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imposes safety risks for survivors and transgender people, creates financial barriers (publication costs), and is obsolete as a public‑notice mechanism.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.