In the Matter of the Name Change of M.E.B., M.E.B., 126 N.E.3d 932

M.B., a transgender woman assigned male at birth, petitioned to change her name and gender marker and moved under Indiana Administrative Rule 9 to waive publication and seal the court record.
M.B. submitted a verified petition and attested she feared violence, discrimination, and invasion of privacy if her transgender status became public; she included statistical studies and Indiana-specific incidents.
At a hearing M.B. testified about personal discrimination (a pharmacist refusing service) and a local Facebook threat by a person who said they would shoot a trans person.
The trial court denied the Rule 9 request, reasoning M.B. had not shown (1) any violence that had occurred to her or to an Indiana transgender resident and (2) that her transgender status was not already publicly apparent from her appearance.
M.B. appealed interlocutorily; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo legal questions and clearly-erroneous for factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Administrative Rule 9 required sealing the record and waiving publication of M.B.’s name-change petition	M.B. argued publication and an open record would create a significant risk of substantial harm given generalized and Indiana-specific evidence of violence and discrimination against transgender people plus her personal incidents and threats	Trial court argued M.B. failed to show actual violence to her or to an Indiana transgender person and that her gender identity was already public, so publication would not “out” her	Court of Appeals reversed: Rule 9’s harm standard is satisfied by the presented evidence; sealing and waiver should have been granted
Whether petitioner must show past targeted violence against herself or other Indiana transgender residents to obtain relief under Rule 9	M.B. contended proactive protection is permitted; requiring past incidents would defeat Rule 9’s preventive purpose	Trial court required evidence of past violence or Indiana-specific incidents beyond general statistics	Court held such a requirement is improper; Rule 9 is prophylactic and statistical, general, and personal threat evidence can satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard

In re A.L., 81 N.E.3d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (discussing application of Admin. R. 9 to name-change/gender-marker matters and recognizing risk to transgender petitioners from publication)