The January 15, 2025 decision in In re Name Change of M.T.F. from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District provides critical guidance for parents seeking to change a minor child’s name in Florida. The opinion confirms two equally important principles. First, a petition to change a child’s name must include evidence showing why the change is in the child’s best interests. Second, when that evidence is later supplied through a properly supported motion for rehearing, the trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to reconsider the request.
For parents navigating paternity, timesharing, or post-judgment family matters, a Tampa divorce lawyer will recognize this case as a procedural roadmap. It shows how a name-change petition can fail initially, yet still succeed on rehearing when the evidentiary record is properly developed.
This article explains the facts, the appellate court’s reasoning, and what In re Name Change of M.T.F. means for Florida parents seeking a child’s surname change.
The Family Background
The child, M.T.F., is the eight-year-old daughter of Lauren Michelle Brennan (the mother) and Joseph Perrone (the biological father). The parents were never married. At birth, the child was given the mother’s maiden surname.
Years later, the mother married Emry Brennan, took his last name, and had another child who shares the “Brennan” surname. The father, meanwhile, became engaged and was expecting a child who would carry the “Perrone” surname.
As a result, the child was the only immediate family member with her original surname, a fact that became increasingly distressing to her.
A Tampa divorce lawyer often sees this issue arise after remarriage, when family dynamics shift and children begin to feel disconnected from siblings or parents due to differing last names.
The Initial Petition and Its Deficiency
The mother petitioned the circuit court to change the child’s last name to “Perrone Brennan,” combining the biological father’s surname with the mother’s and stepfather’s surname. However, the petition itself did not explain why the change was in the child’s best interests.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing via Zoom. No transcript of that hearing was provided on appeal. After the hearing, the court denied the petition, finding that the mother failed to present legal authority or competent, substantial evidence establishing that the name change would benefit the child.
For any Tampa divorce lawyer, this outcome is predictable. Florida law is clear. A child’s name does not change simply because a parent prefers it. Evidence tied to the child’s welfare is required.
The Motion for Rehearing Changed Everything
After the denial, the mother filed a timely motion for rehearing. This time, she did what the initial petition did not.
The mother, father, and stepfather each submitted notarized affidavits explaining why the name change was in the child’s best interests. The affidavits were detailed and consistent.
The mother explained that the child was hurt and frustrated because she did not share a last name with anyone in her immediate family. The child became upset when asked about her name and felt excluded from both sides of her family, which were known in the community as the Brennan family and the Perrone family.
All adults involved agreed to the hyphenated surname as a way to affirm the child’s connection to both families.
Despite this new evidence, the trial court denied rehearing and again concluded the name change was not in the child’s best interests.
A Tampa divorce lawyer would immediately recognize the legal problem. Once new, relevant evidence is presented on rehearing, the court must actually consider it.
The Fourth District’s Analysis
The Fourth District reviewed both rulings for abuse of discretion. The court drew heavily on its prior decision in In re Y.M.X., which involved a nearly identical procedural posture.
Affirmance of the Initial Denial
The appellate court first affirmed the denial of the original petition. Because the petition itself failed to explain why the name change was in the child’s best interests, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it.
This portion of the opinion reinforces an important lesson. A Tampa divorce lawyer preparing a name-change petition must include best-interest facts in the initial filing, not rely on assumptions or argument alone.
Why the Denial of Rehearing Was Reversible Error
The appellate court then turned to the motion for rehearing. This is where the trial court went wrong.
The affidavits submitted with the rehearing motion directly addressed the child’s best interests. They explained the emotional harm the child experienced due to having a different surname from every immediate family member. They showed unanimity among the adults. And they provided precisely the type of evidence Florida courts require in uncontested name-change cases.
Under Y.M.X., when affidavits submitted on rehearing cure the evidentiary deficiency that led to denial of the petition, the trial court must grant rehearing and reconsider the request.
By refusing to do so, the trial court abused its discretion.
For parents working with a Tampa divorce lawyer, this holding is crucial. Rehearing is not just a formality. It can be a substantive second chance when supported by proper evidence.
Best Interests Control Child Name Changes
Florida law is consistent on one point. A child’s surname should remain unchanged unless there is evidence the change is necessary for the child’s welfare.
In this case, the Fourth District emphasized that the evidence showed the child felt isolated and distressed by being the only family member without a shared surname. The appellate court concluded this evidence supported the name change as being in the child’s best interests.
A Tampa divorce lawyer will often frame name-change cases around the child’s lived experience, not the parents’ preferences. This decision reinforces that approach.
The Final Outcome
The Fourth District affirmed the denial of the initial petition but reversed the denial of the motion for rehearing. The court remanded with specific instructions for the trial court to:
- Grant the motion for rehearing, and
- Grant the petition to change the child’s last name based on the evidence attached to the rehearing motion.
In short, the name change was ordered.
Why This Case Matters for Florida Parents
This decision highlights several practical realities of Florida family law.
First, procedural precision matters. A deficient petition can be denied even when the underlying request is reasonable.
Second, motions for rehearing are not meaningless. When supported by affidavits and new evidence, they can change the outcome.
Third, uncontested name changes supported by evidence of a child’s emotional well-being are strongly favored.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can use this case to guide parents through both the substance and the procedure of name-change requests.
Practical Lessons for Name-Change Cases
Several lessons emerge from In re Name Change of M.T.F.:
- Always include best-interest facts in the initial petition
- Use affidavits to explain the child’s emotional and social experience
- Demonstrate parental agreement when possible
- Preserve issues through timely motions for rehearing
These steps can prevent unnecessary delay and avoidable appeals.
Name Changes Often Arise After Remarriage
It is common for name-change issues to surface after remarriage, when a child no longer shares a surname with either parent or siblings. Florida courts do not automatically grant changes in these situations, but they will do so when evidence shows the change benefits the child.
A Tampa divorce lawyer frequently assists families navigating these transitions, especially where blended families are involved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a child’s last name be changed in Florida?
Yes, but only if the court finds the change is in the child’s best interests.
Is parental agreement required?
Not strictly, but agreement from both parents is a strong factor in favor of approval.
What evidence is most persuasive?
Affidavits or testimony explaining how the name change benefits the child emotionally, socially, or psychologically.
Can a motion for rehearing fix a denied petition?
Yes. If new evidence cures the original deficiency, rehearing should be granted.
Why is this important for Tampa families?
Name-change issues often arise alongside paternity and timesharing cases handled by a Tampa divorce lawyer, making procedural accuracy essential.
Talk With a Tampa Divorce Lawyer About Child Name Changes
If you are considering changing your child’s last name, or if a petition was denied due to lack of evidence, a Tampa divorce lawyer can help you present the issue correctly. As In re Name Change of M.T.F. shows, the right evidence at the right time can make all the difference.
Important decisions made during divorce can shape your financial and personal future. McKinney Law Group works with Tampa clients to provide structured legal support focused on stability and informed outcomes.
Reach out at 813-428-3400.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.