With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on Bailey’s current net income, of $970.51 per month, an amount lower than his former monthly net income of $1,200 per month. We remand this issue to the trial court with instructions to calculate and award retroactive child support to the date Bardin filed her counter-petition for support, based upon the child’s needs and Bailey’s ability to pay. III. Change of the Child’s Surname. The trial court changed the child’s legal surname from Bardin to Bailey despite the fact that Bailey offered no evidence that the change was in the best interests of the child. This court, in Collinsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), held that the change of a child’s surname to that of the father, based only on a finding of paternity, is error. The Collinsworth court explained CA 1997)(<HOLDING>); Lazow v. Lazow, 147 So.2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA

A: 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
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child
A.