Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Kyne v. Ehima
(2026)
Case details
Full caption
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN. Erica P. KYNE v. Owen EHIMA and In re: Change of Name Petition Evelyn Ehima Kyne DOCKET NO. NNH-FA-24-5061240-S
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (CT)
Court
Connecticut Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
Kyne
v.
Ehima,
Not
Reported
in
Atl.
Rptr.
(2026)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
1
2026
WL
1330009
Only
the
Westlaw
citation
is
currently
available.
UNPUBLISHED
OPINION.
CHECK
COURT
RULES
BEFORE
CITING.
Superior
Court
of
Connecticut,
JUDICIAL
DISTRICT
OF
NEW
HAVEN.
Erica
P.
KYNE
v.
Owen
EHIMA
and
In
re:
Change
of
Name
Petition
Evelyn
Ehima
Kyne
DOCKET
NO.
NNH-FA-24-5061240-S,
DOCKET
NO.
NNH-FA-26-5066382-S
|
MAY
8,
2026
Editor's
Note:
This
document
contains
discussion
of
unverified
citations,
likely
generated
by
AI
tools
used
by
a
party
or
counsel.
These
citations
are
not
attributable
to
the
Court.
The
unverified
citations
have
been
preserved
as
part
of
the
official
record,
but
links
are
unavailable.
MEMORANDUM
OF
DECISIONS
Petition
for
Child's
Name
Change
and
Motion
for
Contempt
(#159)
in
Dissolution
Case
Walter
M.
Spader,
Jr.
,
Judge
AS
TO
THE
PETITION
FOR
THE
CHILD'S
NAME
CHANGE
*1
The
applicant,
OWEN
EHIMA
,
is
the
father
of
the
one-year-old
minor
child,
EVELYN
EHIMA
KYNE
(dob:
02/28/2025).
The
child
was
born
during
a
contentious
dissolution
proceeding
under
docket
number
NNH-FA-24-5061240-S
(
Kyne
v.
Ehima
).
That
action
began
as
a
Complaint
for
legal
separation
and
was
converted
to
a
dissolution
proceeding.
The
parenting
dispute
was
resolved
in
a
Memorandum
of
Decision
issued
December
31,
2025
(#149.00).
Pursuant
to
that
Decision,
the
parties
share
joint
legal
custody
of
the
child
and
primary
residence
is
with
the
mother.
The
Court
in
that
proceeding
found
that
the
mother
did
not
include
the
father
on
the
birth
certificate
at
the
hospital.
He
sought
an
order
adding
his
name
to
the
birth
certificate
and
changing
the
child's
last
name
from
Kyne
to
Ehima.
The
Court
made
a
finding
of
the
father's
paternity
and
ordered
the
birth
certificate
amended
to
include
him
as
the
father.
As
to
the
surname,
the
Court
found
it
lacked
jurisdiction
to
change
the
name
of
a
minor
child
incident
to
a
dissolution
of
marriage
action
and
directed
him
to
Connecticut
General
Statute
§
52-11
.
To
the
extent
the
Court
may
have
had
jurisdiction
under
Connecticut
General
Statute
§
46b-467
,
it
denied
the
request,
finding
no
good
cause.
Although
this
present
petition
was
dated
one
week
later,
it
was
formally
filed
with
the
Court
on
April
7,
2026.
DISCUSSION
OF
LAW
AND
FACTS
Kyne
v.
Ehima,
Not
Reported
in
Atl.
Rptr.
(2026)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
2
Connecticut
General
Statute
§
52-n(a)
provides
that
the
Superior
Court
shall
have
jurisdiction
of
complaints
praying
for
a
change
of
name,
brought
by
any
person
residing
in
the
subject
judicial
district.
Connecticut
Practice
Book
§
9-24
provides
that
in
all
such
proceedings
brought
by
a
minor
child
through
his
or
her
next
friend,
the
parents
of
the
child
shall
be
cited
in.
Whether
an
application
for
a
change
of
name
should
be
granted
is
a
matter
within
the
sound
discretion
of
the
Court.
