Sacklow v. Betts
163 A.3d 367, 450 N.J. Super. 425 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a transgender minor child petitions for a name change to align with their gender identity, courts must apply a specific multi-factor 'best interest of the child' standard tailored to address the unique psychological and social considerations involved.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant married on September 22, 1996, and had one child, Veronica.
- The parties divorced on June 8, 2011, sharing joint legal custody, with Plaintiff as the parent of primary residence.
- From a young age, Veronica displayed non-gender conforming behaviors, disliking 'girl toys' and enjoying activities like baseball and skateboarding, which parents initially considered being a 'tomboy.'
- Around sixth grade, after puberty, Veronica's mental health declined, leading to behavioral issues like poor grades, lying, and fighting.
- In January 2012, Veronica began seeing a social worker, William Bishop, for emotional and behavioral problems.
- In June 2012, at age twelve, Veronica announced identifying as male and being transgender, requesting to be called Trevor; this was followed by a diagnosis of gender dysphoria by Dr. Nina Williams.
- Trevor has been known as 'Trevor' for five years by most of his family, friends, and school staff, but his father, step-mother, and step-siblings continue to use 'Veronica.'
- Trevor began hormone treatments in 2014 to suppress menstruation and started testosterone therapy in July 2016, with both parents' consent.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, requesting a change of the parties' child's name from Veronica to Trevor.
- On October 14, 2016, Defendant filed an answer, requesting the court deny the plaintiff's request and arguing that a hearing was necessary to determine the child's best interest.
- On December 8, 2016, the court held a pretrial conference with the parties.
- On March 7, 2017, the court held a hearing and heard testimony from the plaintiff, Trevor, and the defendant.
- After cross-examining Trevor, the defendant indicated a willingness to consent to the name change but still expressed concern over whether it was in Trevor's best interest; plaintiff then requested the court make independent findings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'best interest of the child' standard govern an application to change a transgender minor child's name, and what specific factors should a court consider when deciding such a request?
Opinions:
Majority - Silva, J.S.C.
Yes, the best interest of the child standard governs an application to change a transgender minor child's name, and courts should apply a specific seven-factor test tailored to their unique circumstances. The court found this matter to be one of first impression in New Jersey, noting that prior cases like `Gubernat v. Deremer` and `Emma v. Evans` established the 'best interest of the child' standard for minor surname changes but did not fully address the complexities of a transgender minor's first name change. The court emphasized its role as `parens patriae` to protect minors and, while acknowledging `Matter of Eck` permits adult name changes for gender transition without surgery, recognized that minors cannot make such decisions independently. Public policy, as reflected in `N.J.S.A. 45:1-54(n)`, underscores the state's interest in protecting the well-being of transgender youth, and a name change can prevent harassment and validate identity. Applying its newly established factors, the court gave significant weight to Trevor's age and maturity (16/17), the five years he had used his preferred name, and, most compellingly, the potential for anxiety, embarrassment, and discomfort from having a name that does not match his gender identity, citing studies on bullying and Trevor's own history of suicidal ideations. It also considered his extensive medical and mental health counseling for gender dysphoria, the fact he is known as 'Trevor' by most of his community, and his sincere motivations for seeking the change now for practical reasons. While the father initially opposed, his subsequent willingness to consent was noted as only one factor. The court concluded that forcing Trevor to retain his feminine legal name would not be in his best interest, given his physical transition and identity.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it establishes a new, specific legal framework for name changes involving transgender minor children in New Jersey, extending the general 'best interest of the child' standard to address the unique challenges of gender identity. It provides crucial guidance to courts navigating disputes over transgender minors' rights and underscores the judiciary's role in protecting their psychological well-being. The establishment of a tailored seven-factor test acknowledges the distinct developmental and social considerations for transgender youth, potentially impacting future cases by offering a clear, precedential path for similar applications and recognizing the legal and social validity of a transgender minor's chosen identity.
