NHSC Decision Underscores Trial Courts' Broad Discretion

      It can be difficult, sometimes, to understand why there is so much variability in decisions from family courts.  A recent NH Supreme Court decision provides an example that illustrates why.

     The recent case is about a baby's name, In re Name Change of Alexander Goudreau. In this case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to change the baby's name to include his father's surname.

     Both parents were teenagers when the mother became pregnant. Father, at 15, did not want to have anything to do with the baby, did not want her to keep the baby, and did not provide any emotional or financial support during her pregnancy. Then, the baby was born. Mother named the baby and gave him her last name. The father became involved with the baby, filed a parenting plan and sought scheduled parenting time. When the baby was about 14 months old, the father also filed a petition to change the baby's name. The case reads:

At a hearing on the petition, mother testified that she had carried Alexander for nine months, loved him very much, and "deserve[d] just as much as [father] to have [Alexander] have [her] name." Father testified that he was conflicted about becoming a father, but that he was "very satisfied with the road [he] chose, really getting to know [his] son." After the hearing, the court granted the petition in part, ordering that the child’s name be changed from Alexander Bailey Goudreau to Alexander Goudreau Lemieux.

The trial court reasoned:

The court declines to fault a fifteen year old boy for his reluctance immediately to accept responsibility for Alexander. The reluctance did not last beyond Alexander’s birth. The court makes it[s] decision based on the best interests of Alexander. Alexander has two parents who both care for him and love him. Andrew Lemieux’s commitment to Alexander should be demonstrated in Alexander’s name, as should Veronica Goudreau’s.

     On appeal, the mother argued, in part, that the trial court's "best interest" standard was vague and based on "sexist social conventions." The mother also asked the Supreme Court to establish specific factors for a trial court to use in deciding future baby name disputes.

     The New Hampshire Supreme Court declined to accept the mother's arguments. Instead, it affirmed the trial court's decision, stating (amount other things) that the best interest standard's "elasticity is a virtue, not a sign of arbitrariness."

     So, again, as in so many of New Hampshire's Supreme Court decisions in Family Law related issues, judgment is left to the trial court, with little or no guidance as to how a good decision should be made, based on what facts and circumstances.  I still do not know how the trial court decided that the father's last name should take precedence over the mother's.  And that is the difficulty, and sometimes the opportunity, inherent in trying to predict what a trial court may decide in a Family Law related issue.