WeVote
Log In

Bill

FB

Bill

HB 5300

Probate: other; name change proceedings; modify. Amends secs. 1 & 3, ch. XI of 1939 PA 288 (MCL 711.1 & 711.3).

2023-2024 Regular Session Introduced by Felicia Brabec and 4 co-sponsors

Michigan now allows name-change orders with or without hearings, requires petitioners to disclose criminal records, and strengthens confidentiality for survivors and gender-identit

assigned PA 229'24
#probate:other
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5300

Summary — HB 5300 (Enrolled as Public Act 229 of 2024)

Status: Enrolled House Bill; Approved by Governor Jan. 17, 2025; Effective April 2, 2025
Primary sponsors (original package): Reps. Laurie Pohutsky, Emily Dievendorf, Felicia Brabec, Helena Scott (HBs 5300–5303 related). This enrolled bill (PA 229) amends the Probate Code (chapter XI, MCL 711.1 and 711.3) and focuses on court name-change procedures.

Purpose

To revise Michigan’s statutory procedures for legal name-change petitions to reduce certain automatic barriers, increase confidentiality protections for specified petitioners, and streamline court practice for some petitions.

Key provisions and changes

  • Removal of an automatic presumption of fraudulent intent based solely on a petitioner’s criminal record. Instead, petitioners must now disclose in the petition whether they have a criminal record (including pending charges) or affirm they do not; false statements constitute perjury.
  • Elimination of the statutory requirement that petitioners aged 22 or older submit fingerprint sets for state and FBI background checks (a prior requirement in earlier drafts was removed in the enacted text).
  • Court discretion to enter a name-change order with or without a hearing (except where other statutory constraints apply).
  • Stronger confidentiality standard: if a petition "shows good cause," the court must order no publication of the proceeding and make records confidential (whereas prior law allowed the court to do so). The statute prescribes that the petition must state reasons the petitioner or an identified “endangered individual” fears publication.
  • A statutory presumption that good cause is shown if the petitioner or an endangered individual is a victim of assaultive crime, domestic violence, harassment, human trafficking, or stalking — or if the petitioner seeks to affirm their gender identity.
  • Expanded definitions and explanatory language in the statute (e.g., definitions of domestic violence, family/household member, dating relationship, and gender identity).
  • Minor consent changes: a minor 14 years or older must sign written consent to the name change and file it with the court, but is not required to sign in the court’s physical presence.

Who is affected

  • Individuals seeking legal name changes (adults and minors).
  • Survivors of assaultive crimes, domestic violence, stalking, human trafficking, and individuals seeking to affirm gender identity (may obtain automatic presumption of confidentiality).
  • Persons with criminal records (must disclose records but are not statutorily presumed fraudulent).
  • Family-division circuit courts (procedures, confidentiality determinations, and use of criminal history tools such as LEIN/ICHAT); courts bear costs for court-initiated criminal-history checks.
  • Law enforcement and corrections agencies that receive notice when an order involves a person with a criminal record.

Procedural/timeline notes

  • Residency requirement (minimum 1 year in county) and existing Supreme Court rule publication framework remain, except where section 3 confidentiality applies.
  • Courts must forward name-change orders for petitioners with criminal records to the State Police central records division and, as applicable, to Corrections, the county sheriff, and other relevant courts.
  • Effective date: April 2, 2025 (Public Act 229 of 2024).

Potential impacts

  • Increases privacy protections for survivors and people seeking gender-affirming identity changes.
  • Lowers procedural and financial barriers for petitioners (removal of fingerprint/background-check mandate).
  • Balances transparency and public-safety considerations by retaining disclosure of criminal records and by routing orders to criminal-justice agencies when appropriate.

If you want, I can extract and format the exact statutory text changes (MCL 711.1 and 711.3) side-by-side (current vs. amended) or prepare a short explainer for petitioners or court clerks on how the new confidentiality and disclosure requirements operate in practice.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.