Cyndi A. Trembley, The Daily Record Newswire
What’s in a name? While it may be true that we can’t choose our relatives, it is equally true that we don’t get to choose our birth names. Presumably most people settle in and accept their given moniker while others just tweak it a bit (Cindy to Cyndi). However, for those unhappy with their given names, whatever the reason, a name change is in order.
People who change their names do so for a variety of reasons. Victims of domestic violence often seek to distance themselves from their tormentors and transgender people wish to align their names with their identity. Celebrities also change their names for an array of reasons, some to avoid confusion (Albert Brooks was born Albert Einstein), others to comply with the rules of the Screen Actors Guild, which state that no two members can have the same name (Michael Keaton was born Michael Douglas).
But many celebrities changed their names on the way to the top or in hopes of making it to the top, often discarding given names for ones that might catch on with producers and fans alike. Would Norma Jean Mortensen have ever had the chance to sing “Happy Birthday Mr. President” had she not changed her name to Marilyn Monroe? Frances Gumm had us singing along about rainbows and dancing through poppy fields as Judy Garland.
Other notable examples include Demi Moore (Demetria Guynes), Bruno Mars (Peter Gene Hernandez), and, of course, The Artist: Formerly Known as Prince. Celebrities often choose uncommon names for their offspring as well. Consider Apple (Gwyneth Paltrow), Blue Ivy (Beyoncé), Atlas (Anne Heche) and North West (Kim Kardashian).
Anyone can change their name without court approval. However, when a court is asked to approve a name change, the courts have generally held that applications for name changes will be granted “absent fraud, deceit or avoidance of an obligation,” In re Furick 33 Misc.3d 169, 170, 930 N.Y.S.2d 407, 408 (N.Y.Sup., 2011).
In addition to state law, an applicant should check with other potentially interested administrative agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration.
Consider the following denials of name change petitions:
A Massachusetts inmate petitioned to change his name to Manasseh-Invictus Auric Thutmose V upon his conversion to Wiccanism. Said petition was denied where the judge found that the petition was “inconsistent with public interests.” The judge noted that the petitioner’s “history of using aliases, concealing his identity and eluding criminal prosecution” barred the petition on “public safety” grounds. (“Convicted child killer denied name change,” by Erin Shannon, The Enterprise [Brockton, MA] Updated Dec. 20, 2012 http://bit.ly/1k0SmPs [last viewed April 17])
In 2012, a petition to change a family’s last name to ChristIsKing was denied when the judge, citing Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971), noted “[t]o permit this name change would be placing unwitting members of the public including public servants in the position of having to proclaim petitioners’ religious beliefs which may or may not be in agreement with that person’s own equally strongly held but different beliefs.”
In conclusion, the judge wrote that petitioner’s “have a common law right to use whatever names they choose and are free to do so,” In the Matter of the Application of NAWADIUKO, For Leave to Change His/Her/Their Name(s) to ChristIsKing, 37 Misc.3d 1207(A), 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51931(U), (N.Y.City Civ.Ct., 2012).
Noting that the petitioner might wish it were so, the “simple fact remains that Petitioner is not a dog,” concluded the Allegheny Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court Judge in denying a man’s application to change his name to Boomer the Dog. Concerned that such a name might cause “confusion in the workplace … and more serious consequences,” the judge suggested the following scenario in his written opinion: “Petitioner witnesses a serious automobile accident and telephones for an emergency medical response. The dispatcher on the phone queries as to the caller’s identity, and the caller responds, ‘This is Boomer the Dog.’ It is not a stretch to imagine the telephone dispatcher concluding that the call is a prank and refusing to send an emergency medical response.” (“Boomer the Dog to Remain Gary Guy Matthews,” Timothy McNulty, Pittsford Post-Gazette, Aug. 12, 2010 [last viewed April 17]).
Finally, a denial from 1961: “The court cannot but inquire as to why the petitioner labors under the delusion that the name of Mikael Habte Wold-Wossen would better pave his path in his contemplated career in the world of finance. It seems evident to this court that far more necessary and desirable are the qualities of knowledge, skill and integrity. Combining the fine American name presently enjoyed by the petitioner with these qualities should permit his attainment of success in his chosen field no less than the name he seeks to assume,” Application of Johns 29 Misc.2d 31, 31-32, 212 N.Y.S.2d 146, 147 - 148 (Sup. Ct., Queens County 1961).
—————
Cyndi Trembley has been with the Rochester firm of Harris Beach PLLC since 1997, most recently in the position of manager of Research Services. Prior to Harris Beach, she served as a reference librarian for 18 years at a Syracuse law firm. Her professional activities include service as past president of the Association of Law Libraries of Upstate New York. For more than a decade, she has given presentations on Internet issues and resources for library groups, attorneys and law students.
