[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6147907,"mediaKeyId","5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383","parentId",5518682,"title","Advocates urge committee to end newspaper publication requirement for legal name changes to protect survivors and transgender people","audioSeconds",7403,"startMs",1154000,"endMs",8557000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383&start=1154&end=8557","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383/thumbnail_1154000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6147907/Massachusetts/Advocates-urge-committee-to-end-newspaper-publication-requirement-for-legal-name-changes-to-protect-survivors-and-transgender-people","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6147907-270c2df32b9c62cd8dfcb71588e18436/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188274&Signature=G3GfDRccjI-Yj4irmw-Z56CKHLJu4V4ZEw4n8bIeAgUp2wZ5GofJ0N~svk8iQPUz4yIWM7hr6kz-joCoKne3KK4BC-HQE2QE0nNDK4GH5RD4ZmAh9hhfUoOaproVZb66MtLRWrd9acA4RwmO35lTRNxwJ41lepg474TFIzRgARZspMKJD3wMHeDXBhqi4uAcFwfZQp7dRJRUg5jBG1diLALjAEruOIyQu1IsY7tf4srJNYrJY135QrPh1BBC-j45oJk1unF2ODa7HW5YQyr5F1oDAawNac9YQvzEceDrqolk1MBacui82-umnts1cXJBRBheoEKasDFxUuK4-mcAZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Massachusetts Legislature","date","2025-07-29T00:00:00Z","article","Legislators on the Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard strong, unified testimony in favor of S.10‑45, which would eliminate the existing statewide requirement that petitioners publish court name‑change notices in local newspapers and would create narrower, safety‑oriented procedures to keep petitions out of the public record in appropriate cases.

Supporters — including transgender advocacy organizations, legal‑aid groups and domestic‑violence coalitions — said the publication requirement imposes safety risks for survivors and transgender people, creates financial barriers (publication costs), and is obsolete as a public‑notice mechanism.

“My name should belong to me,” said Senator Joe Comerford in remarks supporting the bill. Advocates urged Massachusetts to join a growing group of states that have removed publication requirements and to provide an administrative path for judges to seal or limit access to name‑change petitions in cases involving safety concerns.

Key points in testimony:
- Publication risks: Witnesses described instances where public notice of a name change led to harassment or outed a petitioner to an abuser, family members or hostile actors. Domestic‑violence advocates said public disclosure can materially increase risks for survivors and transgender people trying to secure safe identity documents.
- Inconsistent practice: Advocates and defense counsel told the committee that judges’ discretionary waivers are applied unevenly across courts, creating geographic disparities in access to safe name changes.
- Administrative alternatives: Testimony proposed keeping name‑change verification and background checks intact while providing a mechanism to seal petitions or exempt them from public indexing when safety is shown. Witnesses noted they had discussed draft language with trial court administrators and reported productive coordination on amendments.

GLAD Law, the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, Jane Doe Inc., MassEquality, and other organizations provided legal and service‑provider perspectives. Several witnesses described programs that assist petitioners with fees and filings and urged statutory change to remove the publication cost burden and the safety exposure.

Opposition was minimal in the hearing record. Several speakers described steps the trial court has taken in some districts to grant waivers, but advocates said discretionary practice is not an adequate remedy for people with safety concerns.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing. Supporters asked the committee to report S.10‑45 favorably and consider the technical amendments discussed with trial court staff.

