30 August 2023
The Minnesota State of Appeals overturned a Hubbard County Ninth District Court’s denial of a name change for a transgender minor.
On Aug. 28, Judge Tracy Smith reversed and remanded the district court’s ruling, citing a need for a more detailed explanation of its decision.
In May 2022, an Akeley mother applied for a name change for her transgender child. Both the mother and child wanted to alter the first, middle and last name from a feminine one to a masculine one. At the time of the request, the minor was 15 years old. The father opposed the name change, according to a court document. Divorced in 2012, the couple shares joint custody of the teenager.
Hubbard County District Court Judge Eric Schieferdecker denied the request on Oct. 26, 2022, saying the name change was not in the best interest of the child.
In her non-precedential opinion, Smith wrote, ““Because the district court did not supply findings to support its denial of the application, we reverse and remand.”
This sends the case back to Hubbard County District Court for a rehearing.
Smith cites the testimony of the mother, father and child at an evidentiary hearing, held on Aug. 30, 2022.
According to the court record, the child began to openly identify as transgender in 2020 and began using his preferred name.
In March 2021, the child began receiving weekly mental-health counseling from a licensed professional clinical counselor. He has also received care from a gender health clinic at a children’s hospital since April 2021. Both the counselor and the hospital team confirmed a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, according to the court testimony.
Asked for the reason for the name change, the child testified, “I wish to change it so that I don’t have a fear of people finding out that it’s not my real name. I wish to change it so that I can go to the doctor and hear the name that makes me feel like myself.”
Smith notes that Minnesota Statutes sections 259.10-.13 govern applications for a name change.
“If the general requirements established by statute are met, a court ‘shall’ grant the application, unless an exception applies. One exception is when, in the case of a name change for a minor child, ‘the court finds that such name change is not in the best interests of the child,’” Smith writes. “If a parent objects to the name change, the district court should grant the request ‘only where the evidence is clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.’”
Smith goes on to say that the Minnesota Supreme Court has provided a list of five factors that the district court may consider in determining the child’s best interests: 1. the length of time that the child has had the current name, 2. any potential harassment or embarrassment the change might cause, 3. the child’s preference, 4. the effect of the change on the child’s relationship with each parent, and 5. the degree of community respect associated with the present and proposed names.
Smith said the district court’s denial “did not indicate whether or how the district court considered and weighed relevant factors in determining that the name change is not in (the child’s) best interest.
“The district court’s failure to provide findings that indicate its consideration of relevant factors is an abuse of discretion,” Smith concluded. “We, therefore, reverse the district court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should consider and weigh factors relevant to (child’s) best interests and make explicit written findings on those factors.”
]]>