In the Matter of Bodhi Sico Becker (hereafter referred to as Bodhi) is a recent case from the Appellate Court of Maryland that applies established case law to today’s modern family dynamic. More families are choosing to have children outside of marriage, and in some cases, naming a child born outside of marriage can lead to difficulties. Especially when, like in Bodhi, the child’s parents decide to end their romantic relationship, and one parent feels their identity is not represented in the child’s last name.
In Bodhi, Ms. Becker and Ms. Sico decided to start a family and had plans to get married. When they found out they were pregnant, the couple decided the child’s name would be Bodhi Sico Becker. The middle name, Sico, would preserve Ms. Sico’s surname and Becker would become the family’s last name with Ms. Sico changing her name once she and Ms. Becker were married. However, when Bodhi was born, Ms. Sico and Ms. Becker were unmarried. Still, they put Bodhi Sico Becker on the child’s birth certificate.
Two years after Bodhi’s birth Ms. Sico and Ms. Becker ended their romantic relationship. Soon after, Ms. Sico began court action to change Bodhi’s last name to Becker-Sico. After litigating this matter in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, the Court found that the child’s name would remain Bodhi Sico Becker. The Court held that (1) the parents did agree to the child’s name, (2) no extreme circumstances that would warrant a name change existed, and (3) it was not in the best interest of the child to change his name. Ms. Sico appealed and the Appellate Court relied on the following legal principles in upholding the decision of the Circuit Court:
No name case v. Change of name case
“When the parents of a child did not mutually agree to the child’s name at the time of birth, courts consider this to be a ‘no name’ case. When the parents of a child did agree to the child’s name at the time of birth, courts consider this to be a ‘change of name’ case.”
In Bodhi, the facts indicate that Ms. Becker and Ms. Sico knew well in advance of their child’s birth that his name would be Bodhi Sico Becker. This makes the case a “change of name” case.
Whether prior agreements exist
“In determining whether an agreement exists, the court should look at the facts surrounding the initial naming of the child, including, but not limited to, whether both parties were present at the birth, who signed the birth certificate, acknowledgement of parenting, or other legal documents bearing the given name, and when the name became known to the challenging party.”
In this case, both parents were present at the birth, both signed the birth certificate, and both knew of and decided on the name together well in advance of the birth.
Agreement or condition precedent?
Ms. Sico argued that the name Bodhi Sico Becker was agreed upon based on the condition that she and Ms. Becker get married, and since this condition was not met, the name was actually not agreed upon. The Court stated, “a child’s name is not a wedding right,” and found that even though the parties were not married at the time of the child’s birth, they did agree on the child’s name at the time of the birth.
Extreme circumstances
“In a change of name case, the court should consider whether the following extreme circumstances exist: (1) whether there is proof that the parent whose name the child bears has engaged in serious misconduct that adversely affects the best interest of the child; and (2) whether the parent whose name the child bears has willfully abandoned the child and severed natural ties. Additional extreme circumstances may be considered if such circumstances are shown to adversely affect the child.
This review did not fit the facts of Bodhi as Ms. Becker was not engaged in any misconduct and did not willfully abandon the child.
Best interest of the child
“When considering a surname change, the court should consider the following factors when assessing the best interest of the child: (1) the child’s reasonable preference, if the child is of the age and maturity to express a meaningful preference; (2) the length of time the child has used any of the surnames being considered; (3) the effect that having one name or the other may have on the preservation and development of the child’s relationship with each parent; (4) the identification of the child as a part of a family unit; (5) the embarrassment, difficulties, or harassment that may result from the child’s use of a particular surname; (6) misconduct by one of the child’s parents disparaging of that parent’s surname; (7) failure of one of the child’s parents to contribute to the child’s support or maintain contact with the child; and (8) the degree of community good will or respect associated with a particular name.”
Several of these factors did not influence the Court’s decision, as they did not apply to the specific facts of the case. However, the Court did look to certain factors, including that the child has used the surname Becker for four years and understands who he is. The Court also considered the difficulties of the child using the Becker surname alone. After acknowledging the difficulties same sex couples and unmarried couples could face in certain situations, the Court stated that “minor instances of embarrassment or clerical mix-ups” do not warrant a name change.