## Facts

- The petitioner was born in Pennsylvania in 1948; the birth certificate listed the name “Robert Wright Heilig” and sex as male.
- While residing in Maryland, the petitioner filed an uncontested petition in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County seeking (1) a name change to “Janet Heilig Wright” and (2) judicial recognition of a change in gender from male to female.
- The petition referenced Maryland’s birth-certificate statute, Md. Code, Health–General § 4-214(b)(5), but did not request amendment of the Pennsylvania birth certificate; the request was for a Maryland judicial declaration of gender status.
- The petitioner submitted affidavits from a physician describing hormone therapy and from a social worker supporting the petitioner’s female gender identity.

## Issues

1. Whether a Maryland circuit court’s general equity jurisdiction authorizes it to determine and declare that a person’s gender has changed absent express statutory authorization.
2. Whether an uncontested petition seeking a judicial declaration of gender status presents a justiciable controversy.
3. What evidentiary showing is required to support a judicial declaration recognizing a gender change, and whether the petitioner’s showing was sufficient.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a circuit court’s general equity jurisdiction includes power to determine and declare that a person has changed from one gender to another.
- The Court rejected the view that § 4-214(b)(5) is the exclusive source of judicial authority or that relief is limited to persons born in Maryland.
- The Court held that the absence of an opposing party did not defeat justiciability in this type of personal-status proceeding.
- The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings so the circuit court could evaluate the evidence under the correct legal framework, including taking additional evidence if needed.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland circuit courts have broad general equity authority to adjudicate matters of personal status, which can include a judicial declaration recognizing a change in gender.
- A birth-certificate amendment statute may provide an administrative mechanism triggered by a court order but does not define or confine the court’s underlying equitable power.
- Non-adversarial, uncontested proceedings can be justiciable when the petitioner seeks a binding determination of legal status rather than an advisory opinion.
- When jurisdiction and justiciability exist, the trial court must assess the sufficiency of proof of gender change on the evidentiary record, rather than denying relief as categorically unavailable.

## Conclusion

Maryland’s highest court ruled that circuit courts may, in equity, declare a person’s gender change even without express statutory authorization and even when the person was born out of state, and it sent the case back for proper consideration of the petitioner’s evidence supporting the requested declaration.


In re Robert Wright Heilig, 816 A.2d 68 (Md. 2003)