Sobel v. Sobel

• Decision Date: 10 September 1957
• Docket Number: No. M,M
• Citation: Sobel v. Sobel, 46 N.J.Super. 284, 134 A.2d 598 (N.J. Super. 1957)
• Parties: Phyllis SOBEL, Plaintiff, v. Philip SOBEL, Defendant. 6537. . Chancery Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 284

46 N.J.Super. 284

134 A.2d 598

Phyllis SOBEL, Plaintiff, v. Philip SOBEL, Defendant.

No. M 6537.

Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division.

Sept. 10, 1957.

Victor Ruskin, Jersey City for plaintiff.

Edward F. Zampella, Jersey City, for defendant.

FREUND, J.S.C.

The defendant, Philip Sobel, has applied for an order to restrain the plaintiff, Phyllis Sobel, now Hoberman, from enrolling the infant children of their marriage in a school under any name other than his surname, Sobel. The plaintiff has also applied for an order to increase the allowances heretofore provided by order for the support of their children.

As the result of divorce proceedings in stituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, judgment Nisi was entered on February 27, 1954, which provided, Inter alia, that the custody of their children Daniel, born April 21, 1950, and Leonard, born August 8, 1951, was awarded to their mother, the plaintiff. The judgment also required the defendant to pay to the plaintiff $20 weekly for the support and maintenance of the two children, with the right of visitation to the defendant.

The plaintiff, in October 1954, was remarried to Robert Hoberman. The defendant now states that the plaintiff has enrolled their two children in a public school under the surname of Hoberman, the name of her present husband, without his knowledge and consent. When he learned of the name under which his sons were enrolled, the defendant requested the school authorities to change their surname to Sobel, but by letter they refused.

The plaintiff resists her former husband's application on the grounds that he ignores the responsibility of his children, fails to provide adequate support while he operates a successful business, and is indifferent in complying with the order of visitation.

The defendant by affidavit states that he has complied with the order for support and is not in arrears, and concedes that on one occasion he was delayed because of traffic conditions in returning the two boys to the plaintiff, as required by the order of visitation, although he telephoned the plaintiff of his delay.

It is generally recognized that a person by common law may change his name so long as the assumed name is not for fraudulent purposes. State v. Librizzi, 188 A. 511, 14 N.J.Misc. 904 (Sup.Ct.1936). Cf. Bruguier v. Bruguier, 12 N.J.Super. 350, 79 A.2d 497 (Ch.Div.1951). N.J.S. 2A:52 et seq., N.J.S.A. provides statutory authority whereby another name may be assumed. Here the question is whether or not a parent who has been awarded custody of a minor child, opposed by the other spouse, may change the surname or family name of a child? The court in dealing with the custody of a child has broad discretion, being always aware that the welfare and happiness of the...