NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
Cosmo Lex
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Minor Name Change

  • 1.  Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-14-2015 02:41 PM

    Can anyone tell me what happens during a name change hearing for a minor?  The application has gone unopposed by the biological father and notice was put in newspaper.  Does the mother have to testify?  Will the judge question the minor (five years old)?  Thanks in advance.

    ------------------------------
    Amy Harris Esq.
    Bradley Beach NJ
    (732) 774-1212
    ------------------------------



  • 2.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-14-2015 02:51 PM

    It has to be the mom who testifies. Testimony from a 5 year old is not worth much.
    Hanan


    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

    t 609.683.7400 f 609.921.8982
    e [email protected] w www.hananisaacs.com
    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ



    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-14-2015 02:59 PM


    Yes, but some judges will indulge in confirming the child's comfort with a new name - a 5 year old knows his name and how to spell it - a change is sometimes exciting for a child, who now gains an identity with the parent who is actually parenting - I usually try to involve the child, this is a small milestone for a child with an absent parent and like an adoption, creates new and stronger bonds - if the child is aware of the situation, I always ask the child what his new name will be and if he thinks its a good idea.
    ------------------------------
    Debra Guston Esq.
    Glen Rock NJ
    (201)447-6660
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-14-2015 04:12 PM
    Has anyone done a child's name change as part of the divorce? where the
    other spouse objects?

    Wendy Ezor Engler
    Attorney At Law
    2 University Plaza, Suite 300
    Hackensack, NJ 07601
    tel: 201-488-7001
    fax: 201-488-8860

    This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
    may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
    review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
    intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
    copies of the original message.


    In a message dated 8/14/2015 2:58:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
    [email protected] writes:

    (http://community.njsba.com/familylawsection)
    _Family Law _
    (http://community.njsba.com/viewdiscussions/digestviewer/?GroupId=1291)
    _Post New Message Online_
    (http://community.njsba.com/participate/postmessage/?GroupId=1291) _Post New Message via Email_
    (mailto:[email protected]) _Re: Minor Name Change_
    (http://community.njsba.com/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread/?GroupId=1291&MID=2517
    0&tab=digestViewer) _Reply All Online_
    (http://community.njsba.com/communities/all-discussions/postreply/?MID=25170&GroupId=1291) _Reply All
    Email_
    (mailto:NJSBA_familylaw_ab99eea8-781a-4af0-8fa6-26ad2ad66d7f@ConnectedCommunity.org?subject=Re: Minor Name Change) _Reply to Sender_
    (http://community.njsba.com/communities/all-discussions/postreply/?GroupId=1291&SenderKe
    y=929caf0a-47d1-4f69-a297-16a9acba1316&MID=25170) _Email Sender_
    (mailto:?subject=Re: Minor Name Change)
    (http://community.njsba.com/people/debra-guston) Aug 14, 2015 2:59 PM _Debra E. Guston, Esq_
    (http://community.njsba.com/people/debra-guston)

    Yes, but some judges will indulge in confirming the child's comfort with a
    new name - a 5 year old knows his name and how to spell it - a change is
    sometimes exciting for a child, who now gains an identity with the parent
    who is actually parenting - I usually try to involve the child, this is a
    small milestone for a child with an absent parent and like an adoption,
    creates new and stronger bonds - if the child is aware of the situation, I
    always ask the child what his new name will be and if he thinks its a good
    idea.
    ------------------------------
    Debra Guston Esq.
    Glen Rock NJ
    (201)447-6660
    ------------------------------

    _View Thread_
    (http://community.njsba.com/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread/?GroupId=1291&MID=25170&tab=digestviewer) _Recommend_
    (http://community.njsba.com/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthrea
    d/?GroupId=1291&MID=25170&MessageKey=ab99eea8-781a-4af0-8fa6-26ad2ad66d7f&cm
    d=rate&cmdarg=add) _Forward_
    (http://community.njsba.com/communities/all-discussions/forwardmessages/?GroupId=1291&MID=25170)
    -------------------------------------------
    Original Message:
    Sent: 08-14-2015 14:49


    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-15-2015 08:07 AM

    Read Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120, 657 (1995); Emma v. Evans, 424 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 2012);
    Staradumsky v. Romanowski, 300 N.J. Super. 618 (App. Div. 1997) (absolutely no relation, Romanowski loses, and what judge would balk at the opportunity to perpetuate that fine name?)
    ------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Metuchen NJ
    (732)603-8585
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-15-2015 08:47 AM

    Read Fall & Romanowski, New Jersey Family Law, Relationships Involving Children (GANN):

    8:6-2. Name Change Requests.

