In re the Name Change of Catherine Clemmer, Dawson Clemmer (formerly Catherine Clemmer) (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 22, 2019
• Docket: 19A-MI-1221
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 22 2019, 9:00 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Kathleen Cullum Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana

Megan Stuart Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Bloomington, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Name Change of October 22, 2019 Catherine Clemmer, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-1221 Dawson Clemmer (formerly Catherine Clemmer), Appeal from the Hancock Superior Court Appellant-Petitioner. The Honorable Terry K. Snow, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 30D01-1901-MI-21

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1221| October 22, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] In January of 2019, Dawson Clemmer, a transgender man, petitioned for a

name and gender-marker change. The trial court granted the name change but

denied the gender-marker change. Clemmer contends that the trial court

erroneously denied his petition. We agree and reverse and remand with

instructions consistent with this decision.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Dawson Clemmer (formerly Catherine Clemmer) is a transgender man who

was born a female. On January 4, 2019, Clemmer petitioned for a change of

name and gender marker. In his petition, Clemmer included a proposed order

providing findings and conclusions of law. Clemmer averred that he was

changing his name and gender marker in good faith and not for a fraudulent or

unlawful purpose. Clemmer also averred that he wanted to make these changes

to accurately reflect his gender identity and presentation. On April 5, 2019, the

trial court held a hearing regarding Clemmer’s petition. Following the hearing,

the trial court took the matter under advisement pending resubmission after

concluding that the proposed order was not properly completed because “[it

didn’t] have the name of the court in there, and also [it] didn’t have the names

in there, and [the court would] like to have it uh, typed out so it’s legible.” Tr.

p. 4. Upon resubmission, the trial court granted the name change, but the

change of gender marker remained pending. On April 22, 2019, Clemmer

moved for a final order regarding his petition for a gender-marker change and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1221| October 22, 2019 Page 2 of 4 submitted a third proposed order. That same day, the trial court denied

Clemmer’s motion stating that “The court did not rule on gender change

because the petitioner did not include that in the proposed order. Motion for

gender marker change is denied.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 3.

Discussion and Decision [3] Clemmer contends that the trial court erroneously denied his petition for

gender-marker change. “[T]o the extent that our review requires us to review

the trial court’s factual determinations, we will apply a clearly erroneous

standard.” Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 76 N.E.3d 852, 858 (Ind. Ct. App.

2017). This court provided guidance for trial courts to issue orders requiring the

Indiana State Department of Health to change an individual’s gender marker

on his birth certificate in In re Petition for Change of Birth Certificate, 22 N.E.3d

707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). In doing so, we concluded that Indiana Code section

16-37-2-10 gives authority to grant petitions for gender-marker change.

I.C. § 16-37-2-10 provides general authority for the amendment of birth certificates, without any express limitation (in the statute or elsewhere) regarding gender amendments. In light of this statute, as well as the inherent equity power of a court of general jurisdiction, we conclude that the trial court had authority to grant the petition at hand.

Id. at 709. In discussing what evidence was required to support a petition for

gender-marker change, we concluded that the “ultimate focus should be on

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1221| October 22, 2019 Page 3 of 4 whether the petition is made in good faith and not for a fraudulent or unlawful

purpose.” Id. at 710.

[4] Here, the record contains no evidence to suggest that Clemmer’s petition was

for fraudulent or unlawful purposes. In fact, Clemmer testified that he was not

seeking a name change to defraud creditors or for fraudulent purposes.

Clemmer also averred that he was seeking a gender-marker change in order to

accurately reflect his gender identity and presentation. We conclude that

Clemmer’s petition was made in good faith and should not have been denied

because of formatting errors on a proposed order.

[5] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions for

the trial court to enter an order granting Clemmer’s petition for gender-marker

change within thirty days after certification of this decision.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1221| October 22, 2019 Page 4 of 4