{
  "id": 5765619,
  "name": "In re PEYTON GRACE WRIGHT, a Minor (Terry M. Rogers, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robin L. Wright, Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "2006-02-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-05-0264",
  "first_page": "894",
  "last_page": "897",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "363 Ill. App. 3d 894"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "465 N.E.2d 85",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "87"
        },
        {
          "page": "87"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ill. 2d 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3156777
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "307"
        },
        {
          "page": "307"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/102/0303-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 5533,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.773,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1696882714011512
    },
    "sha256": "4e47d81de70a96e35da606edece67d5f1b3423356bdfbe56ff7b2da79d77f1e5",
    "simhash": "1:25f6a1e6873d0b10",
    "word_count": 921
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:25:30.372916+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re PEYTON GRACE WRIGHT, a Minor (Terry M. Rogers, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robin L. Wright, Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE KNECHT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, Robin L. Wright, appeals the March 2005 order that granted the petition of petitioner, Terry M. Rogers, to change the name of the parties\u2019 daughter from Peyton Grace Wright to Peyton Grace Rogers. We reverse.\nI. BACKGROUND\nOn September 8, 2003, one day after Peyton\u2019s birth, Terry signed a paternity affidavit. In this affidavit, Terry and Robin averred their \u201cmutual desire that the name of our child on the original Indiana Certificate of Live Birth shall be recorded as: Peyton Grace Wright.\u201d\nApproximately four months later, on January 16, 2004, the Edgar County circuit court, in case No. 2003 \u2014 F\u201428, entered an order of parentage. The order declared Peyton is the daughter of Robin and Terry. The parties agreed and the court ordered the parents to share joint custody and designated Robin \u201cas the primary custodial parent,\u201d with Terry \u201cas the visiting parent.\u201d The order provided for child support and visitation and resolved other custodial matters, including tax and insurance issues. The court expressly retained jurisdiction to modify or enforce the terms of the order. The order referred to Peyton as Peyton Grace Wright.\nOn February 18, 2005, in case No. 2005 \u2014 MR\u20144, Terry petitioned the court to change Peyton\u2019s name to Peyton Grace Rogers. Robin objected to Terry\u2019s petition and filed a motion to dismiss, in which she argued Terry, the visiting parent, lacked standing to seek the name change. On March 7, the court held a hearing on the petition. The court denied Robin\u2019s motion to dismiss and granted the petition. A written order was filed on March 22, 2005.\nThis appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nOn appeal, Robin argues Terry, the visiting parent, lacked standing to seek the name change. Robin contends section 21 \u2014 102 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) requires a petition to change one\u2019s name to \u201cbe signed by the person petitioning or, in the case of minors, by the parent or guardian having the legal custody of the minor.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/21 \u2014 102 (West 2004). Robin contends, in part, when a joint-custody agreement is in place, both parties must agree to the name change before a name change may be granted under the Code. Otherwise, according to Robin, the statute would read \u201ca parent with legal custody\u201d may sign the petition.\nTerry disagrees. He contends because he has joint custody of Pey-ton, he has standing to seek the name change.\nUnder Illinois law, a party can seek a name change by more than one means. Two are relevant here. The first is under section 21 \u2014 101 of the Code, which states \u201c[a]n order shall be entered as to a minor only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the change is necessary to serve the best interest of the child\u201d and provides a fist of relevant factors to consider. 735 ILCS 5/21 \u2014 101 (West 2004). Section 21 \u2014 102 further provides the petition for the name change must be signed \u201cby the parent or guardian having the legal custody of the minor.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/21 \u2014 102 (West 2004).\nThe second relevant means for seeking a name change is through the court with jurisdiction over custodial matters. According to our supreme court, \u201cchanging a child\u2019s name is a matter incident to custody of the child.\u201d In re Marriage of Presson, 102 Ill. 2d 303, 307, 465 N.E.2d 85, 87 (1984). Thus, the court with jurisdiction over the custodial issues has jurisdiction over a petition regarding a dispute over a name change. See Presson, 102 Ill. 2d at 307, 465 N.E.2d at 87.\nHere, the name-change petition was clearly resolved under the first means, the Code. The case was identified as a miscellaneous-remedies case and heard by a judge other than the one presiding over the parentage case. In addition, the parties before the circuit court and before this court centered their arguments on standing to seek a petition change under the Code.\nWe find, however, this was not the appropriate means to resolve the dispute between Robin and Terry. Section 21 \u2014 102\u2019s use of \u201cthe parent *** having the legal custody\u201d implies no custodial dispute over the name change. (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/21 \u2014 102 (West 2004). The latter approach is appropriate for the situation that exists here, when a party with joint custody seeks a name change over the objection of the other joint custodian. Such a disagreement over the name change creates a custody dispute that should be resolved by the court within the confines of the proceeding wherein parentage was declared.\nHere, the family court determined custodial matters in a parentage action. That same court expressly reserved jurisdiction to resolve or modify the custody order. We note the parties agreed the child would be named Peyton Grace Wright in 2003. We also note Robin\u2019s designation within the joint custody agreement as \u201cthe primary custodial parent.\u201d A child\u2019s name change in this context is an important decision. See generally 750 ILCS 45/6(e) (West 2004) (authorizing the court determining parentage to enter an order for visitation, custody, and support). That court should resolve this issue \u2014 an issue incident to custody.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nAccordingly, we reverse the order granting Terry\u2019s petition.\nReversed.\nSTEIGMANN and APPLETON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE KNECHT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robin L. Wright, of Paris, for appellant.",
      "Mark R. Isaf, of Asher, Smith & Isaf, of Paris, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re PEYTON GRACE WRIGHT, a Minor (Terry M. Rogers, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robin L. Wright, Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4-05-0264\nOpinion filed February 14, 2006.\nRobin L. Wright, of Paris, for appellant.\nMark R. Isaf, of Asher, Smith & Isaf, of Paris, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0894-01",
  "first_page_order": 912,
  "last_page_order": 915
}