    Page#147-¶3  
    a. Procedure and jurisdiction. Generally speaking, a person may change his or her name simply by using the new name in ordinary life. See IMO Application of Pirlamarla, 208 N.J. Super. 112, 114-115 (Law Div. 1985) ("The common law permits an adult to change his or her name without leave of court simply by adopting a new name and utilizing it in the ordinary course of daily living"). Accord, In re Bacharach, 344 N.J. Super. 126, 130 (App. Div. 2001).
     
    Page#147-¶4  
    However, a common-law name change generally is an insufficient basis upon which to change the name set forth on a birth certificate, passport, driver's license, or most other government-issued documents. That is, something more, such as a marriage certificate or order of the court, generally is required to establish grounds for a legal name change. See N.J.S. 26:8-40(b) (allowing birth certificate to be amended after parentage is adjudicated by court); N.J.S. 26:8-40.1 (amendment to birth certificate after adoption).
     
    Page#147-¶5  
    In the context of an application to change a minor's name, a name change may be requested by the child's parent without court approval only:
     
    Page#147-¶6  
    (1) Upon marriage of the child's natural parents after the child's birth, see N.J.S. 26:8-40; and
     
    Page#147-¶7  
    (2) Upon marriage of the child's mother, who was unmarried at the time of the child's birth, to a man who is not the child's natural father, provided the husband approves of the change and there is no presumed natural father or the change is not opposed by the presumed father, see N.J.S. 26:8-40.11.
     
    Page#147-¶8  
    In all other cases, a court order must be sought pursuant to R. 4:72-1 through R. 4:72-4. As discussed at (b) below, the standard governing such the request is the best interests of the child.
     
    Page#147-¶9  
    Typically, requests to change a minor's name are made pursuant to New Jersey's name change statutes, N.J.S. 2A:52-1 through N.J.S. 2A:52-4, after the parents have divorced or separated. See, e.g., Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. 197, 203 (2013) (request to use mother's surname after divorce); Ronan v. Adely, 182 N.J. 103, 105 (2004) (request to add mother's surname after separation); Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120, 124 (1995) (request by father to change child's surname after paternity was confirmed); Application of Rossell by Yacono, 196 N.J. Super. 109, 111 (Law Div. 1984) (same). See also Staradumsky v. Romanowski, 300 N.J. Super. 618, 620 (App. Div.), certif. den. 151 N.J. 467 (1997) (mother's request to change first, middle and last name after separation).
     
    Page#147-¶10  
    In addition, the child's name may be changed as a result of an adoption, see N.J.S. 9:3-52, or an action to establish parentage, see N.J.S. 9:17-53,
     
    Page#148-¶1  
    or upon the naturalization of the child or the parent. See IMO Application of Pirlamarla, 208 N.J. Super. 112, 113 (Law Div. 1985) (request to change resident alien child's surname after father's name was changed during his naturalization). See also In re Zhan, 424 N.J. Super. 231, 234 (App. Div. 2012) (concluding that the statutory right to obtain a legal name change is not limited to United States citizens).
     
    Page#148-¶2  
    Although one court has held that a name change may be sought only in a proceeding pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:52-1, see Viola v. Fundrella, 241 N.J. Super. 304, 309 (Ch. Div. 1990), this holding was overruled by Emma v. Evans, 424 N.J. Super. 36, 47 n.7 (App. Div. 2012), aff'd 215 N.J. 197 (2013). A child's name may be changed in connection with any Family Part proceeding after the appropriate best interest analysis. Compare Basile v. Basile, 255 N.J. Super. 181, 184 (Ch. Div. 1992) (providing that a request to change a child's name through a domestic violence proceeding is inappropriate, given the proceeding's limited focus) with J.S. v. D. M., 285 N.J. Super. 498, 499 (App. Div. 1995) (noting a name change that was ordered in the context of domestic violence litigation in which custody and surname were specifically addressed).
     