When
a
minor
child
is
involved,
the
Court
must
consider
whether
the
change
of
name
will
promote
the
child's
best
welfare.
The
moving
party
bears
the
burden
of
proof
by
a
fair
preponderance
of
the
evidence.
DISCUSSION
Procedural
Deficiency
The
parents
share
joint
legal
custody
of
their
child.
This
application
was
filed
by
one
parent,
who
represented
that
he
would
provide
notice
to
the
mother.
There
is
no
proof
of
service
in
the
file.
The
mother
appeared
at
the
hearing
and
orally
objected.
The
child
is
not
a
party
to
this
proceeding
and
no
guardian
ad
litem
has
been
appointed
on
her
behalf.
The
applicant
is
requesting,
on
behalf
of
himself,
that
a
non-party
have
her
name
changed.
Since
the
child
was
not
made
a
party
to
this
proceeding,
this
Court
has
no
authority
to
change
the
name
of
this
child.
On
this
basis
alone,
the
applicant
father's
request
for
relief
must
be
denied.
Best
Interest
Analysis
Assuming,
arguendo,
that
the
applicant
could
surmount
that
procedural
obstacle,
he
still
bears
the
burden
of
proving
by
a
fair
preponderance
of
the
evidence
that
the
name
change
would
be
in
the
child's
best
interest.
He
has
not
met
that
burden.
*2
The
applicant
contends
that
the
child's
best
interests
are
served
by
a
name
reflecting
her
paternal
lineage
and
identity,
promoting
a
consistent
familial
identity,
preserving
her
relationship
with
her
father,
avoiding
confusion
caused
by
inconsistent
surnames,
and
supporting
her
long-term
stability
and
sense
of
belonging.
These
are
well-intentioned
claims.
They
are
also
not
claims
about
this
particular
child
in
her
particular
circumstances
—
they
are
generic
assertions
that
could
appear
in
any
name
change
petition,
by
any
father,
drafted
by
ChatGPT
1
.
They
do
not
constitute
proof
by
a
preponderance
of
evidence
that
the
change
would
serve
Evelyn's
best
interests.
The
child
is
happy,
bubbly
one
year
old.
The
mother
brought
her
to
Court
for
this
proceeding,
and
she
raised
her
hand
when
mom
raised
her
hand
when
the
Clerk
swore
the
parties
in.
As
expected
with
a
one-year-old,
she
had
moments
of
crying.
What
was
most
interesting
to
the
Court
was
that
only
the
mother
attempted
comforting
of
the
child
during
the
proceeding.
The
father
did
hold
the
door
open
for
mother
and
child
at
the
end
of
the
proceeding.
Evelyn
resides
primarily
with
her
mother.
Her
day-to-day
life
—
school,
doctor's
appointments,
extracurricular
activities,
community,
church
—
will
unfold
in
the
orbit
of
her
mother
and
her
half-siblings.
2
Having
the
child
share
her
mother's
surname
will
lessen
confusion
as
the
mother
carries
out
her
day-today
parenting
responsibilities
and
will
alleviate
the
need
to
repeatedly
explain
her
role
to
teachers,
medical
providers,
and
others.
3
The
applicant's
argument
is
framed
entirely
around
the
child's
paternal
lineage,
with
no
acknowledgment
of
the
equal
claim
the
child's
maternal
side
of
the
family
and
identity
has
on
her
sense
of
self
and
belonging.
The
mother's
present
surname
—
Kyne
—
is
the
operative
family
surname
in
the
household
in
which
Evelyn
will
primarily
be
raised.
To
prioritize
one
parent's
surname
over
the
other's,
when
the
child
primarily
resides
with
that
other
parent,
is
not
a
neutral
act
in
the
service
of
the
child's
identity.
It
is
the
imposition
of
the
applicant's
own
interest
in
paternal
recognition.
Kyne
v.
Ehima,
Not
Reported
in
Atl.
Rptr.
