Petersen v. Burton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• opining that “the indicators that complying with Father’s request [for a name change] is in the child’s best interest are that he does pay support, has visitation and participates in the life of his child”
• noting that “on the rare occasion that this court has applied the statutory presumption at issue, it has been applied in favor of a noncustodial father who objected to the name change proposed by his child’s custodial mother.”
• affirming father’s name change request where, in part, “Father’s ‘performance,’ while not flawless, does demonstrate a genuine desire to form a parent- child relationship” with the child
• distinguishing father’s testimony from the testimony in M.O.B. and Garrison where father testified about how son would be positively impacted by taking his last name and would better understand his 6 connection to father
• finding evidence of a “genuine desire to form a parent-child relationship” sufficient to support a name change where Father has “consistently paid child support and portions of his arrearage as ordered by the trial court” and has regularly exercised parenting time.
• “Father’s parenting, while admittedly not perfect, has improved significantly since paternity was established . . . . [H]e provides consistent financial support for his son, and he exercises regular visitation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).