*lifeoftheparty* Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Have you guys seen this story?I am shocked that a judge thinks that this is legal! I mean, I'm a Christian, but I would never in a million years presume to tell someone that they can't name their baby "Messiah". What about all the the Hispanic people named "Jesus"? It's just crazy!! Baby can't be named Messiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 So, no more Earl, Deacon, Dean, Caesar, Sargent, Justice or Queenie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Next thing you know, they will be trying to outlaw perfectly fine names, like Apple, Blue Ivy, Jermajesty, and North West. :rolleyes: FWIW, all legality aside, I think Messiah is an awful baby name. Don't parents ever ask themselves how that name will affect their child as he grows up? My feeling is that if a parent absolutely loves a ridiculous name, he or she should change their own name to that, and spare their poor kid a lifetime of mocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvnlattes Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I was pretty surprised when I read that too. I have a feeling it will be overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*lifeoftheparty* Posted August 12, 2013 Author Share Posted August 12, 2013 Next thing you know, they will be trying to outlaw perfectly fine names, like Apple, Blue Ivy, Jermajesty, and North West. :rolleyes: FWIW, all legality aside, I think Messiah is an awful baby name. Don't parents ever ask themselves how that name will affect their child as he grows up? My feeling is that if a parent absolutely loves a ridiculous name, he or she should change their own name to that, and spare their poor kid a lifetime of mocking. Yes, I feel the same way. I found myself rolling my eyes at the mom, but then I just couldn't believe that judge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 "Messiah is reserved only for Jesus." What ?!?! JESUS isn't even reserved only for Jesus. Sheesh. Talk about a god-complex. That judge had no right to do that. It was none of her business and she deserves any public ridicule that comes her way. How do you get out of law school without some inkling that the world is bigger than your back yard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Next thing you know, they will be trying to outlaw perfectly fine names, like Apple, Blue Ivy, Jermajesty, and North West. :rolleyes: FWIW, all legality aside, I think Messiah is an awful baby name. Don't parents ever ask themselves how that name will affect their child as he grows up? My feeling is that if a parent absolutely loves a ridiculous name, he or she should change their own name to that, and spare their poor kid a lifetime of mocking. I imagine he'll get no more ridicule than a kid named Jesus or Mohammed. I wouldn't choose it for my children because I'm just a conservative kid-namer, but it's not even close to the worst name I've ever heard for a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Wasn't there a thread recently linking an article about some other country's laws about baby naming, listing those that could not be given? In an odd way, it made sense. I was surprised to find this linked article referred to a case in the US, where freedom of expression reigns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeghanL Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 When you go before a judge because you can't agree on a name, then the judge gets to decide. The parents didn't agree on a name and then the judge changed it. I don't really see how the parents can complain when they went before him voluntarily to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Maybe the judge was showing a little foresight, considering the kid's nickname would likely be "Messy." Can't have anyone locked into that kind of low esteem stigma, eh? (end facetious font) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 while I agree about the popularity of jesus in the Hispanic community (and am rolling my eyes at this latest one) - there is precedent for a judge telling people to change the child's name even in the US. the most recent one that comes to mind are the skinhead couple who named their child Adolph hitler. they also lost custody of the baby. in the UK - a couple were not allowed to legally name their daughter "princess", they were told they could call her that if they wanted, but it couldn't be her legal name. I've seen many a doctor while doing family history. though they seem to be from the 19th century. doctor was their given name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzybluecheese Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 When you go before a judge because you can't agree on a name, then the judge gets to decide. The parents didn't agree on a name and then the judge changed it. I don't really see how the parents can complain when they went before him voluntarily to begin with. But it was the LAST name the parent's couldn't agree on. No one asked her about the first name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 When you go before a judge because you can't agree on a name, then the judge gets to decide. The parents didn't agree on a name and then the judge changed it. I don't really see how the parents can complain when they went before him voluntarily to begin with. According to the link, the name they couldn't agree on was the surname: NBC station WBIR reported that the parents of the 7-month-old went to a child support hearing in Cocke County Chancery Court because they could not agree on his surname. However, Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew decided Thursday that the baby, Messiah DeShawn Martin, should be renamed “Martin DeShawn McCullough.