Naming Rights

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the lower court judge’s exercise of discretion in resolving a dispute over a child’s surname

In this appeal we consider, as a matter of first impression, the standard of proof to be applied by district courts in resolving initial naming disputes for a child of married parents. Because neither married parent should have the burden of proof in an initial naming dispute, the focus should be on the best interests of their child. In the matter before us, the district court determined that the child’s name should be hyphenated to include both parents’ surnames, and in doing so, considered the best interests of the child. We thus affirm.

The story

Following their marriage, appellant Paige Elizabeth Petit and respondent Kevin Daniel Adrianzen had a child Before their child’s birth, the parties agreed on the child’s first and middle names but disagreed on the child’s surname. The parties were estranged when their child was born, and Petit gave the child her surname.

Two months after the birth of their child, Adrianzen filed a complaint for divorce and petitioned to change the child’s surname to Adrianzen. The complaint for divorce and petition were consolidated, and an evidentiary hearing was held. After reasoning that it was in the child’s best interest to have a surname that allowed the child to identify with both parents, the district court ordered that the child’s surname be changed to Petit-Adrianzen. This appeal followed. 

Here

This is an issue of first impression in Nevada, as this court has not previously established the standard of proof for initial naming dispute cases. However, several jurisdictions apply a best interest of the child standard in such instances, with no burden on or presumptive advantage to either party…

Neither parent should automatically have an advantage in determining a child’s surname at birth. Rather, the sole concern should be the best interests of the child, and we reaffirm our holding in Magiera in this regard.