Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves two transgender men, identified as A.L. and L.S., who filed petitions in the Indiana Court of Appeals to amend their legal gender markers and, in L.S.'s case, his name. The primary legal issues centered on the statutory requirements for publishing notice of these changes and whether L.S. could seal his records under Administrative Rule 9 to protect against potential harm. The trial court initially mandated publication for both gender marker and name changes, and denied L.S.'s request to seal his records. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that there is no statutory requirement for publishing notice of gender marker changes, overturning the trial court's decision and ordering the amendment of both men's birth certificates. However, the court upheld the requirement for name change notifications to be published as per Indiana Code 34-28-2-3(a), unless exceptions apply. L.S. successfully demonstrated a significant risk of harm, allowing him to seal his records and waive publication under Administrative Rule 9. Consequently, the case was remanded for further consideration of L.S.'s name change petition. The appellate court's decision emphasized the lack of legislative guidance on gender marker changes and highlighted the necessity of evaluating such petitions on good faith. Judges Bailey and Altice concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Administrative Rule 9 and Sealing of Recordssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that L.S. met the burden under Administrative Rule 9 to seal records and waive publication due to the heightened risk of harm.
Reasoning: L.S. demonstrated sufficient grounds under this rule to waive publication and seal the record.
Authority to Amend Birth Certificates for Gender Marker Changessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirmed that trial courts have authority to order gender marker changes on birth certificates based on good faith petitions, without imposing additional publication requirements.
Reasoning: Authority for trial courts to order changes to an individual's gender marker on birth certificates is derived from *In re Pet'n for Change of Birth Certificate*, 22 N.E.3d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Good Faith Requirement for Gender Marker Change Petitionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court established that gender marker change petitions should be evaluated based on good faith, without requiring specific evidence or publication.
Reasoning: The trial court mistakenly imposed a publication requirement for gender marker changes analogous to name changes, despite the absence of such a requirement in the law.
Publication Requirement for Gender Marker Changessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that publication of intent is not statutorily required for gender marker changes, contrary to the trial court's decision.
Reasoning: The Court of Appeals determined that there is no statutory requirement to publish intent for changing a gender marker, although publication is required for a name change, which is subject to Administrative Rule 9.
Publication Requirement for Name Changessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that publication is mandatory for name change petitions under Indiana Code 34-28-2-3(a), unless an exception applies.
Reasoning: Regarding L.S.'s name change, the trial court required him to publish notice, consistent with Indiana Code 34-28-2-3(a), which mandates publication for name change petitions unless an exception applies.