DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV-0210405·shasta·Civil·Probate
Hearing 14 days agoCONTINUED

IN RE: RADIE

Petition for Change of Name

Hearing date
Aug 10, 2026
Department
64
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerAmber Marie Radie

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0210405 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Amber Marie Radie seeks to change her minor daughter’s name. Proper proof of service of the father is on file. All procedural requirements of CCP §§ 1275 et. seq. have been satisfied.

This matter first came on for hearing on July 6, 2026. The minor’s father appeared and stated his objection to the name change. The Court instructed the father to file his objection with the Court and continued hearing to August 10, 2026. No objection was filed, however, the father filed a Witness List and five declarations from others. While the father has not filed a written objection, it is clear that the father is objecting to the Petition. The father will need to file a written objection that provides the reasons that the Petition is opposed.

CCP § 1278.5 provides “In any proceeding pursuant to this title in which a petition has been filed to change the name of a minor, and both parents, if living, do not join in consent, the court may deny the petition in whole or in part if it finds that any portion of the proposed name change is not in the best interest of the child.” “The controlling consideration in determining whether a change in a child's surname should be ordered against the objection of one of the parents, is the welfare of the child [citations].”

In re Marriage of Schiffman (1980) 28 Cal.3d 640, 645. Courts are to consider factors including the length of time that the child has used a surname, the effect of a name change on preservation of the father-child relationship, the strength of the mother-child relationship, the identification of the child as a part of a family unit, and any confusion, embarrassment or discomfort the child may experience by bearing a surname different from the rest of their household. See id.

The Court intends to set a hearing in this matter. An appearance by the mother and father is necessary to select a hearing date. The mother should be prepared to discuss whether the minor prefers to attend the hearing or submit a written declaration (Judicial Council Form MC-030).

ROBINSON, ET AL. VS. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share