Why this matters: Name‑change petitions are often an essential step for identity alignment after gender transition, for survivors changing names to escape abusers, and for many routine transactions (IDs, housing, employment). Advocates said the publication requirement is an outdated relic that disproportionately harms vulnerable petitioners.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Committee on the Judiciary\t7/29/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Legislators on the Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard strong, unified testimony in favor of S.10‑45, which would eliminate the statewide newspaper publication requirement for court name changes and add safety‑oriented sealing procedures.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MA, Massachusetts","taxId",77682,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6147912,"Survivors and legal aid groups press Judiciary Committee to create civil remedies for coerced debt",1199,10226000,11425000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383&start=10226&end=11425","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383/thumbnail_10226000.jpg","/articles/6147912/Massachusetts/Survivors-and-legal-aid-groups-press-Judiciary-Committee-to-create-civil-remedies-for-coerced-debt","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6147912-b5bffe64e08d50545b838207d78b18a1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188275&Signature=mjAIlgqsWhbQkm-o5OoIciNs7wYmZXY1IuIk4ihFAG1LARwssTtWmDg7ShNzQkFuSS7jLLy3zZoDsNrx0g0W166hpybz0aRRLOnhUsNOVYAN70CWe4oXTAPRfepHIvzSIQMtFHEIH3G6QbKYjJ6Bxsg~SXwC9D4JlIsZBdDQ7kAEtNR5wq1aPX6XD4X9Ki6AovBjJDGJ4s7gglJqp59qIN1cED8eu4G-cdpOzdEhQHqAQl0Tfes7DgFAsOWa9IerqL7y3T7vwiCWMKn1q4BRTQHf8YiunGlkn8sDp5V3eDC9d2AGVis92lcul451JtQ3en2-1ol4c~0PAAFawpms5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawmakers on the Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard sustained testimony urging passage of bills (H.16‑94 and S.11‑47) that would give survivors of economic abuse a civil legal pathway to address coerced debt.

Lived witnesses described partners who used coercion, fraud or threats to obtain credit and then left survivors liable for thousands of dollars in debt tied to housing, cars or business expenses. Attorneys and advocates said the debts often bar survivors from obtaining housing, jobs or other basic services and that current consumer‑protection remedies are inconsistent and often slow.

\"Coerced debt is a form of economic abuse that traps survivors in dangerous relationships and blocks their ability to leave,\" said Sanai Enriquez of Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts coalition against sexual and domestic violence. \"This bill creates a survivor‑centered civil process to pause collection and seek removal of debt incurred through force, fraud or coercion.\"

Key proposals testified to the committee included:
- A statutory procedure allowing survivors to petition a court to designate specific accounts as coerced debt, triggering a stay on collection and a requirement that creditors seek redress from the perpetrator or accept court‑ordered relief.
- A requirement that creditors and credit reporting agencies remove or block coerced debt from consumers’ credit reports where the court finds the debt was incurred through economic abuse.
- Confidentiality and protective‑order provisions to prevent retaliation and harassment by abusers or debt collectors.

Multiple speakers said five states (including Maine and Connecticut) have enacted laws addressing coerced debt and reported positive practical results. Greater Boston Legal Services, the National Consumer Law Center and other advocates provided a survey showing many local providers encounter coerced‑debt survivors frequently and rarely have an effective statutory remedy today.

Survivors described the human cost: Luanne, who testified in person, said her husband controlled payments and used her name for large debts; after leaving she faced repeated collection suits and a ruined credit score that undermined housing and employment options. Several attorneys said existing tools — family court orders, bankruptcy, or consumer disputes — can help some survivors but do not provide a consistent, trauma‑informed remedy statewide.

Creditors’ rights and collection industry views were not present in force at the hearing; however witnesses noted the bills explicitly preserve creditors’ remedies against perpetrators while providing survivors a civil path to relief. The measure would not immunize perpetrators from collection — rather it would create a legal finding that the debt was nonconsensual and furnish a procedure to allocate responsibility.

No committee vote occurred at the hearing. Advocates asked for the Judiciary Committee to report the bills favorably and to include outreach and implementation funding so survivors can access legal assistance and courts can process petitions promptly.