(2026)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
3
The
applicant
further
argues
that
Kyne
is
not
truly
the
mother's
name
—
it
is
the
surname
of
her
former
husband
—
and
that
the
name
therefore
carries
no
legitimate
claim
on
the
child's
identity.
The
Court
wholeheartedly
rejects
that
framing.
The
mother
retained
the
name
Kyne
as
a
deliberate
choice,
in
part
to
maintain
a
cohesive
household
surname
shared
with
her
children
from
her
prior
marriage.
It
is
telling
that
she
chose
not
to
take
the
applicant's
name
upon
their
own
marriage,
seemingly
for
that
reason.
That
is
her
right.
The
child's
household
is
a
Kyne
household.
The
claim
that
the
name
is
an
embarrassment
because
the
former
husband
has
left
the
country
and
owes
child
support
is
an
argument
about
the
mother's
personal
history,
not
about
Evelyn's
identity
or
welfare.
*3
The
applicant
further
contends
that
the
child's
surname
should
have
automatically
matched
his
upon
her
birth,
given
that
the
parties
were
still
legally
married,
and
that
the
mother's
deliberate
choice
to
name
the
child
Kyne
was
an
act
of
societal
deception
reflecting
on
her
integrity.
The
Court
also
declines
to
engage
with
that
framing.
There
is
no
requirement
in
Connecticut
that
a
child
must
bear
the
father's
surname
prior
to
the
finalization
of
a
dissolution.
What
matters
is
what
name
best
serves
this
child's
interests
going
forward
—
not
what
the
father
believes
he
was
entitled
to
at
her
birth.
Critically,
the
father's
connection
to
this
child
is
already
preserved
in
her
name.
His
surname,
Ehima,
is
the
child's
middle
name.
4
The
mother
did
not
erase
the
father
when
naming
the
child
—
she
incorporated
him.
The
applicant
dismisses
this,
arguing
that
a
middle
name
is
not
significant
and
does
not
provide
adequate
recognition.
The
Court
disagrees.
What
the
middle
name
reflects
is
that
this
mother,
in
the
midst
of
contentious
litigation,
nonetheless
chose
to
honor
the
father's
place
in
the
child's
identity.
That
is
not
nothing.
It
is,
in
fact,
precisely
the
kind
of
co-parenting
orientation
the
December
31
decision
was
designed
to
encourage,
and
that
the
mother
was
already
engaged
in.
The
mother
testified
that
everyone
in
her
nuclear
family
shares
the
surname
Kyne
and
that
continuity
matters
to
her
and
to
the
children.
She
offered
a
family
Christmas
card
and
referenced
the
Disney
World
welcome
screen
both
identifying
the
family
as
“the
Kynes.”
That
is
the
family
in
which
Evelyn
lives
and
will
be
raised.
The
Court
finds
this
persuasive.
The
Court
also
observes
the
context
in
which
this
petition
was
brought.
It
was
drafted
on
January
8,
2026
—
one
week
after
Judge
Egan
declined
to
find
good
cause
to
change
the
child's
name.
The
applicant
filed
a
motion
to
reconsider
in
that
matter
and
withdrew
it.
He
then
filed
this
petition
in
April
2026,
alongside
a
motion
for
contempt
arising
from
the
Kyne
family
vacation.
The
chronology
does
not
suggest
a
parent
focused
on
his
daughter's
welfare.
It
suggests
a
parent
using
the
legal
process
as
an
instrument
of
ongoing
conflict.
That
is
not
a
purpose
this
Court
will
serve.
A
surname
does
not
make
a
parent.
What
builds
a
child's
relationship
with
her
father
is
consistency,
presence
and
love.
The
parenting
plan
set
forth
in
the
dissolution
case
provides
a
structured
growing
path
to
exactly
that
relationship.
The
Court
encourages
the
father
to
spend
his
efforts
there.
As
to
this
specific
issue,
however,
the
applicant
has
not
demonstrated,
by
a
fair
preponderance
of
the
evidence,
that
changing
the
child's
surname
from
Kyne
to
Ehima
would
promote
her
best
welfare.
