musicphantom2037
10-08-2006, 09:14 AM
I am a single mother of two children, both of whom have different fathers. I recently was taken to court over my youngest child who at the time was only 8 months old, by his father's parents.I should mention that at the time of the child's birth, the father and I were not married and not together in any capacity. He was not present at the time either so I gave the child my last name. In the motion they asked for a change of name and visitation for themselves on the basis that they were paying the child support to the state in his absence. He is in the National Guard and is currently overseas in Afghanistan. Their lawyer told the judge the day we were in court that he didn't know whether the grandparents were paying the support or not but she still granted them visitation rights of every other Sunday for 6 hours. As for the change of name, the judge stated that the child should have the father's last name so that he is not labeled as a bastard. Then she found out that the father was overseas in the military and changed her decision to a child should have his father's last name so that everyone knows that he is proud of his father and what his father does for a living. At the time, I agreed to the name change because I felt that she was going to force me to change it anyway but I don't agree with her reasoning as to why the name change was in the child's best interest. There is no custody agreement over the child but he is paying CS after paternity was established because I asked for it. I should mention that I have been taken to court by the paternal grandparents over ALL legal issues concerning the child(i.e. paternity, gp visitation,) instead of them trying to work things out between us. My question is: Am I right in feeling that the judge's statements as to why the name change was in the child's best interest shouldn't have been the basis for a name change?
