In the MATTER OF: Valeria CORTEZ, Applicant/Appellant.
Page 814
Appeal
from the Superior Court in Yuma County; No. S1400CV201900124;
The Honorable Lawrence C. Kenworthy, Judge. REVERSED AND
REMANDED
ACLU
Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, By Molly Patricia Brizgys,
Co-Counsel for Appellant
Southern Arizona Gender Alliance, Inc., Tucson, By Abigail
Jensen Co-Counsel for Appellant
Judge
David D. Weinzweig delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Maurice
Portley[1] joined.
OPINION
WEINZWEIG,
Judge:
[¶1]
This case requires us to decide whether an applicant must
show good cause to change names under A.R.S. � 12-601. The
superior court here summarily denied— with
prejudice— Valeria Cortez’s application to change names
for lack of good cause. We reverse and remand because good
cause is not required under the statute.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[¶2]
Cortez completed, signed and filed an Application for Change
of Name for an Adult in the Yuma County Superior Court,
wanting to change his name from "Valeria Stephany
Cortez" to "Sebastian Tomas Valentine." Yuma
County supplied the four-page form.
[¶3]
The form directed Cortez to provide his current name,
requested name and other names he has used. By marking five
boxes on the form, Cortez swore "[u]nder penalty of
perjury" that he (1) wanted a name change "solely
for [his] benefit and in [his] best interests," (2)
understood the name change would "not release [him] from
any obligations incurred or harm any rights of property or
action in any previous name," (3) did not request the
name change "for the purpose of committing or furthering
any offense of theft, forgery, fraud, perjury, organized
crime or terrorism or any other offense involving false
statements," (4) had never been convicted of a felony,
and (5) faced no pending criminal charges. Beyond that, the
form asked Cortez to explain why he "request[ed] this
name change." His hand-written answer explained: "I
am transitioning and want my documents to match my
identity."
[¶4]
Six days later, the superior court denied Cortez’s
application "with prejudice" for "fail[ure] to
show good cause." The court
Page 815
held no hearing and supplied no explanation. Cortez timely
appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. � �
...