ORDER
ON
APPLICATION
The
application
for
change
of
surname
of
the
minor
child
Evelyn
Ehima
Kyne
is
DENIED.
AS
TO
THE
MOTION
FOR
CONTEMPT
The
defendant
father,
OWEN
EHIMA,
moves
for
an
order
of
contempt
against
the
plaintiff
mother,
ERICA
KYNE,
alleging
two
violations
of
the
December
31,
2025
Memorandum
of
Decision:
first,
that
she
took
the
minor
child
on
an
out-of-state
family
vacation
without
his
consent,
causing
him
to
miss
one
scheduled
Saturday
parenting
visit;
and
second,
that
she
unilaterally
selected
a
childcare
provider
without
consulting
him
and
has
submitted
fraudulent
or
unverifiable
expense
reimbursement
requests
in
connection
with
that
provider.
Kyne
v.
Ehima,
Not
Reported
in
Atl.
Rptr.
(2026)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
4
DISCUSSION
OF
LAW
AND
FACTS
*4
A
finding
of
contempt
requires
proof
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
of
three
elements:
(1)
a
clear
court
order;
(2)
a
violation
of
that
specific
order;
and
(3)
willful
noncompliance
—
that
is,
that
the
party
had
the
ability
to
comply
but
failed
to
do
so
without
excuse.
Even
a
party
who
disagrees
with
a
court
order
must
comply
with
it
until
it
has
been
modified
or
successfully
challenged.
The
Court
must
look
at
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
alleged
contempt
and,
even
if
it
does
not
make
a
finding
of
contempt,
the
Court
can
fashion
remedial
orders
to
effectuate
its
judgment.
The
Disney
Vacation
The
December
31,
2025
parenting
plan
provides
that
neither
party
shall
relocate
the
child's
residence
from
the
State
of
Connecticut
without
written
agreement
of
the
parties
or
further
order
of
the
court,
and
that
either
party
intending
to
change
residence
to
a
location
greater
than
twenty-five
miles
from
the
other
party
must
give
ninety
days
written
notice.
The
plan
also
provides
that
trips
away
from
home
without
a
parent
involving
overnight
stays
or
leaving
the
state
require
joint
legal
custody
consultation
as
doing
so
is
a
significant,
non-routine
matter.
The
defendant
cites
this
portion
of
the
Decision
as
the
basis
for
his
contempt
claim.
However,
the
decision
to
take
the
child
to
Disney
World
did
not
involve
a
relocation
nor
travel
out
of
the
state,
overnight
without
a
parent
.
On
March
25,
2026
—
the
morning
of
the
trip
—
the
mother
notified
the
father
via
AppClose
that
she
was
traveling
with
the
child
to
Disney
World
from
that
day
through
Sunday.
The
father
missed
his
scheduled
Saturday
library
visit
as
a
result.
He
subsequently
contacted
law
enforcement
and
reported
the
child
missing,
despite
having
been
clearly
told
the
child
was
not
missing
but
was
in
Disney
World.
The
Court
does
not
find
the
mother
in
willful
contempt
on
this
issue.
The
existing
Orders
do
not
consider
decisions
relating
to
family
trips
with
a
parent
present
as
a
decision
requiring
joint
custodial
involvement.
To
be
clear,
however,
parents
SHOULD
communicate
vacations
with
the
other
parent
in
a
timely
basis
and
consent
should
not
be
unreasonably
withheld.
She
acknowledges
she
should
have
provided
notice
earlier
and
understands
that
obligation
now.
The
trip
was
a
family
vacation,
the
destination
was
disclosed,
and
the
father
had
actual
knowledge
that
the
child
was
in
Florida
at
a
family
theme
park
—
not
missing.
His
decision
to
contact
law
enforcement
under
those
circumstances
was
an
escalation
inconsistent
with
good
faith
co-parenting.
