Maine Supreme Judicial Court Orders New Hearing on Transgender Name Change Application

On June 24, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, ruling on the appeal in In re A.M.B., 2010 ME 54, 2010 WL 2521726, vacated and remanded to the Cumberland County Probate Court a petition by a transgender man for a name change. Probate Judge Joseph R. Mazziotti had denied the name change petition without a written opinion or any communication of reasons, other than "judicial discretion." Zack M. Paakkonen and Alice A. Neal of West End Legal, LLC, in Portland, Maine, represent A.M.B. Patricia A. Peard, also of Portland, participated as amicus curiae on behalf of Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

The opinion for the court by Justice Ellen Gorman reveals virtually none of the facts, briefly relating that A.M.B. had petitioned for a name change, stating in the petition that his reason for seeking a name change was that "I no longer wish to have my current name," had given the notice required by statute, and appeared for hearing. When A.M.B. received word that his petition had been denied, he filed an appeal, asserting that the Probate Court had committed an abuse of discretion and that Maine’s law against discrimination, which defines the ban on sexual orientation discrimination to include protection against discrimination on account of gender identity, evinced a public policy that would be violated by denying a name change whose purpose was to provide a legal name consistent with the petitioner’s gender identity and expression, raising constitutional issues.

The SJC found it unnecessary to address the later point, instead stating: "Because we cannot determine the basis for the Probate Court’s denial, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings." Justice Gorman explained that name changes can be denied if the petitioner is "seeking the name change for purposes of defrauding another person or entity or for purposes otherwise contrary to the public interest." Gorman noted that A.M.B.’s petition recited that "he had no children, no pending bankruptcy or other insolvency proceeding, and was not attempting to avoid any legal obligation." All procedural requirements had been met.

In the brief filed by A.M.B.’s counsel with the SJC, they relate that A.M.B. was classified female when born in Maine, had lived for some time in Florida but was recently living back in Maine, and had identified as a man and used male gender pronouns to refer to himself. A.M.B. was also receiving counseling and had been diagnosed as transgender. Because he had been given a distinctively female name at birth, he encountered difficulties due to his legal papers being inconsistent with his gender identity and expression, and sought a name change to a distinctively male name in order to avoid having to disclose his transgender identity whenever there is need to present a legal document. The brief noted that at the hearing the judge did not inquire into any issues of fraud, instead initiating questioning about A.M.B.’s transgender status and treatment.

The court observed, "The main purpose of the statute. . . is to provide petitioners with the certainty of a judicially-sanctioned name change, as long as the petition is not submitted with fraudulent intent and the change of name does not interfere with the rights of others." There was no transcript of the brief hearing before Judge Mazziotti. A.M.B. had made notes of his brief colloquy with the judge, which were later typed up and made an appendix to the record. Justice Gorman observed that there was nothing in the record to show that the court had ordered any kind of background check, "the judgment contains neither findings of fact nor conclusions of law, and the court did not provide its basis for denying A.M.B.’s petition." As a result, the SJC was "unable to determine a proper basis for denying A.M.B.’s petition."

Thus, the judgment was vacated and remanded. "If, on remand, the court denies the petition, it should include findings explaining how the petition was fraudulent or otherwise contrary to the public interest," wrote Gorman. "In the future, when the Probate Court denies a person’s petition for a name change, the basis for the denial and adequate findings of fact to support its decision should be included in order to permit effective appellate review."

Comments

[Mark@Maple Syrup Diet]

Are they allowing the change? Or fighting against it?

[Art Leonard]

The State is not opposing it. The only party in the case, actually, is A.M.B. I think the clear message of the SJC to the trial judge is to grant the name change on remand unless there is evidence that A.M.B. had some fraudulent purpose in requesting it.