    Page#148-¶3  
    b. Best interest standard. A person seeking a court order approving the legal name change of a minor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed change is in the minor's best interest. Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. 197, 222 (2013); Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120, 139-141 (1995).
     
    Page#148-¶4  
    In Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. at 223, the Court listed several factors that must be considered when undertaking a best interest analysis in the context of a request to change a child's surname:
     
    (1) The length of time the child has used his or her given surname.
    (2) Identification of the child with a particular family unit.
    (3) Potential anxiety, embarrassment, or discomfort that may result from having a different surname from that of the residential parent.
    (4) The child's preference, if the child is mature enough to express one.(5) Parental misconduct or neglect, such as failure to support or maintain contact with the child.
    (6) Degree of community respect, or lack thereof, associated with either paternal or maternal name.
    (7) Improper motivation on the part of the parent seeking the name change.
    (8) Whether the mother has changed or intends to change her name upon remarriage.
    (9) Whether the child has a strong relationship with any siblings with different names.
    (10) Whether the surname has important ties to family heritage or ethnic identity.
    (11) The effect of a name change on the relationship between the child and each parent.

    Page#149-¶2  
    The first four factors initially were set forth in Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. at 139, also in the context of a surname request. Nevertheless, each factor should be considered to the extent practicable when conducting a best interest analysis in the context of a request to change the child's first or middle name. See, e.g., Staradumsky v. Romanowski, 300 N.J. Super. 618, 620-621 (App. Div.), certif. den. 151 N.J. 467 (1997) (mother's request to change first, middle and last name after separation).
     
    Page#149-¶3  
    In addition, at the time that Gubernat was decided, it was common to award one parent "sole physical custody" (meaning exclusive physical custody or residential custody). Given that some form of physical custody typically is enjoyed by each parent after divorce or separation today, continued use of the term "custodial parent" generally is inappropriate. See 21:2-1(c). When the parents have been awarded joint physical custody, either in the form of residential custody or parenting time, the impact of a name change with respect to both parents must be considered.
     
    Page#149-¶4  
    For cases discussing the best interest standard prior to the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Emma v. Evans, see (d) below.
     
    Page#149-¶5  
    c. Limited presumption in favor of the name chosen exclusively by the parent who retained primary physical custody after the child's birth. To enhance the predictability of the best interest standard, the New Jersey Supreme Court initially adopted a "strong presumption" in favor of the surname chosen by the residential parent in Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120, 144 (1995). In Gubernat, a father who was neither present nor included on the child's birth certificate when the child was named requested that the child's surname be changed to his own months after paternity had been confirmed. The mother, who was the child's primary caretaker and exclusive residential custodian, objected. The Court concluded that although the father's request was governed by the best interest standard, the burden was on the father in that case, who was required to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that despite the presumption favoring the primary caretaker's choice of name, the chosen surname was not in the best interests of the child. Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. at 145. Accord, Ronan v. Adely, 182 N.J. 103, 145 (2004).
     
    Page#149-¶6  
    Application of the Gubernat presumption was limited significantly in Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. 197, 202 (2013). There, the mother/residential parent sought approval to change her children's surnames, which the parents had jointly agreed upon when the children were born. Although the Court acknowledged the Gubernat presumption, it concluded that a child's best interests would not be served by application of the presumption to a renaming dispute when the original name had been jointly selected by the parents at birth. As explained by the Court:
      
    Page#150-¶1  
    To the extent that special knowledge about the child affected by the name change is important in the best-interest analysis, the view of the [residential] parent certainly is relevant and a factor that must be considered. The [residential] parent's choice of surname, be it to retain the surname already given in defense to another's attempt to alter a surname post-divorce, or affirmatively to change it, is an important fact to be considered in the best-interest analysis.
     
    Page#150-¶2  
    So too are the views of others who can demonstrate relevant knowledge about the impact of a proposed surname change on a child, such as the [non-residential parent or parent of alternate residence] who also has developed a relationship with the child, or a teacher or other adult with a close relationship to the child. The [residential] parent, while enjoying an intimate living relationship with the child, does not have the sole relevant information on the subject. Moreover, in a post-divorce setting, and absent an agreement between two parents sharing joint legal custody, it is far from clear that the [residential] parent should be entitled to a presumption in connection with a rigorous application of a best-interests analysis to a request to change a child's surname. Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. at 218.
     
