But to the boy — and to most other people who come across him and his mother and his siblings — “Newcomer” is not primarily the last name of the boy’s mother’s ex-husband; it is the last name of the boy’s mother. It makes no sense, I think, to frame the dispute as “the name of a man with whom he has no affiliation” vs. “the father who loves and cares for him.” Rather, the dispute is “the name of the mother who loves and cares for him” vs. “the father who loves and cares for him.” ...No, the ex-husband was born Newcomer, into a family of Newcomers. The mom was not born a Newcomer, and just assumed that name while married to a Newcomer.
wpReader15: I think your post highlights the problem. Amanda Newcomer and her two other children are as much Newcomers as her ex-husband or ex-husband's paternal grandfather. She is a person with that name, with a family that bears that name. Her son is thus part of that family.
Now he is not part of a patrilineal multigenerational birth-linked family named Newcomer. But why should the court focus on that, rather than on the Newcomer who is actually raising him, and whose Newcomer-named children are being raised with him?
Using the dad's name for the child is a sensible tradition that has gone on for millennia. It helps tie the dad to the child. Using another man's name is not.
Volokh is demonstrating cuck thinking here.