 (1979)); no preference is given to either parent based on sex (§ 42-364(2)); a mother as well as a father is liable for child support (Neb.Rev.Stat. § 13-102 (Reissue 1977)); and each parent has an equal and joint right to custody of the children, with custody being awarded on the best interests of the child (Kockrow v. Kockrow, 191 Neb. 657, 217 N.W.2d 89 (1974); Christensen v. Christensen, 191 Neb. 355, 215 N.W.2d 111 (1974)). For a discussion of the father's surname preference rule and its history, see In re Marriage of Schiffman, 28 Cal.3d 640, 620 P.2d 579, 169 Cal.Rptr. 918 (1980).
In refusing to allow the surnames of children to be changed from Spatz, the natural father's name, to Laflan, the name of the mother's second husband, we quoted with approval the Minnesota Supreme Court in Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 223 N.W.2d 138 (1974): " " Spatz v. Spatz, 199 Neb. 332, 334, 258 N.W.2d 814, 816 (1977). We further said in that case: Id. at 333, 258 N.W.2d at 815.
In 1977 the Legislature passed L.B. 72, now codified as Neb.Rev.Stat. § 71-640.01 (Cum.Supp.1980), which provides in part: "The information pertaining to the name of an infant born in this state and reported on a birth certificate, filled out and filed pursuant to sections 71-601 to 71-648, shall comply with the following:
"(1) If the mother was married at the time of either conception or birth of the child, or at any time between conception and birth, the name of such mother's husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child and the surname of the child shall be entered on the certificate as being (a) the same as that of the husband, unless paternity has been determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction, (b) the surname of the mother, (c) the maiden surname of the mother, or (d) the hyphenated surname of both parents. " (Emphasis supplied.)
The appellant asserts that, in passing the act, the Legislature intended that the previous policy of the state automatically giving preference to the husband's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doherty v. Wizner
...appropriately include consideration of the custodial situation of the child, as well as other relevant factors"); Cohee v. Cohee, 210 Neb. 855, 861, 317 N.W.2d 381, 384 (1982) (the Nebraska Supreme Court refused to adopt a custodial parent presumption); In re Wilson, 162 Vt. at 284, 648 A.2......
-
Rio v. Rio
...455 U.S. 1034, 102 S.Ct. 1737(3), 72 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982); Kirksey v. Abbott, 591 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Mo.Ct.App.1979); Cohee v. Cohee, 210 Neb. 855, 860, 317 N.W.2d 381, 384 (1982); In re Lone, 134 N.J.Super. 213, 220, 338 A.2d 883, 887-88 (1975); Flowers v. Cain, 218 Va. 234, 236-37, 237 S.E.2d......
-
Marriage of Killman, Matter of
...of custody. Nebraska has held that a divorce court has jurisdiction over a change of minor childrens' names. Cohee v. Cohee, 210 Neb. 855, 860, 317 N.W.2d 381 (1982). The Cohee court relied upon a Nebraska statute which gives the court authority to " 'include such orders in relation to any ......
-
Schroeder v. Broadfoot
...also apply a pure best interests standard in disputes between parents over their children's initial names. See, e.g., Cohee v. Cohee, 210 Neb. 855, 317 N.W.2d 381 (1982); In re Schiffman, supra, 28 Cal.3d 640, 169 Cal.Rptr. 918, 620 P.2d 579; Brooks v. Willie, 117 Misc.2d 640, 458 N.Y.S.2d ......