Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re: The Name Change of Maria Fernanda Benitez
Citation: 250 So. 3d 153Docket: 17-1502
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 13, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida issued an opinion on June 13, 2018, affirming in part and reversing in part a lower court's decision regarding Maria Fernanda Benitez's petition to change her minor child W.M.B.'s name. The central issue was whether the court could waive the requirement to serve notice to the biological father, whose identity Benitez knew but who was not listed on the birth certificate and had not been legally adjudicated as the father. The trial court denied the petition, citing Benitez's failure to obtain the father's consent or provide notice as required by Florida Statutes section 68.07. Although the appellate court agreed with the trial court's overall application of the law, it noted two deficiencies in Benitez's petition: she did not provide the father's name or the required proof of service or constructive notice. The court directed that this opinion be sent to the Chief of Legislative Affairs for potential statutory clarification. The trial court had previously determined that since the father's identity was known but paternity had not been legally established, his consent was necessary for the name change to proceed. Ms. Benitez sought reconsideration, arguing that Florida Statutes subsection 744.301(1) grants her exclusive authority as the 'natural guardian' of her child to change the child’s name without involving the biological father. This statute states that both parents are natural guardians unless parental rights are terminated, and that the mother of a child born out of wedlock has primary custody unless stated otherwise by the court. Ms. Benitez cited appellate cases regarding the standing of unmarried fathers who have not acknowledged paternity or shown substantial concern for their child's welfare. However, the trial court denied her petition for a name change, noting her admission of knowledge about the father's identity and her refusal to serve him, which is a legal requirement. The court concluded that the father's consent and proper service of process were necessary. The appeal established that statutory interpretation is a legal matter subject to de novo review. While a name change petition is typically granted in the absence of fraudulent intent, the trial court found that Ms. Benitez did not comply with the clear requirements of section 68.07 regarding notice to the father. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the name change petition but reversed the part requiring the father’s consent and service as a legal necessity. The court noted the need for legislative review of the notice requirements and affirmed that an unmarried father's objections could be overruled based on evidence not currently presented.