Susan Lorayne Long-Molnar v Robert Klor Dean

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

SUSAN LORAYNE LONG-MOLNAR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Vv. Record No. 0464-96-1 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
NOVEMBER 5, 1996
ROBERT KLOR DEAN

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
John K. Moore, Judge

Mary Keating O'Neill (Pender & Coward, P.C.,
on briefs), for appellant.

Stuart R. Gordon (Gordon, Allison & Levine,
P.C., on brief), for appellee.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial
court erred as a matter of law when, over the objection of
appellant, it granted appellee's petition to have his child's
last birth-name changed to that of appellee.

Upon familiar principles, the judgment of the trial court is

presumed to be correct, Broom v. Broom, 15 Va. App. 497, 504, 425

S.E.2d 90, 94 (1992), and we will not reverse its decision unless
it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Code

§ 8.01-680; Dodge v. Dodge, 2 Va. App. 238, 242, 343 S.E.2d 363,

365 (1986). In this appeal, the standard of review is whether
there is evidence to support the trial court's finding that it

was in the best interest of the child to grant appellee's

"Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
petition. 	Code § 8.01-217. 	We find that the record contains
sufficient evidence to support the judgment of the trial court.
As the parties are familiar with the record, we recite only
the evidence that supports the trial court's finding.
With limited visitation by appellee, the child has been in
appellant's custody since birth and remains in appellant's
full-time care. 	When appellee failed to acknowledge the child at
birth, appellant selected a name for the child other than that of
appellee.
After a court found that appellee was the child's father and
ordered appellee to support the child, appellee has regularly
paid $500 per month child support and has continually had
temporary-custody visitation.
A board certified psychologist recommended a change of the
child's name that would include appellee's name hyphenated by
appellant's maiden name and testified that giving the child
appellee's name would be in the best interest of the child. 	He
further opined that the child was bonded to both parents.
After meeting with the child alone in chambers, the trial
court concluded that it would be in the best interest of the
child to grant appellee's petition to change the last name of the
child to that of appellee. 	We cannot say that the trial court
was plainly wrong or that its judgment was without evidence to
support it.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
- 3 -