Indiana Appeals Court Denies Attempt to Change Trans Child's Gender Marker

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/coa-divided-over-mothers-gender-marker-change-request-for-transgender-son

 

 

Carolyn Marie

Edited August 31, 2021 by Carolyn Marie
To clarify post title

[PrincipalGeek]

I think this post title is a bit off?  The intro paragraph:

 

Quote

A split Indiana Court of Appeals panel upheld Monday the denial of a mother’s petition asking for a gender marker change for her transgender son on his birth certificate, finding sufficient evidence wasn’t provided to prove the change was in the child’s best interests.

 

It sounds like the court denied petition to change birth gender marker, and upheld that?  The way the thread title is written, it sounds like the mother's right to block gender change was upheld..as far as I can tell the parents were fully supporting the change?

 

That said, the article is written in legaleze with multiple negatives in the same context so I maybe missed something?

[VickySGV]

 

The mother and father with the son had petitioned the court  for name and gender change for the minor child. The name change petition had been granted.  The question was whether they had submitted sufficient proof that the change of GENDER was in the best interest of the the son.  As it stands now the court felt there had not been sufficient proof of the benefit for the child and thus gender was not to be changed.  It does point out that Indiana law does not specifically permit gender changes in these cases as a matter of right.  The boy is 15 years old.  It is a single narrow issue case that could be overturned either at the next level up the ladder or a new petition with the evidence fully presented.  This show is not over by a long shot and not hopeless.

 

Legalese is a language I speak by training.  I agree the article is poorly written for interpretation by the general public.  

[Ivy]

couldn't see the article, but I reckon I wouldn't have understood it anyway.  LOL

[PrincipalGeek]

@VickySGVThanks for clarifying.  If I read it correctly, there seemed to have been a failure on the part of the parents and their legal counsel (if any for the original action) to submit expert testimony or authenticated documents providing instead statements from a physician and a "counselor" (quotes in original article).  Whether it would have been a different  decision if they had submitted testimony from a therapist or other experts.. who knows.

for anyone interested, link to the opinion on the case: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=SlkI80HmGcoj_07uoS7DieSxpf-Gwhf9PRHO9_uFKPhJHJ48yU7McauANRF2ImIA0