†“The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ,†Ballew said, according to WBIR-TV. The reason "Messiah" was changed to "Martin" is for personal, religious reasons, unbecoming a representative of a secular government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeghanL Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 When you go before a judge though, they get to change all kinds of things. They look at the whole situation. You could go to a judge to ask for more child support...and since you are in front of them they can change all kinds of parts of the custody agreement. I don't see this as any different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 When you go before a judge though, they get to change all kinds of things. They look at the whole situation. You could go to a judge to ask for more child support...and since you are in front of them they can change all kinds of parts of the custody agreement. I don't see this as any different. The difference is the reason for the change - personal religious belief. The given name, "Messiah" was not a problem for the parents (as I understand), but was changed because it offended the judge on a personal level. In the United States, legal decisions are expected to be secular in nature, regardless of the religious belief of the representative. In other words, the representative of the government (in this case the judge) can believe this very sincerely, but not use that personal believe to act professionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrairieSong Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 When you go before a judge though, they get to change all kinds of things. They look at the whole situation. You could go to a judge to ask for more child support...and since you are in front of them they can change all kinds of parts of the custody agreement. I don't see this as any different. I think it's different in this case. The judge is using his own personal beliefs (and I am a Christian) to influence the decision. I think Messiah is an odd name and I wouldn't want to do that to a child, but really? The judge gets to decide this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeghanL Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Plus it actually seems to be in keeping with the original complaint. The first name is Martin (one of the surnames) and McCullough is the new surname. Yes, Messiah was gotten rid of and whatever the judges personal preference was seems to be moot. If he had changed the name to Jeremy for no apparent reason, that would be odd. The dispute was so bad it ended up in front of a judge! That is the part that would have me upset. Not the judge creating a compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Plus it actually seems to be in keeping with the original complaint. The first name is Martin (one of the surnames) and McCullough is the new surname. Yes, Messiah was gotten rid of and whatever the judges personal preference was seems to be moot. If he had changed the name to Jeremy for no apparent reason, that would be odd. The dispute was so bad it ended up in front of a judge! That is the part that would have me upset. Not the judge creating a compromise. I'm not sure what you mean by "the judge's personal preference seems to be moot." The judge preferred the name "Messiah" not be used as the given name of a child. That stands, for now. Imagine if you went before a judge for a speeding ticket and the judge found you in contempt and had to pay a $200 fine for not covering your hair as his Muslim faith demands. It's like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 If I don't like the judge's name, can I make her change it? Because I think her name should be reserved exclusively for Baloo, the bear from The Jungle Book. And what makes it even worse is that the judge's name is spelled b-a-l-l-e-w, which is clearly wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvnlattes Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Plus it actually seems to be in keeping with the original complaint. The first name is Martin (one of the surnames) and McCullough is the new surname. I don't believe that it's part of the original complaint. They couldn't agree on the surname, which is the "family name or the name that a person has in common with other family members." It doesn't appear there was any disagreement with regard to the first name so I don't see how the judge could force that to be changed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stratford Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 There are plenty of other names I would ban before this one.....I don't think this will stand an appeal. FWIW, I knew a kid named Messiah. He was a perfectly normal, nice kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjand6more Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I feel so sad for this child. Not about his name, but that his mommy and daddy can't even decide on a last name for him. This is indicative of his future. :( Aside from that, we do not know that the father did not ask the judge to consider a first name change. She did make a compromise with the name, but I do not think she should have considered her personal religious beliefs when doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planner Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 The judge has overstepped her authority. While it is not a name I'd choose, I fully support the right of a parent to name a child whatever they desire. Besides, the first name was not the contested issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smfmommy Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Some parents don't seem to think and some judges seem to think they are a Higher Power. Both need a good dose of common sense in my opinion. Not completely related but this made me think of a story in the book Catch 22. The child's surname was Major. So the father thought it funny to name the child Major - thus Major Major. After getting into the army some computer (according to the author) decided to raise his rank to Major - thus he was Major Major Major. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandylubug Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Yikes! I think it is setting the child up to be bullied and a potential victim of a hate crime by loonies but I don't know if I think our government has that authority. Especially since her reasonings were based on religious reasons. I don't believe a government should dictate my religious beliefs nor push their own upon me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 It made my stomach turn, but assuming she doesn't get tossed by judicial ethics board, she'll get re-elected by a landslide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeslieAnneLevine Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I feel so sad for this child. Not about his name, but that his mommy and daddy can't even decide on a last name for him. This is indicative of his future. :( Aside from that, we do not know that the father did not ask the judge to consider a first name change. She did make a compromise with the name, but I do not think she should have considered her personal religious