    Page#150-¶4  
    Thus, while there continues to exist a presumption in favor of the surname chosen exclusively by the parent who had primary physical custody of the child at birth and continues to have primary physical custody of the child, "in renaming disputes between parents who agreed on a surname at birth but find themselves later in a dispute over whether to alter the surname, the proper standard to apply is the best interests of the child." Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. at 221-222. Consequently, "the party seeking to alter the status quo from the surname jointly given to the children at birth must bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the change in the children's surname is in their best interests." Evans v. Emma, 215 N.J. at 202.
     
    Page#150-¶5 What's New?
    As a result of the Court's holding in Evans, the presumption expressed in Gubernat and the preference that generally is accorded to the decisions of the child's primary caretaker, do not apply where the primary caretaker wishes to change the child's name after the parents' divorce, dissolution, or separation. Accordingly, much of the case law discussed below, which applied the presumption in the context of a name change request prior to Evans, is distinguishable and can no longer be relied upon as being authoritative. See Evans v. Emma, 215 N.J. at 221 and 221, n.1 (rejecting Holst-Knudsen v. Mikisch, 424 N.J. Super. 590, 597-599 (App. Div. 2012) and Ronan v. Adely, 182 N.J. at 145, to the extent either applied a presumption where both parents initially agreed on the name given to the child).
     
    Page#150-¶6  
    d. Historical background. Traditionally, courts had favored use of the paternal surname by the child except upon a showing of extenuating circumstances.  See Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120, 127-138 (1995); M.D. v. A.S.L., 275 N.J. Super. 530, 532-534 (Ch. Div. 1994) (each chronicling historical methods of choosing a surname). And see, e.g., Sobel v. Sobel, 46 N.J. Super. 284, 287 (Ch. Div. 1957) (providing that where the natural father was not in default of his support obligation or charged with improper conduct, the divorced wife with legal custody had no authority to change the child's surname). Compare W. v. H., 103 N.J. Super. 24, 26 (Ch. Div. 1968) (holding that the physical and psychological harm caused by a father who had sexually abused his children warranted a change of their surname to the mother's maiden name) with In re Lone, 134 N.J. Super. 213, 217-218 (Cty. Ct. 1975) (denying residential parent's application to change the child's surname to that of the child's step-father after concluding that the name change, which contravened the presumption generally accorded the paternal surname and the father's interest in "maintaining his relationship with his child for their mutual benefit," would not advance the child's best interests). But see Bruguier v. Bruguier, 12 N.J. Super. 350, 355 (Ch. Div. 1951) (allowing a teenager to assume her step-father's surname without proof of extenuating circumstances, on the grounds that "[t]here is nothing in the common law prohibiting one from taking another name, if he so desires").
     
    Page#151-¶2  
    In Application of Rossell by Yacono, 196 N.J. Super. 109, 113-116 (Law Div. 1984), a trial court rejected the presumption in favor of the father's surname and granted a mother's name change request for her child after the parents' divorce. Although extenuating circumstances clearly existed in that case - the father had virtually no relationship with the child and provided no support - the court also considered the child's interest and principles of equality:
     
    Page#151-¶3  
    The right of the father to have his child bear his name is no greater than the right of the mother to have her child bear her name. The deference ... accord[ed] the father is a deference rooted in antiquity. It echoes fortunately disappearing sexual values.
     
    Page#151-¶4 ?
    Application of Rossell by Yacono, 196 N.J. Super. at 113. Concluding that the child would "be better served in this life if he carries his mother's name," the court granted the mother's name change application for her son.
     
    Page#151-¶5  
    Application of Rossell by Yacono marked a turning point in the standard applied by the courts when resolving parental disputes regarding a child's surname. Following Yacono, courts no longer employed gender or marital-status preferences, focusing instead on the impact of the requested change when viewed from the perspective of the child's interests. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 204 N.J. Super. 75, 79 (Law Div. 1985) (denying a mother's request to change the surname of her four-year-old child to that of the person adjudicated to be the father, who objected to the name change, based on a best interests analysis); K.K. v. G., 219 N.J. Super. 334, 338 (Ch. Div. 1987) (finding that adding the step-father's surname to the child's present surname was in the best interests of the child); M.D. v. A.S.L., [275 N.J. Super. 530]275 N.J.
     
