DARRELL EUGENE COWAN JR., Petitioner-Appellant, vs. HEATHER KAY LANCASTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-849 / 09-0090
Filed November 12, 2009
DARRELL EUGENE COWAN JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
HEATHER KAY LANCASTER,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, Timothy
O’Grady, Judge.
In a paternity case, the father appeals the district court’s decision
regarding the child’s surname. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
Joseph Nugent, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Heather Lancaster, Red Oak, pro se.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
This is a paternity case involving a girl (Kayley) who was born in
November 2007. The parties stipulated to paternity and on October 16, 2008,
the district court entered a decree awarding them joint legal custody.
mother, Heather Lancaster, received physical care of the child.
The
The father,
Darrell Cowan Jr. was granted visitation and ordered to pay child support.
Although Heather had married by the time of trial and no longer went by the
name “Lancaster,” the district court ordered that Kayley should bear the
hyphenated surname “Lancaster-Cowan.”
Having unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, Darrell appeals this
portion of the final decree. He argues that in light of Heather’s name change,
there is no reason for Kayley to bear a last name her mother no longer uses.
Also, Darrell maintains that it will be an inconvenience for Kayley to have to write
such a long last name. Finally, as the noncustodial parent, he is concerned that
over time there might be a temptation for the custodial parent to shorten Kayley’s
last name, so that “Cowan” drops off.
Heather has not filed a brief, so we will not go beyond the ruling of the trial
court in searching for a theory upon which to affirm its decision. See Pringle Tax
Serv., Inc. v. Knoblauch, 282 N.W.2d 151, 153 (Iowa 1979).
Our scope of review in this surname dispute is de novo. Montgomery v.
Wells, 708 N.W.2d 704, 705 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
We give weight to the
findings of the trial court but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907.
3
In Montgomery, we listed a number of factors that should be considered in
determining the child’s name as part of a custody case, with the overriding
consideration being the best interests of the child.1 These factors are:
(1) Convenience for the child to have the same name as or a
different name from the custodial parent.
(2) Identification of the child as part of a family unit.
(3) Assurances by the mother that she would not change her name
if she married or remarried if the child maintains the mother’s
surname.
(4) Avoiding embarrassment, inconvenience, or confusion for the
custodial parent or the child.
(5) The length of time the surname has been used.
(6) Parental misconduct, such as support or nonsupport or
maintaining or failing to maintain contact with the child.
(7) The degree of community respect associated with the present
or changed name.
(8) A positive or adverse effect a name change may have on the
bond between the child and either parent or the parents’ families.
(9) Any delay in requesting or objecting to name change.
(10) The preference of the child if the child is of sufficient maturity
to express a meaningful preference.
(11) Motivation of the parent seeking the change as an attempt to
alienate the child from the other parent.
(12) And any other factor relevant to the child’s best interest.
Id. at 708 (citations omitted).
As we read the first four of the foregoing factors, we think they speak to a
common theme: A child’s last name, all things being equal, should match the
last name of one or both of his or her parents. This helps reduce the number of
questions the child and/or the parents will have to answer as the child gets older.
Thus, we believe that considerations of convenience and avoidance of confusion
1
We are reviewing the paternity order itself. Thus, this case involves an initial name
determination pursuant to Iowa Code section 598.41 (2007), not a subsequent name
change pursuant to section 674.6. See Braunschweig v. Fahrenkrog, __ N.W.2d __
(Iowa 2009).
4
favor “Cowan” over “Lancaster-Cowan,” since “Lancaster” is no longer the last
name of either parent.
In this case the district court disagreed with Darrell’s contention that the
hyphenated name would be confusing, embarrassing, or inconvenient, and
seemingly accepted Heather’s argument that it would provide Kayley with a
“stronger sense of belonging with both families.” Were it not for the fact that
Heather has already remarried and stopped using the “Lancaster” name, we
would be inclined to agree. However, on our de novo review, we believe there
will be less questioning, inconvenience, and confusion down the road if Kayley
simply has her father’s last name, rather than a hybrid of her father’s last name
and a last name that neither parent uses. This of course does not alter the fact
that Kayley’s mother will have physical care of the child.
We think the facts and specific holding of Montgomery also provide some
guidance here. There, in choosing between the mother’s last name and the
father’s last name, we (and the district court) opted for the latter, giving significant
weight to the fact that the mother planned on getting married in the near future
and taking a different last name. Id. at 710. We favored the father’s last name
over a last name that neither parent would be using even though, as here, the
father was the noncustodial parent. Id.
We note also that Kayley is very young (less than one year old at the time
the decree was entered), and there is no evidence of delay or bad faith. See id.
at 708-09. Thus, factors that might counsel against dropping “Lancaster” from
Kayley’s last name are not present here. For the reasons stated, we affirm the
5
district court’s paternity order, except with respect to Kayley’s surname, which we
find should be “Cowan” rather than “Lancaster-Cowan.”
We affirm as modified herein and remand to the district court for entry of
an order consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