The
mother
has
offered
make-up
parenting
time
for
the
missed
Saturday
visit,
which
the
Court
finds
an
appropriate
offer,
although
it
is
not
ordering
it.
The
motion
for
contempt
on
this
ground
is
denied.
The
Court
directs
that,
in
the
future,
out-of-state
travel
notice
shall
be
provided
at
least
seven
days
in
advance
absent
an
emergency,
and
that
any
such
travel
shall
not
unreasonably
interfere
with
the
other
parent's
scheduled
parenting
time.
Where
a
conflict
is
unavoidable,
make-up
time
shall
be
provided.
The
Childcare
Provider
The
father
alleges
that
the
mother
unilaterally
selected
a
childcare
provider
—
a
neighbor
named
Anayeli
Texis
—
without
consulting
him,
and
that
her
Venmo
payments
to
this
individual
constitute
fraudulent
or
unverifiable
requests
for
expense
reimbursement.
5
*5
The
Court
reviewed
the
December
31,
2025
Memorandum
of
Decision
carefully.
The
nanny
arrangement
was
not
new
at
the
time
of
trial
—
it
was
in
place
and
was
specifically
addressed.
The
Decision
ordered
the
father
to
reimburse
the
mother
for
childcare
expenses
incurred
to
the
nanny
as
of
the
time
of
trial,
and
expressly
listed
“day
care
providers,
including
after
school
and
summer
camp
programs”
as
matters
subject
to
joint
legal
custody
consultation
for,
as
implied
in
the
Decision,
new
selections.
The
mother
did
not
make
a
new
selection.
She
continued
the
arrangement
that
was
before
the
Court
and
that
the
Court
incorporated
into
its
financial
orders.
Kyne
v.
Ehima,
Not
Reported
in
Atl.
Rptr.
(2026)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
5
The
father
brought
no
evidence
that
the
care
Evelyn
is
receiving
is
in
any
way
inadequate,
neglectful,
or
harmful.
The
Venmo
records
submitted
as
exhibits
by
the
mother
(nothing
was
presented
by
the
father)
show
payments
identified
as
“Care
for
Evelyn
Week
of
[date]”
—
clear,
contemporaneous
documentation
of
childcare
expenses.
The
assertion
that
these
payments
constitute
fraud
is
not
supported
by
any
evidence.
The
father's
implication
in
his
AppClose
messages
that
the
mother
should
simply
be
happy
with
the
child
support
she
receives
because
she
is
“evil”
does
not
bolster
his
credibility
on
this
issue.
The
motion
for
contempt
on
this
ground
is
denied.
The
mother
is
working,
has
arranged
for
qualified
childcare
assistance
during
her
working
hours,
and
has
acted
in
accordance
with
the
Court's
December
31
orders.
The
father
is
responsible
for
38%
of
work-related
childcare
expenses
and
shall
reimburse
the
mother
within
thirty
days
of
each
submission.
The
Father's
Cancellations
The
mother
presented
testimony
reflecting
that
since
December
31,
2025,
the
father
has
cancelled
five
Saturday
in-person
visits:
January
16,
February
6,
February
20,
March
6,
and
April
18.
He
attributes
these
cancellations
to
weather
and
medical
appointments
but
offered
no
documentation
(the
mother
provided
his
AppClose
cancellation
of
the
April
18
visit).
The
Court
notes
this
pattern.
The
father
is
before
the
Court
alleging
that
a
one-week
family
vacation
interfered
with
his
parenting
relationship
with
Evelyn
(especially
since
he
only
had
one
day
notice
of
the
vacation
and
only
a
few
day
notice
that
his
Saturday
visitation
would
not
occur)
while
simultaneously
having
missed
five
of
his
own
scheduled
Saturday
visits
in
approximately
four
months,
with
less
notice
to
the
mother
of
his
cancellations
than
she
gave
him.
The
Court
declines
to
find
the
mother
in
contempt
for
the
one
Saturday
visit
affected
by
the
Disney
trip
in
light
of
the
father's
own
pattern
of
cancellations
and
the
absence
of
any
showing
of
willfulness.