Speakers included survivors, attorneys from Greater Boston Legal Services and other legal‑aid organizations, representatives from Jane Doe Inc., the National Consumer Law Center and Second Step, and members of the legislature.","Lawmakers on the Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard sustained testimony urging passage of bills (H.16‑94 and S.11‑47) that would give survivors of economic abuse a civil legal pathway to address coerced debt.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6147917,"Mass. judiciary committee hears package of bills to expand tools against animal cruelty and bar convicted abusers from pet ownership",4574,705000,5279000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383&start=705&end=5279","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383/thumbnail_705000.jpg","/articles/6147917/Massachusetts/Mass-judiciary-committee-hears-package-of-bills-to-expand-tools-against-animal-cruelty-and-bar-convicted-abusers-from-pet-ownership","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6147917-22c3c2fbe2f7f7d68b2149d2d2605ecc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188275&Signature=boxWaL~Tswqg3wGFU1gQ61pWpt7r46rxVb6om58Z3Led0HcJ4G~uQayl-x0gHcn7cJxmdzo9MYJb3KoOqDYe9~0jb4bny5BJxvOCVeblYHMy72glMyKBorHOAZHWA3t~8Zmmz9MGY873gX1hFia0jzozSvbgVHnclF5YJjEyJ~c1H3orhufyWIPXp8YKlmMhU0UHF71rc8iD5g1Eh2DQlGlvO3aawCBvjgrQIpQBeZrHycMENpplZRje13uPMJirambdpIAe8f1dPdxJ5nORTigxubuaF8xDRNVZ8j5MX2b-XhMQZpO65sO4Oz~xoXwFWiNAu-~vCLobs-nsk5b1iA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chair Lydia Edwards and Representative Michael Day presided over a hearing where lawmakers heard multiple bills aimed at strengthening protections for animals, increasing noncriminal enforcement tools and creating time‑limited possession bans for people convicted of serious animal abuse.

The committee heard testimony from humane law enforcement and advocacy groups pressing for civil procedures that would let animal control officers, humane societies and courts remove animals or order required care without first pursuing a felony prosecution. Supporters said the change would let agencies act sooner to prevent suffering in cases where voluntary surrender or cooperation is not forthcoming.

“Sometimes educating owners and offering low‑cost veterinary care is enough,” said Chris Schindler of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. “But at times that is not enough. A civil route to obtain custody or require care would prevent needless suffering without forcing a criminal charge in every case.”

The package discussed included proposals that would:
- Establish a civil process allowing law enforcement or authorized humane officers to seek orders for removal or care of neglected animals (bills cited: S.1277 / H.19 34 and related draft language presented to the committee).
- Create temporary possession bans preventing individuals convicted of certain felony animal‑cruelty offenses from owning animals for set periods, modeled on prior statutory language in PAWS‑2 for certain offenses (bills cited: H.19 14 / S.1207).
- Expand authority to issue civil citations for cruel conditions beyond dogs to include other domestic animals and some farm animals (H.19 38 / S.1038 references in testimony).
- Strengthen penalties and create fines that would be deposited into the Massachusetts Animal Fund to support spay/neuter and veterinary services, as described by witnesses advocating fines be used for animal welfare programs.

Animal control officers and humane investigators described cases in which owners repeatedly failed to provide care, or in which hoarding situations involved dozens to hundreds of animals with poor sanitation and untreated medical needs. Tracy Rondinello, an animal control officer serving Springfield, Chicopee and Holyoke, described a case involving more than 40 animals in unsanitary conditions and said current criminal statutes limited officers’ ability to secure prompt relief for non‑dog animals.

Supporters argued civil remedies and expanded citation authority would allow earlier intervention, reduce repeat harm, and reduce the need to pursue felony prosecutions in every case. They also said a targeted possession ban for convicted animal abusers — as proposed in related legislation — would close a statutory gap that today can allow some offenders to acquire animals after conviction.

Opponents and commenters urged safeguards for due process and raised operational concerns. Stacy Ober of the American Kennel Club urged amendments to the civil proposal to require a clear‑and‑convincing evidentiary standard for neglect findings, at least seven days’ notice for hearings, notice and opportunity for independent veterinary exams at a respondent’s expense, and to bar warrantless civil seizures except in true exigent emergencies. Alyssa Clements, representing pet‑industry groups, supported the goal of keeping animals away from abusers but opposed shifting enforcement responsibilities for registry checks or denials to shelter staff or retail clerks; she urged law‑enforcement‑led enforcement instead.

Several witnesses from MSPCA, Animal Rescue League of Boston and other humane organizations pressed the committee to advance the bills as drafted, saying the changes align with a public‑safety and animal‑welfare approach that prioritizes preventing harm while reserving felony prosecutions for the most serious conduct.

What happens next: the committee took testimony; no vote or formal action was taken at the hearing. Supporters asked the committee to report the bills favorably so the changes can be debated in later committee stages. Lawmakers and witnesses asked for technical amendments to ensure due‑process protections and to clarify seizure, notice, and care‑cost provisions.