    Page#152-¶1  
    Super. at 536 (retaining the surname chosen by the mother based on the benefits that name would provide to the child, but allowing the child's middle name to be changed to include the father's surname to reinforce the father-child bond). And see Youth & Family Services v. J.L., 264 N.J. Super. 304, 307 (Ch. Div. 1993) (holding that the given name of a child in foster (now known as "resource family") care may be changed on the application of a guardian ad litem if the best interests of the child support the change).
     
    Page#152-¶2 What's New?
    In Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120, 139 (1995), the New Jersey Supreme Court confirmed the elimination of gender- and marital-based surname preferences in favor of an inquiry that "focused on the happiness and welfare of the child." There, an unmarried father requested a change to his son's surname after paternity was confirmed. Refusing to apply a preference in favor of the father, the Supreme Court held that the proper standard for adjudication of a name change dispute was a best-interest analysis, giving consideration to a number of factors delineated by the Court. See Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. at 139. At the same time, the Court, recognizing the inherent subjectivity in the application of these factors, established a presumption in favor of the "custodial parent" (presumably, the "residential parent," see 21:2-1(c)), who was also the sole parent who named the child at birth.
     
    Page#152-¶3  
    Following Gubernat, most courts applying the presumption in favor of a "custodial parent" did so in a completely different context than that in Gubernat, where the child's name was chosen by the sole parent listed on the child's birth certificate. In J.S. v. D. M., 285 N.J. Super. 498, 500 (App. Div. 1995), unmarried parents, who were presumably each included on the child's birth certificate, had initially agreed that the child would bear the mother's surname. Later, the father requested that the child's surname be changed to his own. Although the Appellate Division refused to change the child's surname over the objection of the mother, who was the child's primary caretaker, the court nevertheless affirmed the trial court's decision to include the father's surname as the child's middle name based on the child's best interests. Similarly, in Staradumsky v. Romanowski, 300 N.J. Super. 618, 621 (App. Div.), certif. den. 151 N.J. 467 (1997), the court approved the request of a mother, who was the child's primary caretaker, to change her three-year-old's first and last names after the parents' relationship ended. Like the parents in J.S. v. D.M., the parents in Staradumsky had never been married but had jointly agreed on the child's name at birth which, in that case, had strong connections to the father's family. Exercising original jurisdiction, the court retained part of the child's name that was related to the father's family as the child's middle name. Again, in Ronan v. Adely, 182 N.J. 103, 108 (2004), the parents were never married but had jointly agreed that the child's surname would be that of the father. After their relationship ended, the mother sought to add her surname to the child's name, thereby establishing a new 
     
    Page#153-¶1  
    hyphenated surname. The Court remanded for a best interest analysis in light of the Gubernat presumption.
     
    Page#153-¶2  
    Following Ronan, the Appellate Division issued two conflicting opinions concerning application of the Gubernat presumption in the context of a dispute between parents who had been married and jointly agreed upon the child's name at birth. Compare Emma v. Evans, 424 N.J. Super. 36, 37 (App. Div. 2012) (refusing to apply the presumption) with Holst-Knudsen v. Mikisch, 424 N.J. Super. 590, 598-601 (App. Div. 2012) (applying the presumption). In Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. 197, 221 (2013), the Supreme Court resolved the conflict, holding that the presumption does not apply in a renaming dispute between parents who agreed on a surname at birth but find themselves later in a dispute over whether to alter the surname. As a result of the Court's decision in Emma v. Evans, previous case law in which the presumption was applied where a change was requested to a name that had been jointly agreed upon by the parents at the child's birth cannot be relied upon as authoritative except to the extent that it discusses the impact of the request on the child's best interests. See, e.g., Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. at 221-222 n.1 (expressly rejecting Holst-Knudsen v. Mikisch to the extent it was based on the Gubernat presumption and cautioning against an expansive reading of Ronan v. Adely).



    ------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Metuchen NJ
    (732)603-8585
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 09-08-2015 12:50 PM
    Thank you.
    Wendy

    Wendy Ezor Engler
    Attorney At Law
    2 University Plaza, Suite 300
    Hackensack, NJ 07601
    tel: 201-488-7001
    fax: 201-488-8860

    This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
    may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
    review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
    intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
    copies of the original message.


