Monge v. Couri — Illinois appeals court orders daughter’s surname changed to Couri

Case
Molly Ann Monge, n/k/a Molly Schleeter v. Timothy M. Couri
Court
Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District
Judge
Justice Zenoff; Presiding Justice Steigmann; Justice Doherty
Date Decided
August 18, 2026
Docket No.
4-25-1373
Topics
Child name change; Family law; Best interests; Appellate review
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Molly Ann Monge and Timothy M. Couri are the unmarried parents of Madelyn, who was born in 2010. A 2013 parenting order denied Couri’s earlier request to change Madelyn’s surname from Monge to Couri. In 2024, Madelyn moved from her mother’s home to live primarily with Couri in Peoria and began attending Peoria Notre Dame High School.

At age 15, Madelyn testified that she had wanted to use Couri for years, did not share a surname with either parent, and wanted to identify with her father and his large extended family in Peoria. The guardian ad litem recommended the change. Her mother opposed it, asserting that Madelyn was too young and that Couri had pressured her. The trial court found Couri had presented good reasons but denied the request, concluding he had not met the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.

The Court’s Holding

The Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed. It held that the denial was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the statutory best-interest factors clearly and convincingly supported changing Madelyn’s surname to Couri.

Madelyn’s mature, consistent preference deserved substantial weight, particularly because there was no finding that her father pressured her. The court held that the trial court improperly focused on the potential emotional effect on Madelyn’s mother rather than evidence of Madelyn’s best interests. There was no evidence that the name change would harm the mother-daughter relationship beyond the mother’s anticipated disappointment.

Key Takeaways

  • A minor’s surname may be changed only upon clear and convincing evidence that the change is necessary to serve the child’s best interests.
  • A mature teenager’s sustained and unpressured preference may carry great weight in the best-interest analysis.
  • A parent’s opposition or emotional disappointment, without evidence of harm to the child, does not justify denying a name-change request.

Why It Matters

The decision emphasizes that a child-name-change dispute turns on the child’s interests, not on preserving either parent’s preferred surname. It also confirms that a trial court’s discretionary assessment may be reversed where the record unmistakably supports the requested change.

The appellate court remanded with directions to grant Couri’s motion to change Madelyn’s surname.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top