in Re: Aidyn Rocher an Adult
14-15-00462-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 24, 2015Background
- Appellant Aidyn Rocher (born in Philadelphia, PA, 1986) petitioned a Texas district court to change his name to Alexander Winston Hunter and to change his gender marker from female to male.
- The trial court granted the name change but denied the requested gender-marker change; counsel asked the court to take judicial notice of Tex. Fam. Code § 2.005(b)(8) indicating a court order of sex change can serve as proof for a marriage license.
- Rocher appealed, arguing the denial violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and that Texas law already recognizes court-ordered sex changes as valid evidence for official purposes.
- Texas statutes and DSHS procedures allow amendment of birth-certificate sex markers for persons born in Texas (Form VS-170), but Rocher cannot use that route because he was born in Pennsylvania.
- Rocher argued a Texas court order changing gender should permit DPS and other agencies to update records (and that courts in some Texas jurisdictions already grant such orders), so denying relief creates unequal access based on forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Texas court may issue an order changing an adult petitioner’s gender marker | Rocher: Due process protects personal identity; Texas law treats court orders of sex change as valid proof (Fam. Code §2.005(b)(8)) and grants birth-certificate amendments for Texans—court may order gender change | Trial court: No explicit statutory procedure in Chapter 45 authorizing court-ordered gender change; uncertainty whether court has authority, so declined to grant | Trial court denied gender change; Rocher appealed (appellate determination pending in brief) |
| Whether denial violates Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests | Rocher: Liberty interests in identity/autonomy recognized by Supreme Court (Obergefell and precedent) compel recognition | State: Implicit position that statutory silence forecloses court-ordered gender changes (procedural/administrative concerns) | Appellant asserts denial infringes due process; appellate relief sought |
| Whether non–Texas-born petitioners can use Texas administrative birth-certificate procedures | Rocher: Administrative birth-certificate amendment exists in Texas, but only applies to Texas-born persons | State: Administrative route inapplicable to out-of-state births | Court acknowledged Texas birth-certificate process does not help Rocher because he was born in Pennsylvania |
| Whether courts should allow name-change process to effect gender-marker changes to avoid disparities | Rocher: Name-change proceedings often required and can reasonably be used to change gender marker to prevent forum-based inequality | State: No explicit statutory authorization; agencies may require medical certification or other documentary proofs | Trial court declined to adopt name-change vehicle for gender changes; appellate review sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Littleton v. Prange, 9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999) (state appellate court held a transgender woman’s sex assigned at birth governed legal sex for some purposes)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (Due Process and Equal Protection protect personal choices central to identity and dignity)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (liberty interest in private intimate conduct and personal autonomy)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1965) (recognition of privacy and personal decisionmaking as constitutional protections)
- Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1972) (individual autonomy in decisions about intimate relationships)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968) (Due Process Clause protections)
- Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1961) (due process analysis and limits on relying solely on history/tradition)