    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-14-2015 02:55 PM
    I've done them on the papers before (when unopposed). If you have to
    appear, I assume it will be a similar voir dire as a name change for a wife
    resuming her maiden/premarital surname. Prior civil judgments/prior
    criminal convictions/bankruptcy/resumption for personal reasons only. You
    should also indicate the child's preference and that they (presumably)
    respond to the new surname.


    Gregory Thomlison, Esq.
    Law Office of Stacey D. Kerr, Esq.
    650 Washington St.
    Suite 1C
    Toms River, NJ 08753
    Ph. (732) 736-8100

    THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY-PRIVILEGED AND
    CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR
    ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED
    RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER TO THE INTENDED
    RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR
    COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED
    THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, Please immediately notify us by telephone or
    reply to this email. Thank you.

    On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Amy Hansel via New Jersey State Bar


    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-15-2015 09:05 AM

    Gubernat is one of the saddest after-case outcomes in New Jersey legal history. Days after the Supreme Court's esoteric name change decision, the father killed his son and took his own life.
    We are in a line of work where we never know what will trigger someone. Even a name change issue can pack a punch. Or worse.
    Hanan


    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

    t 609.683.7400 f 609.921.8982
    e [email protected] w www.hananisaacs.com
    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ



    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-15-2015 09:14 AM

    Agreed and agreed, Hanan. Mr. Romanowski wasn't too happy either.

    On a totally random note -- my calling card -- I received a mailing a few weeks ago, announcing a pilot program involving mediating cases where there are domestic violence restraining orders in place. Half a million years ago, when I was doing a presentation for you at an ADR Section meeting, we were discussing how grossly ill-advised it was to mediate under these circumstances, no matter how it is done; separate rooms, armor, etc. I am sure you've read as much professional literature on topic as I have. What are your current views? I am personally leaning toward boycotting such a pilot program as imbecilic, but I am always open to discussion.

    ------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Metuchen NJ
    (732)603-8585
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-15-2015 09:18 AM

    Masterful work, Sir.
    Kids' surnames can be incredibly powerful for parties in the context of separation and divorce. The developing caselaw reflects that deeper meaning.
    Hanan


    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

    t 609.683.7400 f 609.921.8982
    e [email protected] w www.hananisaacs.com
    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ



    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-15-2015 09:31 AM

    Thanks, Hanan.

    ------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Metuchen NJ
    (732)603-8585
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-15-2015 09:34 AM

    Great question, Curt.
    New York State had an ongoing program for such cases. I do not know it's current status. When I learned about it, here were strict guidelines and mental health people involved.
    .
    I met a NJ therapist mediator from South Jersey many years ago who did this work routinely. She felt that with proper training and safeguards it could be done.
    Here is the issue.
    Domestic violence is a label we use to cover a spectrum of behavior. It is not all the same.
    People who are victims of domestic violence sometimes want to work out their issues with the aggressor without major court involvement. To say no to all of these folks may paint with too broad a brush.
    I have no idea how the pilot in NJ is proposed to be run. If cases are properly screened; if mediators are properly qualified and trained; if the mediation is properly structured, using shuttle diplomacy rather than face to face party meetings in cases where they should be kept separate; where security/metal detection/law enforcement are available and in place; and where emergency services are available to the victim throughout the process if something should happen offsite; then I am in favor of a pilot.
    Litigation is not kind to DV victims either, and is no assurance of protection. Gubernat had anger issues too.
    A dumb pilot, poorly conceived, without the protections I discussed above, is bound to fall. A single DV incident would blow it away like the dust.
    Hanan


    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

    t 609.683.7400 f 609.921.8982
    e [email protected] w www.hananisaacs.com
    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ



    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-17-2015 10:29 AM

    It has to be the mom who testifies. Testimony from a 5 year old is not worth much.
    Hanan


    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

    t 609.683.7400 f 609.921.8982
    e [email protected] w www.hananisaacs.com
    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ



    Original Message


  • 15.  RE: Minor Name Change

    Posted 08-17-2015 11:04 AM

    Judge is not going to hear testimony from a five-year-old... who also wants to be a fireman or drive the truck with the really big shovel.

    ------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Metuchen NJ
    (732)603-8585
    ------------------------------


    Original Message