Opinion
No. 3-063 / 02-1220.
Filed April 30, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, JOEL E. SWANSON, Judge.
John Rickers appeals the district court's order denying his request for a tax dependency exemption and name change for his biological son. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Julie Schumacher of Mundt, Franck Schumacher, Denison, for appellant.
Gregory Siemann of Green, Siemann Greteman, P.L.C., Carroll, for appellees.
Heard by ZIMMER, P.J., and HECHT and EISENHAUER, JJ.
John Rickers appeals the district court's order denying his request for a tax dependency exemption and name change for his biological son. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Susan Gruhn, formerly Susan Dentlinger, and John Ricker are the biological parents of Brandon Michael Dentlinger, born January 21, 1993. Susan and John were never married. On April 7, 1993, the State filed a petition seeking to establish John's paternity and his support obligation under Iowa Code chapter 252A (1993). On September 23, 1993, Susan intervened in the State's action. In a separate proceeding, John filed a petition admitting paternity and requesting visitation and the change of Brandon's surname from Dentlinger to Rickers. On February 24, 1994, the two cases were consolidated, and the parties filed a stipulation providing that John and Susan would have joint legal custody of Brandon, but that Susan would have primary physical care. It also established the amount of John's child support obligation, John's visitation schedule with Brandon, the allocation of the tax dependency exemption to Susan, and that Brandon's surname would remain Dentlinger.
On October 30, 2001, Susan petitioned the trial court to modify John's support obligation. John answered Susan's request for increased child support and counterclaimed for primary physical care of Brandon. He also requested the reallocation of the tax dependency exemption and the change of Brandon's surname from Dentlinger to Rickers. Trial was held on June 5, 2002. In a ruling entered on June 14, 2002, the district court granted Susan's request for additional child support from John, and denied all of the relief requested by John.
John appeals, alleging the district court erred in its determination that (1) it did not have the authority to reallocate the tax dependency exemption to John and (2) it was not in Brandon's best interest to change his surname.
II. The Tax Dependency Exemption.
The district court determined that under the holding of State ex. rel. Burge v. Hammons, 503 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Iowa 1993), it did not have the authority to reallocate the tax dependency exemption. John challenges this legal conclusion. We review questions of authority of the district court for correction of errors at law. Regional Retirement Living, Inc., v. Board of Review of Wapello County, 611 N.W.2d 779, 781 (Iowa 2000).
The Iowa Supreme Court, in Burge, held that Iowa Code chapter 252A does not authorize the district court to enter orders granting visitation, allocating tax dependency exemptions, or granting name changes. Burge, 503 N.W.2d at 416. Relying on Burge, the district court below concluded that "the question of income tax dependency exemptions may be addressed either by stipulation of the parties or by a dissolution decree, but not in the paternity action." The district court apparently concluded that because this case was initiated in 1993 with a petition filed by the State under chapter 252A, all claims in this action were pursuant to chapter 252A. John contends the district court erred because both Susan's 2001 petition for modification of child support and John's counterclaim for the tax dependency exemption are asserted under the provisions of Iowa Code chapter 598 (2001), not chapter 252A.
We agree that John's request for the tax dependency exemption is not limited by chapter 252A. Our review of the record in this case convinces us that both John's and Susan's claims are made pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 600B, which addresses the obligations of parents of children born out of wedlock. When Sara intervened in the State's action in 1993, she asserted her right to support under the provisions of 600B. John's original petition for visitation and name change in 1994 was also presumably filed under the authority of 600B. The two cases were ultimately consolidated, and the caption bears both numbers. Thus, we conclude that this action is proceeding under chapter 600B. Iowa Code section 600B.25 directs the court to refer to section 598.21(4) for the determination of child support obligations. The allocation of tax dependency exemptions is undertaken pursuant to section 598.21(4). In re Marriage of Walsh, 451 N.W.2d 492, 493 (Iowa 1990). The district court erred in its determination that it lacked the authority to review the allocation of the tax dependency exemption. We reverse and remand to the district court to determine whether the significant increase in John's child support obligation and his claim that the exemption is wasted by Susan justifies the award of the exemption to John.
The petition filed by John cites no statutory authority for his request, but because 600B is clearly applicable, and because 252A does not provide the district court the authority to address these claims, and because the district court did ultimately address John's claims in its decree, we see no reason to believe John's claims were asserted under any chapter other than 600B.
John contends that the tax records of the two parties demonstrate the dependency exemption provides no tax advantage to Susan, but would greatly benefit John.
III. The Name Change.
John challenges the district court's determination that it is not in Brandon's best interest to have his surname changed from Dentlinger to Rickers. Because John's request to have Brandon's name changed is equitable in nature, our review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. We give weight to the fact-findings of the district court, but are not bound by them. Iowa R.Civ.P. 6.14(6)( g).
At the time of trial, Brandon was nine years old and beginning fourth grade. He has lived his entire life with his mother's maiden name, Dentlinger, as his surname. His mother, Susan, married in 1996 and took her husband's surname, Gruhn, at that time. Susan now has three children who share with her the Gruhn surname. In other words, for approximately six years, Brandon has been the only member of his household to bear a "different" last name. John contends it is in Brandon's best interest to change his surname to Rickers because it is traditional for a child to bear his father's surname. He also claims the name change would strengthen his bond with Brandon without alienating Brandon from his mother because Brandon no longer shares a name with his mother. However, the testimony of both John and Susan reveals that Brandon has no wish to change his surname. In fact, Susan testified that Brandon has indicated a name change would embarrass him and he would refuse to use the
Rickers name. Given Brandon's wish to keep the Dentlinger name and given the fact that the testimony of both Brandon's parents and teachers indicated Brandon is a well-adjusted young man, despite not sharing a surname with any of the members of his household, we find it is in Brandon's best interest to keep the Dentlinger surname at this time. We affirm the district court on this issue.