In re the Name Change of A.L. and In re the Name Change of L.S.
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 340
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- A.L. and L.S., transgender men, petitioned Indiana trial court to change their gender markers on birth certificates; L.S. also sought a name change, waiver of publication, and sealing under Admin. R. 9.
- Trial court required publication for both gender-marker and name-change petitions and denied L.S.’s Admin. R. 9 sealing request, finding no individualized showing of heightened risk.
- A.L. appealed the gender-marker publication requirement after the court denied his petition for lack of newspaper notice; L.S. brought an interlocutory appeal from denial of sealing and the publication order for his name-change petition.
- The trial court found both petitioners acted in good faith and without intent to defraud, but treated gender-marker changes procedurally like name changes.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated the matters and reviewed (1) whether publication is required for gender-marker changes, (2) whether publication is required for name changes, and (3) whether L.S. met Admin. R. 9 criteria to avoid publication and seal the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Is publication required for gender-marker changes? | A.L./L.S.: No statutory publication requirement; court order directing ISDH is proper if petition made in good faith. | Trial court: Treated gender-marker changes like name changes and required publication to prevent fraud and ensure public notice. | Publication not required; petitioners need only show petition made in good faith and not fraudulent; remand to grant gender-marker amendments. |
| 2. Is publication required for name changes? | L.S.: Sought waiver of statutory publication under Admin. R. 9 due to safety risks. | State/Trial court: Statute requires three weekly newspaper publications unless Admin. R. 9 provides relief. | Statute requires publication absent relief under Admin. R. 9; name-change petitions are subject to Admin. R. 9 consideration. |
| 3. Does Admin. R. 9 permit sealing and waiver of publication here? | L.S.: Publication would out him, creating significant risk of substantial harm given high rates of violence against transgender people and his personal experiences/fears. | Trial court: Declined relief absent individualized threats or evidence that publication increases risk beyond baseline risk faced by transgender community. | L.S. met Admin. R. 9(G)(4) burden; publication poses a significant risk of substantial harm. Trial court’s denial reversed; record to be sealed and publication waived; remand to consider name change. |
| 4. Standard for judicial authority to amend birth certificates? | A.L./L.S.: Courts have authority to order ISDH to amend birth certificates under I.C. § 16-37-2-10 and equitable powers. | Trial court: Initially questioned authority but applied Name-Change rubric requiring publication. | Court of Appeals reaffirmed courts’ authority (per prior precedent) to order ISDH to amend gender on birth certificate when petition is in good faith. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Petition for Change of Birth Certificate, 22 N.E.3d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (courts may order ISDH to amend birth certificates for gender when petition is in good faith)
- Town of Zionsville v. Town of Whitestown, 49 N.E.3d 91 (Ind. 2016) (standard of review for questions of law is de novo)
- Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 76 N.E.3d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (de novo review applies to construction of Administrative Rule 9)