Both
parties
are
reminded
that
consistent,
reliable
parenting
time
—
not
litigation
—
is
what
builds
a
child's
relationship
with
her
parents.
ORDER
The
motion
for
contempt
is
DENIED
on
both
grounds.
The
parties
are
ordered
to
comply
with
the
following
additional
Orders:
1.
Out-of-state
travel
shall
be
preceded
by
at
least
seven
days
written
notice
via
AppClose
absent
emergency
circumstances.
Any
travel
that
conflicts
with
the
other
parent's
scheduled
parenting
time
shall
result
in
make-up
time
to
be
scheduled
within
thirty
days.
2.
The
existing
childcare
arrangement
with
Anayeli
Texis
is
approved.
The
father
shall
reimburse
38%
of
work-related
childcare
expenses
within
thirty
days
of
monthly
submission
by
the
mother.
3.
Both
parties
are
reminded
of
their
obligation
to
complete
co-parenting
counseling
as
ordered
December
31,
2025
(Page
19,
¶II.I.).
The
Court
expects
compliance
and
the
Clerk's
office
is
instructed
to
not
schedule
any
non-emergency
motions
for
adjudication
unless
the
filer
has
submitted
said
Certification.
*6
4.
Both
parties
are
reminded
that
the
Court
may
consider
a
party's
pattern
of
litigation
conduct,
including
the
filing
of
motions
in
bad
faith
or
as
instruments
of
conflict,
when
evaluating
future
requests
for
relief.
All
Citations
Not
Reported
in
Atl.
Rptr.,
2026
WL
1330009
Footnotes
Kyne
v.
Ehima,
Not
Reported
in
Atl.
Rptr.
(2026)
WESTLAW
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
6
1
In
an
attempt
to
further
understand
the
father's
arguments,
the
Court
attempted
to
review
his
pleadings
from
the
dissolution
case.
The
cases
he
cites
for
some
of
his
propositions,
such
as
“In
re
David
W.,
58
Conn.App.
237
(2000)”
and
“In
re
Marriage
of
Doyle,
190
Conn.
748
(1983)”,
do
not
exist
and
are
likely
artificial
intelligence
hallucinations.
2
The
child
resides
with
two
half-siblings,
ages
ten
and
eleven,
who
also
bear
the
surname
Kyne.
Kyne
v.
Ehima
,
Memorandum
of
Decision
at
2
(Dec.
31,
2025,
Egan,
J.).
The
mother's
surname
is
therefore
the
operative
family
surname
in
the
household
in
which
Evelyn
will
be
raised.
3
See
Androvic
v.
Allen
,
Superior
Court,
J.D.
of
Stamford-Norwalk,
Docket
No.
FST-CV-22-6055658-S
(Aug.
7,
2023,
Golger,
J.)
(primary
custodian
having
her
name
match
the
child's
will
lessen
confusion
as
she
carries
out
her
parenting
responsibilities);
Gillette
v.
Schroeder
,
Superior
Court,
J.D.
of
New
London,
Docket
No.
FA-10-4112725
(Feb.
24,
2010,
Shluger,
J.).,
(same,
on
nearly
identical
facts).
4
The
December
31,
2025
Memorandum
of
Decision
expressly
noted
that
the
father's
surname
is
the
child's
middle
name.
Kyne
v.
Ehima.
supra
,
at
12.
That
Decision
also
denied
the
father's
then-pending
request
to
change
the
child's
surname
on
the
merits,
finding
no
good
cause.
5
The
nanny,
Anayeli
Texis,
is
identified
by
name
in
the
Venmo
payment
records
submitted
as
a
plaintiff's
exhibit.
The
payments
are
denominated
‘Care
for
Evelyn
Week
of
[date]’
and
are
consistent
in
amount
and
timing
with
the
childcare
expenses
the
mother
has
been
seeking
reimbursement
for
under
the
father's
38%
obligation.
End
of
Document
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access