Woman asks court to overrule ‘reverse Solomonic decision’ over child’s name

CARSON CITY — A dispute over a child’s name brought out references to King Solomon in a hearing Wednesday before the Nevada Supreme Court.

An attorney for a woman challenging a judge’s decision to change her son’s name to accommodate her ex-husband’s wishes asked the court to overrule what she called a “reverse Solomonic decision.”

The court heard oral arguments in an appeal brought by Paige Petit from a ruling by Clark County District Judge T. Arthur Ritchie Jr. changing the name of her child with Kevin Adrianzen from Ryder Blake Petit to Ryder Blake Petit-Adrianzen.

The couple, who are from Las Vegas and are in their early 20s, were married in name only when the child was born in September 2013. The couple didn’t live together.

Shortly thereafter, they divorced. The name on the child’s birth certificate is Ryder Blake Petit.

Attorney Telia Williams, representing Petit, told the court that the lower court judge did not use the proper legal standard in changing the baby’s last name at Adrianzen’s request.

Ritchie cited the child’s best interests in changing the name.

The Supreme Court will rule later.

“Frankly, the district court’s reverse ‘Solomonic’ decision sidesteps the task of deciding whether clear and compelling evidence existed for finding that changing Ryder’s name was in his best interest, by simply short-circuiting the process and giving the child both parents’ surnames, instead,” Williams said in a brief filed in the case.

The judgment of King Solomon refers to a story in the Bible in which King Solomon of Israel ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child by ordering that the child be split in half. The reaction of the women to the decision gave Solomon evidence of who was the real mother.

Williams told the court that a Nevada law dealing with registering a child’s birth treats married and unmarried women differently with regard to naming a child and so is unconstitutional. If Petit hadn’t married Adrianzen, she would have had the legal right to use her last name, Williams told the court. But because she was married, she did not have that same right, she said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage issued last year abolished such distinctions, Williams said.

“An unmarried woman doesn’t lose her singular identity because she becomes married,” Williams said after the hearing.

But attorney Shann Winesett, representing Adrianzen, said granting mothers a greater right to name a child than fathers violates the equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

“Fathers and mothers, regardless of marital status, have a right to participate in the naming of a child,” he said.

A compound surname is the best choice when parents cannot agree, Winesett said in court filings.

Current law imposes an unreasonable standard to change a name on a birth certificate, he said. The court should take the opportunity to make the process fairer and not favor the first parent who files a name for a birth certificate for a child, Winesett said.

Williams said there was no evidence presented at the District Court evidentiary hearing in support of Adrianzen’s petition for the name change.

But Chief Justice Ron Parraguirre noted that in the record Adrianzen said his family name was important for the child because of his Hispanic heritage and culture.

Justice James Hardesty asked what the court could do in a situation in which there was no agreement on the name.

“We can’t ignore the fact that they were a married couple,” he said.

Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-461-3820. Follow @seanw801 on Twitter.