beliefs when doing so. It's not that they couldn't decide--they couldn't agree. One might have suggested a hyphenated name but the other refused. Some people are so set on having everything exactly their way that it comes down to fighting it in court (unless the other person just lets them have the final say on everything). The kid might have one very stubborn parent and another perfectly pleasant one. That doesn't doom him to a life of misery. If the father had asked the judge to change the first name that would have been in the article. It's public record--it's not as if the father can have a quiet word with the judge before the hearing. The judge didn't make a compromise with the name; she chose the father's surname and then changed the first name. The mother goes by the last name of Martin--I don't see how it's a great solution for her child to have that as his first name. I'm glad the judge made her reasoning behind the change clear because it should make it easier for the mother to appeal the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjand6more Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 It's not that they couldn't decide--they couldn't agree. One might have suggested a hyphenated name but the other refused. Some people are so set on having everything exactly their way that it comes down to fighting it in court (unless the other person just lets them have the final say on everything). The kid might have one very stubborn parent and another perfectly pleasant one. That doesn't doom him to a life of misery. If the father had asked the judge to change the first name that would have been in the article. It's public record--it's not as if the father can have a quiet word with the judge before the hearing. The judge didn't make a compromise with the name; she chose the father's surname and then changed the first name. The mother goes by the last name of Martin--I don't see how it's a great solution for her child to have that as his first name. I'm glad the judge made her reasoning behind the change clear because it should make it easier for the mother to appeal the decision. Well, you must have read the entire court transcript. I did not. I confess I only read the article. Having limited domestic court experience, I do know that the judge listens to parents before making decisions. Perhaps the father had concerns(or maybe not...I did not read the entire transcript) that he brought up during the hearing. It was a child support hearing. I assume his parents are not together. I was divorced and have a child from that marriage. I also have many friends who have terrible relationships with their ex-spouses. I am so blessed to have a long-time good relationship with my ex. Really, I feel for this child who is caught with parents who can't "agree" on a name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 The judge overstepped in a very noxious way based on personal religious belief. The parents needed a ruling on surname, not on the child's first name. This judge abused discretion in a very unprofessional way. I hope the parents can appeal, it will likely be successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airforcefamily Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Just as another interesting point.... The name Messiah is not all that uncommon. In 2012 there were 762 babies named Messiah in the United States. This is per the social security baby name index. My personal opinion aside, it's not some completely fringe name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Just as another interesting point.... The name Messiah is not all that uncommon. In 2012 there were 762 babies named Messiah in the United States. This is per the social security baby name index. SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Don't tell Judge Ballew!!! :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeslieAnneLevine Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Well, you must have read the entire court transcript. I did not. I confess I only read the article. Having limited domestic court experience, I do know that the judge listens to parents before making decisions. Perhaps the father had concerns(or maybe not...I did not read the entire transcript) that he brought up during the hearing. It was a child support hearing. I assume his parents are not together. I was divorced and have a child from that marriage. I also have many friends who have terrible relationships with their ex-spouses. I am so blessed to have a long-time good relationship with my ex. Really, I feel for this child who is caught with parents who can't "agree" on a name. My point was that it might not be "parents" that are the problem, but one parent. It only takes one to cause problems. Of course I didn't read the transcript, but this would hardly be news if one of the parents asked for the name change--and the father could not have done that in secret. Instead the judge took personal offense to the name and changed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harriet Vane Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Though I am Christian, the judge has overstepped her bounds legally. Her decision was inappropriate and should be overturned. Not that I like that particular name for a baby. Far from it. An acquaintance of mine named their first child, "Demon." Yes, you read that correctly. At his first birthday party they had demon-themed party favors (pointy-ears, tail, pitchforks . . .). I have always felt sorry for that child, but I respect the right of his idiotic parents to name him. I also respect his right to choose a better name as an adult and get it legally changed (poor kid). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjand6more Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 My point was that it might not be "parents" that are the problem, but one parent. It only takes one to cause problems. Of course I didn't read the transcript, but this would hardly be news if one of the parents asked for the name change--and the father could not have done that in secret. Instead the judge took personal offense to the name and changed it. I don't disagree. However, I have learned to reserve scrutiny until the WHOLE truth is revealed. Sadly, the media jumps into things like this with both feet WITHOUT all the information. It's just more exciting and gets people all excited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Nyssa Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I don't think it's the greatest name, myself, but in this country we have the freedom to decide these things for ourselves. I'm sure the ruling will be overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I think it's a bad choice to name your kid that. As a Christian I think it's annoying. But it's a gross overstepping of government to have a judge decide what a parent can or can't name their child. Wasn't there some case in recent years where parents named their child Adolph Hitler? Anyone remember how that turned out legally? There is no shortage of idiots in the world-most of the are fertile. