issue should ordinarily be resolved against the party having the burden of proof, the proponent of change.” Collinsworth, 508 So.2d at 747. Bailey, as the party seeking to change the child’s surname, bore the burden of proof to show that the change would be in the child’s best interest. Bailey, however, offered no evidence that a change in the child’s surname would be in the best interest of the child. Accordingly, this portion of the order is reversed with instructions to reinstate the child’s original surname. See also, Levine v. Best, 595 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(hold-ing, in an adjudication of paternity, that the standard to be applied in determining whether to change a child’s surname is the best interest standard); Durham v. McNair, 659 So.2d 1291, 1292-93 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(<HOLDING>); Jones v. Roberts, 559 So.2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA
recognizing that a trial court must make a finding that the timesharing schedule is in the childs best interests holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of 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 that a minors surname may be changed only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfare of the minor 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