Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

124 Ga. App. 603

184 S.E.2d 696

Johnson v. Coggins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 15, 1971

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1971-10-15

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“in accord with the established standards for determining custody of minor children.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 131 Ga. App. 388 - Tolbert v. Tolbert

Relies on 83 Ga. App. 280 - Binford v. Reid

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2017

16 state decisions

6019711980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Jordan, Presiding Judge.

¶1 The petitioner, Mrs. Coggins, sought to change the surname of her two minor children, then ages 8 and 7, to that of their stepfather, over the objections of their natu *604 ral father, her former husband. Under the terms of a divorce decree the petitioner has custody and control of the children, and their father has visitation rights and provides for their support. An amicable relationship exists between the children and their father, but both of the children desire to have the same surname as their mother and stepfather, with whom they reside. There is also medical testimony to the effect that the older child suffers from some emotional disturbance brought about by the fact that his name is not the same as that of his mother and stepfather. The father appeals from an order granting the change in name. Held:

Argued October 6, 1971 Decided October 15, 1971. Grant & Matthews, Carlton G. Matthews, for appellant. Heard, Leverett & Adams, E. Freeman Leverett, for appellee.

¶2 We affirm. Under the provisions of Code Ann. § 79-501 et seq., as amended, Ga. L. 1961, pp. 129, 130, whether a judge of the superior court shall grant or refuse a proper application for a change in name, upon objection and after a hearing, involves the exercise of a sound legal discretion. Here, as in Binford v. Reid, 83 Ga. App. 280 (63 SE2d 345), decided under the former statute, the record and transcript reveal no abuse of this discretion. While the codal provisions set no standards for determination, the order of the trial judge reflects that he gave paramount consideration to the best interests, welfare, and happiness of the children as disclosed by the evidence. This is in accord with the established standards for determining custody of minor children, which we consider appropriate for application in determining a change in name.

¶3 Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Evans, JJ., concur.
/124/gaapp/603 · .json · Public domain