Gleason v. Michlitsch
Decision Date | 04 December 1986 |
Citation | 728 P.2d 965,82 Or.App. 688 |
Parties | Paul GLEASON, Respondent, v. Diana MICHLITSCH, Appellant. 637 CA A36759. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Carmella Ettinger, Newberg, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Karen E. Stratton and Stan Bunn, Newberg.
George W. Kelly, Eugene, waived appearance for respondent.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and NEWMAN and DEITS, JJ.
Mother appeals a judgment in a filiation action that father brought regarding an eight-month old boy in mother's custody. ORS 109.125. The parties agreed to those parts of the court's judgment that declared father's paternity, his support obligation, his visitation rights and mother's continued custody. Mother challenges only the parts that direct that the child's last name be changed from hers to the father's and that allow father to claim the child as an income tax exemption in each year that his child support payments are current. Our review is de novo. ORS 109.135(1); ORS 109.125. We modify the judgment and affirm it as modified.
Mother's first assignment is that the court erred when it provided for changing the child's last name to Gleason. Although there is no specific statutory provision that prescribes the governing standard, we agree with the court that the correct standard is the best interests of the child. 1 The court concluded that it was in the best interests of the child that he bear his father's last name:
Generally, we give weight to the decision of a trial court as to the best interests of a child when it has had the opportunity to view the witnesses and hear the testimony. McCoy and McCoy, 28 Or.App. 919, 562 P.2d 207, 29 Or.App. 287, 563 P.2d 738 (1977); see also Meier and Meier, 286 Or. 437, 595 P.2d 474 (1979). Here, however, the evidentiary record does not support the court's conclusion that there would be "psychological ill effects" on the child or that it would otherwise not be in his best interests if he were to bear his mother's last name and have to associate at school or elsewhere with children who bear their father's last name.
Decisions from other jurisdictions emphasize that the identity of the custodial parent is an important factor in determining the relationship of the child's best interests to the surname which it should bear. In Spence-Chapin Services v. Tedeno, 101 Misc.2d 485, 489, 421 N.Y.S.2d 297, 300 (1979), the court stated:
See also Petition of Schidlmeier by Koslof, 344 Pa.Super. 562, 569, 496 A.2d 1249 (1985), where the court upheld a statutory provision that the choice of surname rests with the custodial parent if the parents are divorced or separated at the time of birth, because "[t]he custodial parent generally has the right to make major decisions affecting the best interests of a minor child." The court's judgment is modified to delete paragraph 5 that changes the child's last name. 2
Mother's second assignment is that the court erred in awarding the income tax dependency exemption to father. She relies on IRC § 152(e). 3 Mother argues that, because IRC § 152(e)(1)(A)(iii) refers to parents who "live apart at all times during the last six months of the applicable calendar year," it applies to parents who have never married and that, as the custodial parent, she is entitled to the exemption. IRC § 152(e), however, applies only to parents who are or have been married. See Dillard v. Commissioner, 47 TC Memo 919 n. 3 (1984) (). IRC § 152(a)(1) defines a dependent as a child of the taxpayer for whom the taxpayer provides over one-half of the support during the calendar year. 4 In the circumstances here, the court should not have designated which party would receive the dependency exemption. The court predicted that father would provide over one-half of the child's support and in paragraph 6 of the judgment awarded him the dependency exemption in each year that his child support payments were current. See ORS 109.103; ORS 107.105(1)(c)(F). 5 Whether father would qualify to claim the federal income tax exemption, however, depends entirely on the application of federal income tax law to the actual facts. 6 See Davis v. Fair, 707 S.W.2d 711 (Tex.App.1986). 7
Judgment modified by deleting paragraphs 5 and 6; affirmed as modified. Costs to mother.
1 Both the statutes governing filiation actions, ORS 109.124 to ORS 109.175, and the statutes governing name changes, see ORS 33.410 to ORS 33.440, suggest that that is the correct standard.
2 ORS 109.030 provides that "the rights and responsibilities of the parents, in the absence of misconduct, are equal and the mother is as fully entitled to the custody and control of the children and their earnings as the father." See also ORS 107.137(3).
3 IRC § 152(e)(1) provides:
4 IRC § 152(a)(1) provides:
5 ORS 107.105(1)(c)(F) provides in pertinent part:
The provisions of ORS 107.105 apply to a proceeding to determine custody and support of a child born out of wedlock after paternity is established. ORS 109.103.
6 Other courts have held that state courts have the power to determine which parent is entitled to the dependency exemption when the parents have been married but have later divorced or separated. See Westerhof v. Westerhof, 137 Mich.App. 97, 357 N.W.2d 820 (1984),...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monterey County v. Cornejo
...thus precludes allocation of the exemption to a noncustodial parent who has never married the custodial parent. (Gleason v. Michlitsch (1986) 82 Or.App. 688, 728 P.2d 965, 967.) No other state court has followed this holding, which appears to be contrary to the plain language of the statute......
-
Doherty v. Wizner
...has been followed by this court in naming dispute cases involving children, starting with the case of Gleason v. Michlitsch, 82 Or.App. 688, 690 n. 1, 728 P.2d 965 (1986), where the court concluded that "[b]oth the statutes governing filiation actions, * * * and the statutes governing name ......
-
Cross v. Cross
...725 S.W.2d 134 (Mo.App.1987) the court found a qualified, pre-1985 instrument allocating the exemption, and in Gleason v. Michlitsch, 82 Or.App. 688, 728 P.2d 965 (1986) the parties were never married and the court held that IRC § 152(e) applies only to parents who were once married. In Fud......
-
Rohr v. Rohr
...(Fla.App.1988); Lorenz v. Lorenz, 419 N.W.2d 770 (Mich.App.1988); Hughes v. Hughes, 518 N.E.2d 1213 (Ohio 1988); Gleason v. Michlitsch, 728 P.2d 965, 967, n. 6 (Ore.App.1986); Brandriet v. Larsen, 442 N.W.2d 455 (S.Dak.1989); Davis v. Fair, 707 S.W.2d 711 (Tex.App.1986). For the most part t......
-
Child-Related Exemptions, Credits and Deductions
...action brought by the father to declare his paternity, and seeking allocation of the child’s dependency exemption, Gleason v. Michlitsch, 728 P.2d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 1986), the appellate court held that “since petitioner [and the mother of his child] were never married, the provisions of sec......