State of Missouri ex rel. N.N.H., By His Next Friend, R.S.A. v. Honorable R. Michael Wagner, Judge, 17th Judicial Circuit, Cass County, Missouri, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1233

Relator (N.N.H.), a transgender minor represented by his mother as next friend, petitioned to change his name from Natalie to Nathan; mother consented.
At a hearing, Relator (age 14) and his mother testified the change was in his best interest and not detrimental to others; Relator opposed appointment of a guardian ad litem.
The judge (Respondent) stated he wanted a guardian ad litem but, after objection, sua sponte ordered Relator to submit to a mental examination to investigate whether Relator was coerced or whether the change was in his best interest.
No motion requesting a mental examination was filed and no notice was given to Relator before the court’s order; Respondent relied in part on family-court authority and Rule 52.02(k).
Relator sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the mental-exam order; the appellate court issued a preliminary writ and made it absolute, prohibiting enforcement of the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court exceeded its authority by ordering a mental exam in a name-change action	Relator: court lacked authority because mental condition was not in controversy and Rule 60.01/§510.040 require motion and notice	Respondent: child’s testimony/demeanor raised questions about coercion and best interest; court could act sua sponte (family court/Rule 52.02(k))	Court: vacated order — mental condition was not in controversy; no motion or notice; Rule 60.01/§510.040 not satisfied; Rule 52.02(k) inapplicable; Chapter 487 family-court authority not shown

State ex rel. Mo. Pub. Def. Comm’n v. Pratte, 298 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. banc 2009) (standards for writs of prohibition)
State ex rel. Robinson v. Franklin, 48 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. App. 2001) (prohibition may restrain enforcement of orders beyond court authority)
State ex rel. Rosenberg v. Jarrett, 233 S.W.3d 757 (Mo. App. 2007) (relator’s burden in prohibition and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
In re Wheat, 794 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. App. 1990) (narrow discretion to deny name-change petitions)
Neal v. Neal, 941 S.W.2d 501 (Mo. banc 1997) (general concern of possible detriment insufficient to deny name change)
State ex rel. C.S. v. Dowd, 923 S.W.2d 444 (Mo. App. 1996) (definition of when mental condition is ‘in controversy’)
Brooks v. Brown, 744 S.W.2d 881 (Mo. App. 1988) (requirement of an affirmative showing that mental condition is genuinely in controversy)
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) (greater showing of need required before ordering mental examinations)