In the Matter of the Name Change of M.E.B., M.E.B.

126 N.E.3d 932
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 21, 2019
DocketCourt of Appeals Case 19A-MI-118
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 N.E.3d 932 (In the Matter of the Name Change of M.E.B., M.E.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Matter of the Name Change of M.E.B., M.E.B., 126 N.E.3d 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Baker, Judge.

[1] M.B. is a transgender woman who seeks to change her name and gender marker. She filed requests to waive publication and seal the record pursuant to Indiana Administrative Rule 9. The trial court found that she did not meet her burden under Rule 9. We disagree. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions that this case shall remain sealed and for further proceedings.

Facts

[2] M.B. was assigned male at birth but identifies as female. On September 24, 2018, M.B. filed a verified petition for change of name and gender marker and a verified written request to prohibit public access pursuant to Administrative Rule 9, asking the trial court to waive the publication requirement and seal the record.

[3] In support of her request to prohibit public access, M.B. attested as follows: "I am aware of the high rates of violence, discrimination, and invasion of privacy against transgender people in Indiana and nationwide[.] I fear that if the public knows I am transgender, I will personally experience violence, discrimination, and an invasion of my privacy." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 14. M.B. also included data about "the high rates of violence, discrimination, *934 [ ] invasion of privacy," and harassment both nationwide and in Indiana. Id. at 14-16. She also noted that she feared for her safety

because of my personal experience with violence and discrimination in my community. I know of a man in Orange County who has outspoken anti-trans views and has said that if he finds out about a trans person, he will kill them. I have also faced discrimination from pharmacists when they discovered my gender identity.

Id. at 16.

[4] On November 19, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on M.B.'s request to prohibit public access. M.B. testified at the hearing. Among other things, she explained her fears to the trial court:

• "I believe it would be dangerous [if people learned that she was changing her name and gender marker]. There's lots of people, both within the United States and within the State of Indiana that would like to harm transgender people and there are some in Orange County that I do know of that it would be dangerous for me and I could get killed." Tr. Vol. II p. 8.
• "I have [personally faced discrimination based on gender identity] when picking up my prescriptions at the Paoli Walmart pharmacy one of the ladies that works there didn't want to serve me and I had to get someone else to help me." Id. at 9.
• "... I'm on Facebook quite a bit and there's someone who lives in Paoli, they have a red truck and they said if they knew someone was transgender and they saw them they would shoot them." Id.

Following the hearing, M.B. filed a supplemental memorandum regarding the request to prohibit public access.

[5] On December 4, 2018, the trial court denied M.B.'s request to prohibit public access. Among other things, the trial court found as follows:

9. At the hearing, only the testimony of [M.B.] was presented. [M.B.'s] 2½ minute testimony is summarized as follows:
a. ... [M.B.] testified that he/she [sic 1 ] suffers from "gender identity disorder". [M.B.] stated his/her [sic] name and gender marker are not correct. [M.B.] "perceives" himself/herself [sic] as a female however he/she [sic] was "assigned male hardware". This has created problems with how he/she [sic] perceives himself/herself [sic]. [M.B.] came to Court wearing women's clothing and hairstyle. [M.B.] had makeup on and spoke in a feminine voice. He [sic] requested that Court refer to her as [M.B.].
* * *
11. ... [I]t is readily apparent that [M.B.'s] evidence falls considerably short of proving by clear and convincing evidence that publication of the notice of the petition in this case would create "a significant risk of substantial harm". [M.B.] has failed to prove that following the statutorily mandated procedure of giving notice, in and of itself, would create a significant risk of substantial harm. No evidence was *935 presented of any violence that has resulted to [M.B.] because of his/her [sic] transgender [sic 2 ] identity. No evidence was presented of violence being perpetrated against an Indiana resident who identifies as trans-gender [sic]. A generalized statement of two violent acts occurring in [other states] is not persuasive to ignore the legal requirements of obtaining a name change pursuant to I.C. 34-28-2-3.
12. In [M.B.'s] pleadings there were concerns presented that giving notice by publication could be harmful to [M.B.] by "outing" the petitioners [sic] trans-gender [sic] identity or making public his [sic] trans-gender [sic] diagnosis. However, those concerns are not present here. The Petitioners [sic] actions, dress, and demeanor profess to all that he/she [sic] is trans-gender [sic]. It is not a secret or private diagnosis. It is readily apparent and obvious to the public. Following the statutorily mandated legal notice requirement will not "out" [M.B.], [M.B.'s] actions have already done that.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 7-10. M.B. now brings this interlocutory appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[6] We apply a de novo standard of review to matters of law, including the construction of statutes and rules. In re A.L. , 81 N.E.3d 283 , 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). To the extent that our review requires us to review the trial court's factual determinations, we will apply a clearly erroneous standard. Id.

[7] We have considered this set of issues before. In In re A.L. , we found that "there is no statutory requirement to publish notice of intent to change one's gender marker" and that "there is a statutory requirement to publish notice of intent to change one's name, but that statute is explicitly subject to Administrative Rule 9 ...." Id. at 285 .

[8] In A.L. , we noted that as a general rule, a petitioner seeking a name change must give notice of the petition in a qualifying newspaper. The legislature has deemed Indiana Code chapter 34-28-2 to be subject to Administrative Rule 9, which provides that as a general rule, all court records are publicly accessible. Ind.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Matter of N.J.P.
Delaware Court of Common Pleas, 2025
In re M.T.
California Court of Appeal, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 N.E.3d 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-name-change-of-meb-meb-indctapp-2019.