Matter of Grier
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 26, 2004
Civil Court of City of New York, Queens County
In the Matter CATHY GRIER, Natural Guardian and Natural Parent of BRITTNI KAILA KEITH for leave to change her name to BRITTNI KAILA GRIER, In the matter of the Application of, JANELLE NEDD, As Parent and Natural Guardian of SEAN XAVIER NEDD-MANGRAY for Leave to Change Minor's Name To SEAN XAVIER NEDD,
In the matter of the Application of, JANELLE NEDD, As Parent and Natural Guardian of SEAN XAVIER NEDD-MANGRAY for Leave to Change Minor's Name To SEAN XAVIER NEDD,
NC 394/04
Jeremy S. Weinstein, J.
Before the court are two applications, made pursuant to Article 6 of the Civil Rights Law, seeking to change the name of an infant. Although the relief sought is the same, and the facts are somewhat similar, the court is compelled to reach different conclusions in each case. It is for this reason the court has chosen to write a joint decision distinguishing one case from the other and setting forth the court's reasoning in reaching its conclusions.
In Index No. NC 394-04, the petitioner, Cathy Grier, seeks to change the name of her infant daughter from BRITTNI KAILA KEITH to BRITTNI KAILA GRIER, thus the child would be assuming the last name of her natural mother and deleting the last name of her natural father. Mr. Benson Keith the natural father, has opposed the application.
The court held a hearing in which testimony of both the natural mother and natural father was given. The court also examined the child in camera, outside the presence of the natural mother and father.
Brittni Kaila Keith was born on June 5, 1995 in New York, and is currently nine years old and resides with her natural mother.
Mr. Keith and Ms. Grier were never married and Mr. Keith resided with Ms. Grier up until the child, Brittni, was about six months old. Ms. Grier has another child, Brandon, a four year old boy, who resides with her and Brittni and whose last name is Grier. Mr. Keith is not the [*2]father of that child.
Mr. Keith had no contact with his daughter from 1996 to 2000. In April of 2000 he was awarded supervised visitation and as of April 2004 has been given unsupervised visitation with the child. He visits his daughter every other weekend and intends on spending more time with his daughter in the future. Mr. Keith admits to being in arrears in child support but has been making consistent payments of child support since April 2004.
Mr. Keith objects to the change of name. He testified that he is attempting to build and maintain a relationship with his child. He also claims that his last name, Keith, has an ancestry to the Blackfoot and Cherokee Indian tribes which he wants his daughter to maintain.
Ms. Grier would like for her daughter to assume the name Brittni Kaila Grier so that she would have the same last name as the rest of her family with whom she resides, including half-brother Brandon.
Ms. Grier testified that Brittni has objected to having a different last name from that of her mother since the age of five. She testified that her daughter felt alienated from the rest of her family because of this. She cited various incidents which have allegedly caused the child embarrassment. Attending the same school as her brother and having a different last name has made the child feel uncomfortable, according to Ms. Grier's testimony. Various written documents by the child were submitted to the court in the course of the hearing to demonstrate the child's desire to have the same last name as that of her natural mother. Among them were a 'thank you' note to her mother, a valentines day card, a school report and artwork done by the child in which the child signed her name Brittni Grier. During the course of the in camera hearing the child expressed a desire to change her last name to that of her mother. She also testified that she never raised the issue with her father.
In Index No. N673-2004 the petitioner, Janelle Nedd, seeks to change the name of her infant son from SEAN XAVIER NEDD-MANGRAY to SEAN XAVIER NEDD, thus, as in Grier, this child would be assuming the last name of her natural mother and deleting the last name of her natural father. Mr. Kevin Mangray has opposed the application.
The court held a hearing in which testimony of both the natural mother and natural father was given.
SEAN XAVIER NEDD-MANGRAY was born on February 5, 1998 and is currently six years old and resides with his natural mother. Ms. Nedd and Mr. Mangray were never married and never resided together. After the child was born Mr. Mangray returned to his native country, Trinidad. From 1998 to 2000 there was no contact between the father and his child. In July of 2000 Mr. Mangray sought and obtained an order of filiation declaring him to be the father of the child. Subsequently, sometime between November 25, 2000 and December 23, 2000 a series of three separate dates were scheduled for Mr. Mangray to visit the child. Mr. Mangray was late for the second visit and failed to show up for the third visit. Mr. Mangray filed a petition to obtain custody but failed to show up for the hearing, alleging that he had surgery. He never attempted to file a petition again and Ms. Nedd has had full custody of the child since 2001. Mr. Mangray has had no contact with the child over the past four years. Mr. Mangray only paid child support for two months in the year 2000 and has not paid any child support since that time.
