## Facts

- Brian Harris, age 39, had lived as a woman for roughly two decades and used the name “Lisa” during that time.
- Harris regularly dressed and appeared in public as female and sought legal recognition of the name “Lisa” to match that lived identity.
- Harris received estrogen hormone therapy and underwent permanent facial reconstructive procedures and breast-implant surgery to make Harris’s appearance more feminine.
- Harris testified that Harris wanted genital sex-reassignment surgery but could not afford it.
- On April 30, 1996, Harris filed an unopposed petition under Pennsylvania’s name-change statute, 54 Pa. C.S.A. § 701 et seq., to change the legal name from “Brian” to “Lisa.”
- At the hearing, Harris’s long-term therapist testified that Harris’s female gender identification and presentation were permanent and that the name change would benefit Harris.
- The therapist described practical problems caused by the mismatch between Harris’s outwardly female appearance and identification reflecting the name “Brian,” including confrontations and allegations of deceit when Harris presented identification.
- The Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County denied the petition, reasoning that granting a female name without sex-reassignment surgery would not comport with “common sense, common decency and fairness to the public.”
- Harris appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may deny an otherwise compliant, unopposed name-change petition solely because the petitioner has not undergone genital sex-reassignment surgery.
2. Whether generalized concerns about “common sense,” “common decency,” or “fairness to the public,” without record evidence of fraud or other improper purpose, are sufficient grounds to deny a statutory name change.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order denying the petition and remanded with directions to grant the requested name change to “Lisa Harris.”
- The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by effectively adding an extra-statutory requirement that the petitioner undergo sex-reassignment surgery.
- The court found no evidence that Harris sought the name change for fraud, to evade legal duties, or for any other improper purpose, and concluded the record supported granting the petition.

## Legal Principles

- A petitioner who satisfies Pennsylvania’s statutory requirements for a name change is generally entitled to relief unless the record shows a legally sufficient reason to deny the petition (commonly fraud, misrepresentation, or avoidance of legal obligations).
- Trial courts have discretion in name-change matters, but that discretion is limited and may not be exercised based on personal value judgments untethered to the statute and evidence.
- The name-change statute does not require sex-reassignment surgery; courts may not impose surgery as a prerequisite to a name change.
- “Public interest” concerns must be grounded in concrete evidence of likely harm or improper purpose, not speculation or generalized discomfort.

## Conclusion

Because Harris complied with the statutory prerequisites, presented uncontradicted testimony supporting the request, and the record contained no evidence of fraud or other improper purpose, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court’s reliance on the absence of sex-reassignment surgery and generalized appeals to “common sense” and “fairness” was not a lawful basis to deny the petition, and it ordered the name change granted on remand.


In re Brian Harris, a/k/a Lisa Harris, 707 A.2d 225 (1997)