In Re: Adam Christopher Strain

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 15, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: ADAM CHRISTOPHER STRAIN
No. 2025-C-00198
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN
RE: Adelaide Selene Strain, formally Adam Christopher Strain - Applicant Other;
Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court
Number(s) 849-387, Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 24-CA-234;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 15, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
McCallum, J., dissents.
WJC
JLW
JDH
PDG
JMG
CRC
04/15/2025 "See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-C-00198
IN RE: ADAM CHRISTOPHER STRAIN
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit,
Parish of Jefferson
PER CURIAM.
Writ granted. La. R.S. 40:62(C) requires proof: 1) petitioner was properly
diagnosed as a transsexual or pseudo -hermaphrodite; 2) sex reassignment or
corrective surgery has been properly performed upon petitioner; and 3) as a result of
such surgery and subsequent medical treatment, the anatomical structure of
petitioner’s sex has been changed to a sex other than that stated on the original birth
certificate. As Judge Marcel reasoned in his dissenting opinion, 1 this is a civil
matter; therefore, petitioner must prove the required facts by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Talbot v. Talbot, 03-0814, p. 9 (La. 12/12/03), 864 So.2d 590, 598
(explaining that in civil cases a party who has the burden of proof must prove the
fact in issue by a preponderance of the evidence, and only in exceptional
controversies is the clear and convincing standard applied). The statute requires no
specific type, kind, or quantity of evidence to meet that burden of proof, instead
providing “[t]he court shall require such proof as it deems necessary to be
convinced” of the necessary facts. La. R.S. 40:62(C).
The trial court committed legal error in failing to apply the correct legal
standard of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See Wallmuth v. Rapides
1 In re: Strain, 24-234, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/24), __ So.3d __, __ (Marcel, J., dissenting).

2

Parish School Bd., 01-1779, p. 7 n.2 (La. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 341, 345 n.2. S uch
legal error interdicted the factfinding process. Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, p. 6 (La.
2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, 735. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in
failing to grant a new trial. T he decision of the Court of Appeal is vacated and set
aside. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
VACATED.