2014-00160737-CU-PT

In Re: Robert Daniel Learned

Nature of Proceeding: Petition for Change of Name

Filed By: Learned, Robert Daniel

Petition for Name Change is denied.

CCP 1279.5(d) provides: “Notwithstanding any other law, a court shall deny a petition
for a name change pursuant to Section 1276 made by a person who is required to
register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, unless the court
determines that it is in the best interest of justice to grant the petition and that doing so
will not adversely affect the public safety. If a petition for a name change is granted for
an individual required to register as a sex offender, the individual shall, within five
working days, notify the chief of police of the city in which he or she is domiciled, or the
sheriff of the county if he or she is domiciled in an unincorporated area, and
additionally with the chief of police of a campus of a University of California or
California State University if he or she is domiciled upon the campus or in any of its
facilities.

Petitioner has provided no information from which the Court can determine that it is in
the best interests to grant the petition. Yet again, Petitioner may seek a renewal of this
petition and file supplemental declarations in support of a finding that it is in the
interest of justice to grant the petition and will not adversely affect the public safety.

At the prior hearing on this matter, the Court continued the matter to this day’s
calendar to allow petitioner to provide the court with admissible evidence reflecting that
it is in the best interest of justice to grant the petition and that doing so would not affect
public safety. In that regard, the Court suggested petitioner seek approval from his
probation officer or doctor or other sources from which the court might make the
appropriate determination. The June 3, 2014 letter from George Vidales, Senior United
States Probation Officer, does not assist in the Court’s determination. That letter notes
that Learned’s identification as a transgender is “well-documented,” and part of
petitioner’s plan to undergo a physical gender transformation. The letter concludes that
Learned will, for the purposes of the Eastern District of California Probation Office,
continue to be identified as Robert Daniel Learned, for supervision matters. The letter
does not provide evidence implicating the public safety issue or the best interest of
justice.

Generally, the Court recognizes that there must be a substantial reason to deny the
petition. (See In re Ritchie (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1072; In re Ross (1937) 8
Cal.2d 608, 610 [applying abuse of discretion standard and finding court abused its
discretion because “some substantial reason must exist for the denial”].) This broad
rule is generally applied if the requested name change is not within the explicit
statutory exemptions (see, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 1279.5) Here, it is addressed, as
noted above.