Why this matters: witnesses say the current statutory toolbox in Massachusetts — which relies primarily on felony prosecution for many forms of animal cruelty — can force long waits and limits options to remedy neglect or hoarding. The civil process and citation expansions would create lower‑threshold, faster interventions in many welfare cases, while a possession ban aimed at convicted abusers would aim to prevent recidivism.

Speakers included staff and advocates from the MSPCA, Animal Rescue League of Boston, Animal Legal Defense Fund, American Kennel Club, Animal Control Officers, rescue volunteers and multiple legislators who introduced or sponsored the bills. No formal votes were recorded during the hearing.","Chair Lydia Edwards and Representative Michael Day presided over a hearing where lawmakers heard multiple bills aimed at strengthening protections for animals, increasing noncriminal enforcement tools and creating time‑limited possession bans for people convicted of serious animal abuse.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6147898,"Families and bike advocates push liability and safety upgrades for large trucks after fatal collisions",112,5334000,5446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383&start=5334&end=5446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383/thumbnail_5334000.jpg","/articles/6147898/Massachusetts/Families-and-bike-advocates-push-liability-and-safety-upgrades-for-large-trucks-after-fatal-collisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6147898-7c524556ccba90321ec308d7bf67d649/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188275&Signature=Ew5TgyeM-lQul4p5FTbohgdnZCF5PJ6XoiUDi4tYbNSyKmAAycLQ8xIuHkWpNwHlZUiZoEd0HVKOSkBKVN7vBQlSKsGlyywWfnRbdMFrUaUTnoCxyKM~QvxAN0T0LqYqdf7MJl5y-uENRFUnKdF8bp~qk75XoTaK2FNzZEhaDxFqSWZXpApbN6MRsZovcWA02JTeV37DRo1idE53hxlicQ~ON6LfAZ-BBFhmtnytvctYhaDJgv3iqBz8pg~kSXAnXqUjvWiy4N~RAm-xkWB3DVR0VtOKrki0XLGdhbxdR4AT6V0760wlPoTlMiVpJS2KZKqUJVDVqjYdGFEG2bYfkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A cluster of victims, families and bicycle‑safety advocates urged the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to advance S.10‑36, legislation intended to reduce collisions between large motor vehicles and vulnerable road users.

Speakers included family members of people killed in collisions with box trucks and tractor‑trailers, representatives of MassBike, and community activists. They described fatal collisions known as right‑hooks and underride incidents in which bicycle riders or pedestrians were struck or crushed by rear wheels because a truck body blinded drivers to people in adjacent lanes.

Key safety measures discussed included requiring:
- Side guards and ladder‑type underride protection on trucks and trailers to prevent pedestrian or cyclist entrapment beneath wheels;
- Convex mirrors and expanded direct‑vision mirror requirements and camera systems to improve drivers’ sightlines; and
- Liability rules that create accountability where carriers or drivers fail to equip vehicles with readily available safety technology.

Family members gave emotional testimony. Mary Beth Ellis described her daughter Sydney’s death after a semi with its front bumper extended into a crosswalk struck and killed the child; she urged the committee to require basic safety devices and stronger liability to produce behavior change. Alexa Gomberg recounted the fatal right‑hook death of a close friend and pressed for ladder‑protection devices.

Advocates said the measures are already in use in some municipalities and other countries and that legislative action would accelerate adoption across the Commonwealth. They framed the proposal as a practical public‑safety step: many devices are commercially available and would reduce the most deadly collision types.

No vote was taken during the hearing. Advocates asked the committee to report S.10‑36 favorably and flagged coordination needs with transportation committees and rule‑making agencies to ensure standards and enforcement are effective.

