142 N.E.3d 1045
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- R.E., a transgender man, filed a verified petition (Feb 4, 2019) to change his name and the gender marker on his birth certificate and requested waiver of publication and sealing of court records citing safety risks.
- R.E. testified he had socially presented as male for ~3 years, been on hormones ~2 years, and submitted a physician’s statement corroborating clinical treatment for transition.
- The trial court denied the waiver and sealing request, compelled publication, repeatedly rejected R.E.’s medical evidence for evidentiary reasons, and required proof of a physical sex change (chromosomal/biological proof) before granting the gender-marker change.
- The trial court refused to use R.E.’s preferred pronouns and made derisive comments about appearance; it also denied the name change because it tied the name change to the denied gender-marker change.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard (good faith, not medical proof, controls), ordered the trial court to grant the name and gender-marker changes, and directed that the trial record remain sealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for gender-marker change | R.E.: statute/case law require only a showing of good faith, not medical proof; his testimony and physician’s letter suffice | Trial court: must have medical evidence of physical/biological sex change; birth record accurate absent such proof | Reversed — appellate court: controlling precedent requires only good faith; medical proof not required; grant change and remand with instructions to do so |
| Admissibility of physician evidence | R.E.: physician’s statements and records corroborate his testimony and support good-faith change | Trial court: rejected submitted documents under multiple evidence rules (702, 703, 704, 705, 803) and claimed improper foundation | Evidence-law objections rejected on appeal as pretext; no higher medical standard required; court erred in refusing relief despite testimony and corroboration |
| Waiver of publication / sealing records | R.E.: Administrative Rule 9(G) waiver and sealing necessary because transgender individuals face heightened risk of violence and harassment | Trial court: publication already occurred; no specific threats or actual harm shown during pendency, so no sealing | Reversed — appellate court: Rule 9 permits sealing on verified showing of substantial risk; known risks to transgender people suffice; case must remain sealed and publication waived |
| Name change tied to gender-marker change | R.E.: name change requested to align identity; independent good-faith standard applies | Trial court: denied name change because it depended on a gender change it found unsupported | Reversed — because gender-marker change must be granted under good-faith standard, name change must also be granted; remand with instruction to grant both |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Petition for Change of Birth Certificate, 22 N.E.3d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (holds focus is whether petition is made in good faith, not on medical procedures)
- In re Name Change of A.L., 81 N.E.3d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (applies Admin. R. 9 to permit sealing to prevent substantial harm to transgender petitioners)
- In re the Name Change of M.E.B., 126 N.E.3d 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (reinforces proactive Rule 9 sealing for transgender petitioners despite lack of prior specific threats)
- In re the Name Change of K.H., 127 N.E.3d 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (notes no statutory publication requirement for gender-marker changes)
- S.R. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re M.W.), 130 N.E.3d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (court opinions of this Court are binding on trial courts)
- Heraeus Med., LLC v. Zimmer, Inc., 135 N.E.3d 150 (Ind. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion review applies when a trial court misapplies the law)