In re Panuski, C.A. No. CPU4-10-001761 (Del. Jud., 4/26/2010) , C.A. No. CPU4-10-001761.
| Decision Date | 26 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. CPU4-10-001761. |
| Parties | In Re Alexis Rose Panuski. |
| Court | Delaware Court of the Judiciary |
Lee C. Goldstein, Esquire, 615 West 18th Street, Wilmington, DE 19802, Attorney for Petitioner.
Carolyn N. McNeice, Esquire, 1823 West 16th Street, Wilmington, DE 19806, Attorney for Respondent.
PETION FOR CHANGE OF NAME DECISION AND ORDER
A petition was filed to change the name of a minor child. A hearing was held on April 19, 2010. This is the Court's decision and order on the petition.
Petitioner, Susan T. Panuski, the natural mother of Alexis Rose Panuski, filed a petition to change the name of her minor daughter pursuant to 10 Del.C. §5901 et seq. The natural father of the child is William R. Panuski.
These underlying facts were developed at the hearing, at which mother and father testified. Mother and father were and are married. Their minor child was born in New Castle County in January 2009.
In March 2009 father was arrested and charged with some 29 offenses alleging use of computer to unlawfully depict a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act. 11 Del C. §1109(4). The offenses were alleged to have occurred earlier in 2009. Pursuant to a plea agreement father pled guilty and was sentenced in February, 2010, on two counts and the State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining counts.
The sentence on both counts requires father to serve 4 years incarceration at level 5, followed by 2 years supervised probation at level 3, followed by one year supervised probation at level 2. In pertinent part the sentencing order directs father to have no contact with any minor under the age of 18 years; to register as a sex offender at Tier II as defined by statute; and to register with the State Bureau of Identification as a Sex Offender pursuant to applicable law. Father is to participate in a sex offender program while incarcerated and while on probation.
Mother expressed deep concern and revulsion at the impact that father's situation has and will have on the child and on her. Mother is adamant in her plan to file for divorce. The parties executed a custody stipulation after the arrest but prior to father's sentencing. The stipulation provided that mother would have sole custody of the child until the parties or court order might change the agreement. Mother recounted her concern for the child because father was charged and pled guilty to the offenses which violate a child's dignity and well being. She is very worried about the impact father's designation and registration as a sex offender will have on the child in her formative years and as she matures and attends school. Mother intends to assume her maiden name as part of the divorce proceeding and has petitioned that the child's name be the same as her maiden name, Testerman.
Father recounted that he regrets his actions that led to his sentence. He believes that when he completes his period of incarceration that he may be permitted a modification of his sentencing order which would allow him to have contact with his daughter but appears to understand this may not happen. He believes that his inability to build a relationship with his daughter for the next four years will be corrected in the future. He wants the daughter to continue with his name as it gives her an identity with him and his family, of whom, as he stated, there are not many left.
Both mother and father did recognize that a change of name would not affect directly any parental rights that father could assert in the future.
The accepted benchmark to measure the propriety of a name change for a minor child is stated as "the best interest of the child". See In re Change of Name of Walter to Coffin, CCP, C.A. No. 1998-06-222; In re Change of Name of Evans to Brown, Del. CCP, C.A. No. 1998-10-147; In re change of name of Zachary Ryan Smith to Zachary Ryan Smith Morgan 2003 WL 23469571 (Del. Com. Pl.).
The child's best interest can be ascertained by ten generally accepted standards or criteria.
1. A parent's financial support. Father will be in no position to support the child for at least four years. Future support may be impacted by the requirement that he register as a sex offender and be subject to a Tier II scrutiny. Underlying this problem is the fact that it is father's own doing that puts him in this position. This factor supports the granting of this petition.
2. Parent's failure to maintain contact with child. By his sentencing order father cannot have contact with a child below 18 years of age. Undoubtedly this will be in full effect for four years. In future years there may be an adjustment but it is highly unlikely that any adjustment would follow immediately on release and the nature and extent of any adjustment is questionable. This factor suggests the petition should be granted.
3. The length of time the surname...
To continue reading
Request your trial