Melbourne v. Taylor

Renee Melbourne (plaintiff) was married to Marcus Taylor (defendant), and the couple had a child. They later divorced. Melbourne ended up with primary custody over the child, and Taylor had reasonable-visitation rights. Taylor was also ordered to pay child support and provide insurance, both of which he kept up with. Even after the divorce, the child had Taylor’s last name. This led to a number of instances in which people incorrectly assumed that Melbourne and the child had the same last name (Taylor). For example, Melbourne once had difficulty picking up the child from daycare because a worker incorrectly wrote that Melbourne’s last name was Taylor when Melbourne dropped off the child. When Melbourne picked up the child and didn’t have identification stating “Taylor,” she had to seek help from a director to pick up the child. A similar incident happened in a hospital. In response to these incidents, Melbourne filed an application with a court to change the child’s last name to hers. Taylor opposed the application, testifying that he was trying to stay in the child’s life and that the name change (which he and Melbourne had originally agreed to) would estrange him from the child. Applying the best-interests-of-the-child standard, the trial court denied the application. The court purported to rely on District of Columbia caselaw to determine the child’s best interests. Specifically, the court purported that the best interests were determined by looking to four factors: (1) whether the child was of sufficient age to make his or her own choice, (2) that the bond between a “divorced father and his children is tenuous at best” and would be destroyed by a change, (3) whether the father demonstrates continuing interest and objects to the change, and (4) whether the change would contribute to estrangement. Melbourne appealed.