filed by Bailey. The first indicates that Bailey’s net monthly income was $1,200 while the second indicates that Bailey’s net monthly income was $970.51. When asked whether he had any extraordinary bills or anything else that would affect his ability to pay child support, Bailey answered in the negative, but added that he had “rotten credit and bad debts.” Bailey testified that he was “more than willing to pay child support regardless of where it leaves me.” Bailey testified that he was leasing a new Toyota truck at a cost of $400 per month. This evidence, taken as a whole, indicates that the child has needed support since the date Bardin filed the petition for support, and that Bailey has had the ability to pay. Indeed, the trial court ordered current child support payments ba 962)(<HOLDING>). Although we reverse the trial court’s order
holding that custody should not be changed unless conditions have altered since the decree was rendered or material facts existed at the time of the decree but were unknown to the court and then only for the welfare of the child holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the surname of the child where the court made factual findings that the name change would be in the best interest of the child holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child holding that the trial court abused its discretion in changing the surname of the child and explaining that the mere fact that paternity has been established does not automatically entitle the father to insist the child be given his surname holding that a minors surname may be changed only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfare of the minor