The Final Break: Bijou Phillips Moves to Erase Danny Masterson's Name from Daughter's Identity
In a powerful move signifying a final, definitive break from her convicted ex-husband, actor and model Bijou Phillips (45) has filed a dramatic petition in California Superior Court. The objective is clear: legally changing her daughter’s surname from Fianna Francis Masterson to Fianna Francis Phillips. This latest legal action, filed on Friday, October 24, 2025, follows the recent finalization of her divorce and shines a spotlight on the tragic reverberations of the shocking criminal conviction.
Phillips’s bold step to remove the Masterson name comes two years after her ex-husband, former That ’70s Show star Danny Masterson (49), was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison. Masterson is currently incarcerated at North Kern State Prison in Delano, California, having been found guilty in September 2023 of raping two women following a retrial.
This emotional and legal escalation appears to be the culmination of Phillips’s efforts to build a new, stable environment for her daughter, currently aged 11. Sources close to the actress have previously noted the immense personal toll of the events. "She has been incredibly sad for their daughter. It’s just so awful that she lost her dad," a source told People in June 2024, highlighting the dual grief and difficulty facing the family.
A Legal Battle for Her Daughter’s Future
The name change petition underscores the devastating consequences of Masterson’s crimes on his family. Court documents confirm that on the very same day as the name-change filing, both Phillips and Masterson were formally granted a legal status of “single,” finalizing their nearly 12-year marriage. Phillips, who cited "irreconcilable differences" in her September 2023 divorce filing, has been granted full legal and physical custody of Fianna, with Masterson retaining only visitation rights.
The legal process for changing a minor's name is not automatic, even in these high-profile, emotionally charged circumstances. The California Superior Court must ultimately determine if the change is truly in the child’s best interest. This is the key legal metric.
According to analysis reviewed by Lawyer Monthly, Phillips's petition activates the statutory framework under California Civil Procedure, demanding she demonstrate to the court that removing the father’s surname is necessary for the child’s welfare. The argument here is compelling: maintaining the name associated with a horrific criminal conviction and ongoing incarceration could arguably pose significant reputational or psychological harm to the young girl.
Masterson’s Ongoing Appeal and Potential Objection
This development unfolds even as Masterson’s legal team continues to fight his conviction. In December 2024, his lawyers lodged an aggressive appeal, alleging "erroneous judicial rulings" during the trial and claiming a "stunning amount of exculpatory evidence" was withheld from the jury.
Despite his incarceration, Masterson still retains parental rights, and if he chooses to object to the name change petition, the court is obligated to hold a formal hearing. This would force a difficult public assessment of both parents’ arguments regarding the child’s future identity. California family law attorneys are unequivocal about the standard: “If one parent objects… the requesting parent must demonstrate that the change is in the child’s best interests,” as emphasized by WHITMARSH FAMILY LAW, PC.
Dramatic Break to Seek Stability
This latest action marks Phillips's unequivocal effort to create a stable, new chapter for her daughter, following years of legal turmoil and personal heartbreak. When Phillips initially filed for divorce, her attorney, Peter A. Lauzon, issued a statement that provided an insight into the difficult balancing act Phillips was attempting to maintain. “This period has been unimaginably hard on the marriage and the family... Ms. Phillips acknowledges that Mr. Masterson is a wonderful father to their daughter.”
However, the reality of Masterson’s conviction and imprisonment for decades has drastically shifted the landscape. Phillips has been linked to businessman Jamie Mazur and appears focused on securing a peaceful environment, free from the shadow of the legal trauma. The court’s decision on this name change will deliver more than just a new surname—it will be a landmark ruling on the public identity and future well-being of a child caught in one of Hollywood’s most devastating legal sagas.
Your Name, Your Identity: The Shocking Power of a Single Legal Phrase
Bijou Phillips’s move to strip the Masterson name from her daughter’s identity highlights a crucial, non-negotiable legal concept that affects every parent, celebrity or not: the “Best Interest of the Child” standard.
This legal angle is vital for consumers because many families navigate custody issues, and what happened in this case is a potent real-world example of how a court weighs a parent’s criminal actions against a child’s welfare.
The Best Interest of the Child: What It Really Means
The "Best Interest of the Child" is the fundamental, century-old principle guiding every decision a family court makes, from custody arrangements to the very name a child carries. It’s not about the convenience, preferences, or rights of the parents; it is exclusively about the child's physical, emotional, and psychological health.
In a name change petition like Phillips’s, the court will specifically examine several factors, including:
- The child's relationship with each parent.
- The emotional impact of retaining a name now synonymous with a notorious criminal conviction and decades of incarceration.
- The potential for social stigma or bullying caused by the existing name.
- The stability and consistency of the child's living environment with the requesting parent.
The sheer length of Danny Masterson’s 30-years-to-life sentence and the severity of his conviction for two counts of rape are factors that heavily support Phillips's argument. For the court, maintaining the Masterson name could be viewed as unnecessarily burdening the child with a public source of shame and emotional distress. This principle is rooted in the long-standing legal tradition that a child's right to an identity free from harm supersedes a convicted parent’s interest in passing on their surname.
The Incarcerated Parent’s Hidden Power
Even when a parent is serving a life sentence, they typically do not automatically lose their Parental Responsibility unless the state files a separate case to legally terminate their rights. This means that an incarcerated parent, like Masterson, retains the power to object to the name change and force a full, adversarial court hearing.
For the consumer facing similar issues—perhaps a non-custodial or absent parent—this is the key takeaway: The power to object remains unless legally revoked. While a court is unlikely to side with a convicted rapist over the child's best interest, the objection can still cause months of delay, significant legal fees, and an emotionally draining public court process for the mother and child.
According to analysis reviewed by Lawyer Monthly, Masterson’s conviction creates an exceptionally strong case for Phillips, as the facts overwhelmingly favor removing the name to enable a stable identity. However, the legal journey is not complete until the judge signs the final decree, ensuring all procedural boxes—including proper notification to the incarcerated parent—are ticked.
Actionable Insight for Consumers: If you are a custodial parent seeking a name change due to the other parent’s severe legal or behavioural issues, document everything. Start a detailed log of any instance of stigma, bullying, or emotional distress the child experiences due to the current surname. This evidence, which directly addresses the child's best interest, will be your strongest ally against an objecting parent.
Watch this video about the initial reaction to the separation: Bijou Phillips Files for Divorce From Danny Masterson After 30-Year Rape Sentencing. The video covers the immediate aftermath of Masterson's sentencing, which provides the necessary context for the current name change filing.
