White v. Son Van Le and Mark White

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Tuyet Lan Thi White, Appellant,

v.

Son Van Le and Mark White, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000630

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Anne Gue Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-352
Heard June 9, 2015 – Filed July 15, 2015

REVERSED

Cynthia Bailey Berry, of Berry Law Firm, of
Orangeburg, for Appellant Tuyet Lan Thi White.

Lewis C. Lanier, of Lanier & Burroughs, LLC, of
Orangeburg, for Respondent Son Van Le.

PER CURIAM: In this action from the family court, Tuyet Lan Thi White argues
the court erred in ordering her minor son's surname be changed to that of the
child's biological father, Son Van Le. We reverse.
"In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de
novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414-15, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011).
Thus, this court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its own view of the
preponderance of the evidence; however, this broad scope of review does not
require the court to disregard the findings of the family court, which is in a
superior position to make credibility determinations. Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381,
385, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651-52 (2011).

"In deciding whether to allow a change in the child's surname, the family court
should grant the request only if the change promotes the child's best interests and
welfare." Mazzone v. Miles, 341 S.C. 203, 210, 532 S.E.2d 890, 893 (Ct. App.
2000). "The parent seeking to change the child's surname has the burden of
proving that the change will further the child's best interests." Id. In Mazzone, this
court identified nine factors to consider in determining whether changing a child's
surname is in the child's best interest, including:

(1) the length of time that the child has used the present
surname; (2) the effect of the change on the preservation
and development of the child's relationship with each
parent; (3) the identification of the child as part of a
family unit; (4) the wishes of the parents; (5) the stated
reason for the proposed change; (6) the motive of the
parents and the possibility that the use of a different name
will cause insecurity or a lack of identity; (7) the
difficulty, harassment, or embarrassment that the child
may experience when the child bears a surname different
from the custodial parent; (8) the preference of the child if
the child is of an age and maturity to express a meaningful
preference; and (9) the degree of community respect
associated with the present and proposed surname.

Id. at 210-11, 532 S.E.2d at 893-94. Applying the Mazzone factors to this case, as
we are permitted to do under the broad scope of review accorded to us, we find the
family court erred in ordering Le Feather White's (Child) surname be changed to
White-Le. We find the Mazzone factors weigh heavily in favor of Child keeping
the surname White.

REVERSED.

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.