Speakers: MassBike, family members of victims, graduate‑student advocates and walking/cycling safety groups.","Families and bicycle‑safety advocates urged the Judiciary Committee to advance S.10‑36, a bill that would require side guards, convex mirrors and other safety devices on large trucks and increase liability when carriers fail to equip vehicles.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6147901,"Police chiefs support adding law‑enforcement councils to Massachusetts Tort Claims Act; attorneys warn civil‑rights change could increase litigation",177,1556000,1733000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383&start=1556&end=1733","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5518682-1dca65758fb53facc5c3b9e92a446383/thumbnail_1556000.jpg","/articles/6147901/Massachusetts/Police-chiefs-support-adding-lawenforcement-councils-to-Massachusetts-Tort-Claims-Act-attorneys-warn-civilrights-change-could-increase-litigation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6147901-b27c459b70e8c7064b530269f98df844/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188275&Signature=ZqF7jXF0BWFTyAIIIB59LMbUmVIAZQUS649VOytjcOOKeeyTNTpICPyEzpJLAxqbbspYnq2HA3k6eOg6q0vByUAfyyKk8qsLLl-JgAiSPDIuESnROnBJW1wOgKwOj6DAtrEbOHs6Lo79S1arbdIAjGbu-9z3phRqZBcLXmDqJnH63EFlTrbSgY1zdeEaUwas5W-8sTQ-fWen7xeMCnZ~MOTNUcRFhv2bQ-9WQ8QtJ2mD~7HiuzyGtYsUFH-IL3LP0Kl5cokA7oAsIYqs-qEBG74Rw8oI-SDv4SwgbAxd6hoTXHOMUN7QUkZPAYfG-gQ88Z8wROHIH5Tp9idI1IP3JQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A panel representing municipal police chiefs asked the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to add law‑enforcement councils (regional mutual‑aid collaboratives) to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, saying the change would provide clearer coverage and reduce the risk of large judgments against councils that operate regionally.

Attorney Art Gasparapenis and several police chiefs described 44(j) mutual‑aid opt‑in arrangements and said courts currently treat councils inconsistently because of differences in structure or corporate form. They asked the committee to adopt language in S.11‑99 that would make coverage explicit and thereby reduce litigation uncertainty and potential multimillion‑dollar exposure for municipalities that participate in mutual‑aid LECs.

“LECs routinely provide essential regional services — SWAT, crisis negotiation, K‑9, search and rescue and school‑safety training,” said Chief Thomas Fowler (paraphrase), adding that 223 communities currently participate in some mutual‑aid arrangements and that standardized coverage would reduce legal risk and promote regional cooperation.

The association also testified in opposition to H.16‑41, a bill that would remove the threats‑and‑coercion element from claims under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act when the defendant is a law‑enforcement officer. Massachusetts Chiefs argued that removing that requirement would shift cases into state court where the local judiciary lacks the procedural tools of federal courts, could increase costs and settlements driven by litigation pressure, and might exacerbate retention problems in police ranks.

Attorney Art Gasparapenis said federal 42 U.S.C. §1983 already provides a federal remedy without the needs for a state‑level change, and he urged caution in altering the civil‑rights standard given court resource constraints and the risk of encouraging cost‑driven settlements rather than resolving cases on the merits.

Committee members pressed chiefs on specifics about qualified‑immunity‑related reforms and asked whether statutory direction requiring courts to explain rationale in qualified immunity rulings would be problematic. Chiefs said their principal concern was the removal of the coercion element and the potential chilling effect such a change could have on recruitment and retention.

No committee action was taken during the hearing. The chiefs asked the committee to advance the Tort Claims Act amendment for LECs while opposing the civil‑rights change as written.

Speakers included: Chief Michael Bradley Jr., Chief Thomas Fowler, Attorney Art Gasparapenis (Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association), and other municipal law‑enforcement representatives.","Chiefs and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association urged the joint committee to add regional law‑enforcement councils (LECs) to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act to reduce legal uncertainty and liability exposure for mutual‑aid collaboratives. The association also opposed changing the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act’s coercion threshold for","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Advocates urge committee to end newspaper publication requirement for legal name changes to protect survivors and transgender people

Survivors and legal aid groups press Judiciary Committee to create civil remedies for coerced debt

Mass. judiciary committee hears package of bills to expand tools against animal cruelty and bar convicted abusers from pet ownership

Families and bike advocates push liability and safety upgrades for large trucks after fatal collisions

Police chiefs support adding law‑enforcement councils to Massachusetts Tort Claims Act; attorneys warn civil‑rights change could increase litigation