Robinson v. Hansel
| Decision Date | 01 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44724,44724 |
| Citation | 223 N.W.2d 138,302 Minn. 34 |
| Parties | In re Application of Jeanine Hansel Robinson, Mother and Natural Guardian of Holly Hansel, et al., for Change of Their Names to Holly Hansel Robinson, et al. Jeanine Hansel ROBINSON, Respondent, v. Richard D. HANSEL, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A change in surname of minor children from that of their divorced father to that of the new husband of their natural mother was not based upon clear and compelling evidence that the substantial welfare of the children necessitated such change.
Goff & Goff, Sydney W. Goff, and John H. Feldman, St. Paul, for appellant.
Murnane, Murnane, Battis & Conlin and John R. Hoffman, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before SHERAN, C.J., and ROGOSHESKE, PETERSON, MacLAUGHLIN, and SCOTT, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
This is a proceeding in which the petitioner seeks to change the surnames of four minor children in her custody. The petition was opposed by the children's natural father. From an order of the Ramsey County District Court granting the petition, the natural father appeals. We reverse.
Jeanine Hansel Robinson, petitioner, and Richard D. Hansel were divorced in 1969. Petitioner was awarded the custody of the four minor children of that marriage, namely, Holly Jean Hansel, now 17 years old; Kara Ann Hansel, 14; Heidi Marie Hansel, 10; and Brian Boyd Hansel, 6.
Petitioner remarried in 1970, and the four Hansel children have since been living with her and her new husband, Bruce Robinson. Robinson's natural children by a former marriage are living with his former wife. In October 1973 petitioner instituted an action, pursuant to Minn.St. 259.10 and 259.11, to change the surnames of each of the four minor children by adding the surname of petitioner's present husband. Thus, the surname 'Hansel' would become the surname 'Hansel Robinson.'
The precise issue of whether a change in a child's name should be ordered over the objection of a natural parent is one of first impression in this court. There is no issue, however, that the welfare of the children must ultimately be the controlling consideration in any change of status. A change in surname, so that a child no longer bears his father's name, not only obviously is of inherent concern to the natural father, so that he should have standing to object, but is in a real sense a change in status having significant societal implications. Society has a strong interest in the preservation of the parental relationship. Even though a divorce decree may terminate a marriage, courts have traditionally tried to maintain and to encourage continuing parental relationships. The link between a father and child in circumstances such as these is uncertain at best, and a change of name could further weaken, if not sever, such a bond.
This consideration has been recognized in a number of jurisdictions. 1 In Massachusetts, for example, the Supreme Judicial Court refused, in the case of Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. 517, 521, 131 N.E.2d 758, 762, 53 A.L.R.2d 908, 913 (1956), to change the names of minor children, holding:
'* * * A change of name may not be in the child's best interest if the effect of such change is to contribute to the further estrangement of the child from a father who exhibits a desire to preserve the parental relationship.'
In Ohio, the court held, in Kay v. Kay, Ohio Comp.Pl., 51 Ohio O. 434, 438, 112 N.E.2d 562, 567 (1953):
'* * * Ordinarily a change of the name of a minor child of divorced parents should not be granted where it might contribute to the estrangement of the child from its father who has shown a desire to preserve the parental relationship, * * *.'
Other courts have looked to the natural and appropriate desire of the father to have his children bear and perpetuate his name, 2 as well as to the desirability of the child knowing his own parentage. 3
We are fully persuaded, for like reasons, that judicial discretion in ordering a change of a minor's surname against the objection of one parent should be exercised with great caution and only where the evidence is clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.
The evidence supporting the petition for change of name is neither clear nor compelling. It is clear that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. Johnson
... ... Robinson Johnson in 77-292 and of Tammy Johnette Johnson in 77-293. Both of [263 Ark. 282] them are minor children, now aged seven years and thirteen years, ... 296 N.Y. 583, 68 N.E.2d 874; In re Larson, supra; a common law right, Application of Trower, supra; a protectible interest, Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 223 N.W.2d 138 (1974); Ouellette v. Ouellette, 245 Or. 138, 420 P.2d 631 (1966); Ex parte Taylor, 322 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Civ.App., 1959); ... ...
-
D. R. S. v. R. S. H.
... ... E. g., Lazow v. Lazow (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1962), 147 So.2d 12; Mark v. Kahn (1956), 333 Mass. 517, 131 N.E.2d 758; Robinson v. Hansel (1974), 302 Minn. 34, 223 N.W.2d 138; Application of Baldini (Civ.Ct.N.Y.1959), 17 Misc.2d 195, 183 N.Y.S.2d 416; In re Russek ... ...
-
LaChapelle v. Mitten
... ... Id. (quoting Robinson" v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 36, 223 N.W.2d 138, 140 (1974) ). Both Ohanian and LaChapelle objected to changing L.M.K.O.'s surname ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Tubbs, Application of
... ... 9 Armstrong v. Manzo, supra note 7 ... 10 Robinson v. Hansel, 223 N.W.2d 138 (Minn.1974); Anno. 92 ALR3d 1091 (1979), Rights and Remedies of Parents Inter Se with Respect to the Names of their ... ...