What's in a Name?

The absurd cases that appear with some frequency in America's courtrooms never cease to amaze me.

The law in New York is that anyone has the right to use any name of his or her choosing, unless there is some motive for fraud or other nefarious purpose. In order to change one's name, one can take either or both of the following legal paths:

A. File a petition in the court to obtain a court order allowing the change of name; and/or

B. Simply adopting the new desired name (with or without the court order).


The Appellate Division, Third Department, has overturned a trial court's denial of a petition for a name change. The case is Matter of Earl William Golden III, ___ A.D.3d ___, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___, 2008 NY Slip Op 9333, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8983, N.Y.L.J., 12/9/2008, p. 30, col. 1 (3d Dept. 2008). The uncontested contentions in the petition are that the person who was born a baby boy and named Earl William Golden at birth now identifies with the female gender, and accordingly, seeks to change the birth name to Elisabeth Whitney Golden. The trial court noted the likelihood of confusion in the change of name from the male to female gender, but the Appellate Division panel found that this alone was not sufficient reason to deny the name change.

What is so absurd about this case? Apparently, "[i]ncluded in the submission was an affidavit from petitioner's spouse indicating that she supported the name change request and had no objection thereto."

So has Golden transitioned from a man to a lesbian? Is his "spouse" a real woman? A former woman? What's going on here?

The court can only go by the evidence before it. I cannot help but wonder, however, whether there might not actually be some sort of ulterior motive based in fraud or confusion. Either that, or this guy/gal is just plain wacko after all.