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*lifeoftheparty* Posted August 12, 2013 Author Share Posted August 12, 2013 They did show the judge on the news today, being interviewed and she expressly said that she believes, "Messiah is a title, and only one person has ever earned that title, and that is Jesus Christ." That's all I remember b/c at that point my jaw hit the floor and I had to pick it up ;) So, it doesn't appear to be a case of the dad wanting it changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I know a handful of boys named Messiah. I also know one named Noble King David (yes, he is called that whole mouthful by his mom- not Noble or King or David but "Noble King David" as a first name. I would not name my son that but having it changed by court order is way over the line. The Adolph Hitler couple lost their child due to drugs and illegal activity by the parents (skinheads are not exactly a stable bunch), not because they tried to name him Alolph Hitler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 ... Trying ... to ... stay off ... Chat ... Board.... So is this woman actually even a judge, in the sense most people mean by it? The article says she's a "magistrate" in the county "Chancery Court," whatever that is. You don't even have to have a law degree for that position: it's apparently a kind of elected county office called "civilian judge." The appeal won't even be to a real court - it's to the county "Chancellor"; again, whatever that is. Is there any reason at all to think this "judge" has any legal training? ETA: My favorite is the New Mexico case where Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon, having successfully changed his name to Variable, was denied his Free Expression right to change his name again, this time to F**k Censorship! (exclamation point included; asterisks not), presumably confirming in him the very sentiment which he wished his new name to express. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheBrink Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Wow..hard to believe. You can name your kid Blanket, Version 2.0, but not Messiah? Blanket wasn't his legal name; it was a nickname. His name is actually Prince Michael Jackson II. Not that that's much better. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Chancery is an old-fashioned name for a court which has the power to order actions "in equity" or based on fairness, rather than grant money awards for lawsuits. Things like injunctions, divorce and child support matters, name changes, and restraining orders may fall to a chancery or equity court. And Chancellor is a similar old-fashioned English-law derived term for a judge. Most states have united the law and chancery courts into a single court, but a few of the oldest states retain the distinction for lower level courts. Elected judicial positions in many places do not require a law background. The Justice of the Peace in my hometown in Texas, for example, used to be principal of my elementary school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzybluecheese Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Blanket wasn't his legal name; it was a nickname. His name is actually Prince Michael Jackson II. Not that that's much better. LOL As long as it wasn't Prince of Peace, then that's ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 When you go before a judge because you can't agree on a name, then the judge gets to decide. The parents didn't agree on a name and then the judge changed it. I don't really see how the parents can complain when they went before him voluntarily to begin with. Did not read entire thread yet, but just wanted to point out.. The couple could not agree on a LAST name, they did agree on the first name. Personally I think it's all stupid. Why couldn't they have just left their kid named only Messiah? No last name required. Not the name I'd choose for me kid, but that's why I have my own kids. The only thing our government cares about is the social security number anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten18 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 They did show the judge on the news today, being interviewed and she expressly said that she believes, "Messiah is a title, and only one person has ever earned that title, and that is Jesus Christ." That's all I remember b/c at that point my jaw hit the floor and I had to pick it up ;) So, it doesn't appear to be a case of the dad wanting it changed. Wow...speechless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Chancery is an old-fashioned name for a court which has the power to order actions "in equity" or based on fairness, rather than grant money awards for lawsuits. Things like injunctions, divorce and child support matters, name changes, and restraining orders may fall to a chancery or equity court. And Chancellor is a similar old-fashioned English-law derived term for a judge. Most states have united the law and chancery courts into a single court, but a few of the oldest states retain the distinction for lower level courts. Elected judicial positions in many places do not require a law background. The Justice of the Peace in my hometown in Texas, for example, used to be principal of my elementary school. Thanks for the info. I'd bet your principal had a much better grasp of the Establishment Clause than this magistrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicAnn Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 It's not even a newborn. The poor thing is 7 months old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilaclady Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I don't think the name is that far outvthere that it needs changing and the judges reasons are out of line. I feel sad for the ou though if his parents can't agree on a name that hey have to resort to going to the court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.