Post #1720568

@ShadSterling From what it says in the article and from what I *think* is another example of impounded records I know about, that shouldn't be a problem. But, ironically, I just ran into an example of another situation in which it would be. The reason I was talking to the court about this and it got mentioned in passing is that *I* am trying to get legal proof of someone else's name change, with potentially profound legal consequences for me: I am trying to prove I am my father's daughter and he changed his name. His name on my birth certificate is not his name on his own certificate. And at issue is a matter of *citizenship*. Fortunately, at the moment, this is not an obstacle for me, because that was in the 1960s and those are still public. Turns out there are other parties who have a very legitimate interest in legal proof of name changes: the descendants. Impounding those records can be like "closing" an adoption record: a child might get cut off from knowing facts about their ancestry they have a legitimate right to know, including medical and legal facts. Like legal facts having to do with citizenship status. So I am of VERY mixed feelings. I have long thought the name change laws were insufficient re privacy, for precisely the reasons in the article. OTOH, this. I want to be very clear: part of the reason my father changed his name was due to an abuser in his family. That abuser, who is dead and gone, is precisely the party I ultimately need to prove my descent from. I am truly on both sides of this at once. @Fishercat @trisweb