Petitioner is seeking to change the name of her infant son because of the embarrassment and confusion it will cause to the child in school, having a last name different from that of her [*3]natural mother. The child has apparently been using the last name of his natural mother and is known by that name in school, by his friends and other social contacts.
Civil Rights Law §63 provides that a court may grant a petition to change the name of an infant where the court is satisfied that "there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed" and "the interests of the infant will be substantially promoted by the change". The court stands "in loco parentis" with respect to an infant and the best interests of the child are of paramount concern to the court in any petition for an infant's change of name. (Matter of Joan Robinson, 74 Misc 2d 63.)
It appears that most courts have recognized that the natural father has no common-law right to determine his child's surname. Rio v. Rio, 132 Misc 2d 316. Some courts in referring to the concept of natural law, have held that a father has a natural right to have his son bear his name. Matter of Baldini, 17 Misc 2d 195; Matter of Yessner, 61 Misc 2d 174. It has also been held that neither parent has a superior right to determine the surname of the child and the question to be determined is whether the best interest of the child will be served by any proposed change of name. (Cohan v. Cunningham, 104 AD2d 716)
Depriving a child of his or her surname is normally a far-reaching action and is usually granted only where the natural father is guilty of misconduct, abandonment or lack of support. (Matter of Goldstein, 104 AD2d 616; Matter of Pollack, 2 AD2d 756; Matter of Petras, 123 Misc 2d 665.)
Some courts have taken a pragmatic approach in assessing what is in the best interest of the child. This entails examining the child's everyday well-being and the current relationship with his or her present family, school, friends and society. (Matter of Williams, 86 Misc 2d 87; Matter of Robinson, 74 Misc 2d 63.)
In applying the law to both of the petitions before the court, the court, after careful analysis, has come to different results.
In the matter of Index No. 394/04, Brittni Kaila Keith, the court has carefully considered the natural father's objections to the granting of the petition. The court is mindful of the fact that Mr. Keith had no contact with his daughter between 1996 and 2000. However, he has had supervised visitation commencing in April of 2000 and has had unsupervised visitation with his daughter since April of 2004. He has been making consistent payments of child support since April, 2004 and visits with his daughter every other weekend. He is attempting to maintain and foster a relationship with his child. His objection to the name change appears to be reasonable.
The court has also given careful consideration to claims of embarrassment and alienation felt by the child in having a different last name from that of the natural mother and half brother. Society in recent years has changed so significantly that it is no longer uncommon for a child to have a different surname than that of a parent. It has even become commonplace for siblings to have different surnames. The court finds that the contentions of the mother do not provide a sufficient basis to override the father's reasonable objection to the granting of the petition, especially in view of the father's attempt to continue to play a significant role in his daughter's life. The court also does not find that the interests of the infant will be substantially promoted by the change of name. Therefore the petition is denied. (See Matter of Edward Siira, 7 AD3d 803, 776 N.Y.S.2d 892; Matter of John Phillip M. - P., 307 AD2d 318; Githens v. Van Orden, 177 Misc 2d 918, aff'd 256 AD2d 1247) [*4]
In the matter of Index No. 673/04, Sean Xavier Nedd-Mangray, the court, after careful consideration, finds Mr. Mangray's objections to the change of name to be unreasonable. Mr. Mangray has had very little contact with his child. After the child was born he returned to his native country, Trinidad, for a period of two years. He has only visited with the child on two occasions during the past six years. He has failed to show up at a hearing to determine the child's custody. He has provided only two months of child support for the past six years.
The child has been registered in school, and is using his mother's last name. He is known by that name in school and by his friends and other social contacts.
In this case the father of this infant born out of wedlock has failed to establish that his child's best interest will be substantially promoted by retention of his surname. (see, Civil Rights Law §63; Matter of Shawn Scott C. Scott M., 134 AD2d 345; Matter of Goldstein, 104 AD2d 616, lv denied 64 NY2d 602.) It cannot be in a child's best interest to carry the surname of a parent with whom the child has had little or no contact. Accordingly, the court finds that the interest of the child in this case will be substantially promoted by granting the petition for a change of name. Petitioner is directed to submit an order in compliance with the court's decision.
The foregoing constitutes the decision of the court.
Jeremy S. Weinstein, J.S.C.
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.
