In the Matter of the Application of JAMES DEAN ) INGRAM To Change His/Her Name

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1 HEARING_DATE: March 21, 2014 ( Joplin ) ( Oklahoma County - Bill Graves )

Not Published
REVERSED AND REMANDED Brady R. Henderson, ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellant Opinion 1/ Petitioner/Appellant James Dean Ingram seeks review of the trial court's order denying his Application to Change His/Her Name. In this appeal, Petitioner asserts he substantially complied with the requirements of 12 O.S. 1631 , et seq., to change his name, and then complains the trial court erred as a matter of law and fact in denying his application. 2/ Petitioner filed his Application to Change His Name, and alleged he sought to change his name from James Dean Ingram to Angela Renee Ingram, not for any illegal or fraudulent purpose, but because of the "transition from male to female," i.e., that he was in the process of a sex change. The trial court denied Petitioner's application, reasoning that, regardless of outward appearances or surgical procedures, Petitioner was born a male, that Petitioner would always genetically be a male, and that "to attempt to change one's name based on an alleged sex change is fraudulent." 3/ Petitioner now appeals. The matter stands submitted on Petitioner's brief only. Under these circumstances, where the brief is reasonably supportive of the allegations of error, we will ordinarily reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Sneed v. Sneed, 1978 OK 138, 585 P.2d 1363; Harvey v. Hall, 1970 OK 92, 471 P.2d 911. 4/ In this respect, the Court of Civil Appeals has addressed and rejected the trial court's reasoning to deny a name change. In re Harvey, 2012 OK CIV APP 112, 293 P.3d 224. In that case, as here, the applicant argued "there is no fraud in identifying oneself by a traditionally male or female name while having the DNA of the other sex," and the Court of Civil Appeals agreed: "The law does not require males be given traditionally male names, or females traditionally female names, by their parents at birth. Additionally, there are numerous gender-androgynous names. The relevant issue in a name change proceeding is not whether the applicant's DNA corresponds with the traditionally male or female name preferred by the applicant. The statute does not change the sex of the applicant, only the applicant's name. The trial court's denial was not based on a finding that a material allegation in the petition was false. Therefore, the relevant

issue is whether the applicant is seeking a name change for an illegal or fraudulent purpose. See 12 O.S. 1634 . We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling Harvey's Motion for New Trial and denying his application for a change of name. The trial court's finding that Harvey sought a name change for an illegal or fraudulent purpose is not supported by the evidence." In re Harvey, 2012 OK CIV APP 112, 4-5, 293 P.3d at 225. 5/ In the present case, as in Harvey, Petitioner complied with the statutory requisites to change his name. The fact that Petitioner will remain genetically male does not, in and of itself, render the purpose of his name-change request fraudulent or illegal, and there is absolutely no other evidence of any impediment to the requested name change. 6/ The order of the trial court is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with instructions to grant Petitioner's Application to Change His/Her Name. HETHERINGTON, V.C.J., and BUETTNER, J., concur.