Father of Texas : Court did not force dad to allow chemical castration of son
A Texas father’s petition to bring his 10-year-old son home from California, where he fears the boy’s mother will chemically castrate the child under a new law, was denied by the Texas Supreme Court.
The ex-wife of Jeff Younger, who lives in the Dallas area, believes that their son James wants to be a girl, which led to a well-publicized custody battle. Younger disputes that assertion, claiming that James did not identify as a woman and did not wear dresses when visiting his home after the 2015 divorce.
In December, Younger applied for assistance from the Texas high court, requesting temporary emergency custody of James and Jude, his twin brother. After finding out last month that his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, who had temporary custody of their sons, had moved to California, he asked the court to order their return to Texas.
California is now a haven for transgender people thanks to a law that went into effect on January 1. Younger is concerned that the brand-new law in California will overturn an earlier decision that stated James could not undergo a medical transition without his consent or a brand-new court order.
However, on December 30, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Younger was wrong to interpret the California law.
Younger tweeted, “My children are now subject to being chemically castrated in California,” after receiving the news.
Younger of Sex-Change Sanctuary stated to The Epoch Times that he intends to continue fighting on behalf of his sons and to advocate for changes in Texas laws to safeguard children from sex-change hormones and surgical procedures.
My sons were in danger because of the Texas Supreme Court. He said of the decision, “Moving into a transgender sanctuary jurisdiction like California was not in the best interest of my children.”
Jimmy Blacklock, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, disagreed. Blacklock wrote, along with Justice Evan Young, that California’s SB 107 transgender sanctuary law targets other states’ laws but not their court orders.
Blacklock wrote in the ruling that it is essential to correctly comprehend the California law by distinguishing between the laws of other states and the actions of courts in other states.
According to the ruling, the mother agreed to a court order in October 2021 stating that she would not administer puberty blockers to James or perform sex reassignment surgery without the parents’ consent or a court order. The high court reasoned that Georgulas would not violate an order that forbade her son’s transition just because she moved the children to California.
Blacklock wrote, “By my reading of SB 107, fathers’ fears in California are no more likely to be realized under SB 107 than they were before the bills were enacted.”
However, Blacklock concurred that SB 107 protects individuals from other states’ laws that would prevent them from obtaining California-legal gender-affirming care. In the event that a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care in another location, the legislation in California permits the provision of temporary emergency protection in California.
Additionally, the legislation prohibits medical professionals from disclosing information in response to lawsuits brought in opposition to gender-affirming child care in other states.
Additionally, it prevents the state and local police of California from arresting or extraditing someone who has broken treatment laws in other states.
Younger stated that he disagrees with the high courts, reasoning that a court order and a law are the same thing.
Orders issued by a court are legal because they are authorized by the law. Younger argued that this is the reason why the court erred in making that distinction.
Because his ex-wife no longer resides in Dallas County, his next move is to move the case to his home county of Denton. Additionally, he intends to attend the Texas legislative session in 2023 to advocate for the state’s ban on chemical and surgical sex changes for children.
I believe that other parents refrain from speaking out because the judiciary treats you cruelly. Younger stated, “I feel like I have a duty to other children in addition to my own.”
Youngers’ ex-wife and his sons were granted permission to relocate anywhere in the continental United States by Dallas District Judge Mary Brown, a Democrat serving on the Texas 301st District Court bench, on September 21, 2022.
Brown claimed that she made the decision for the twins’ safety and well-being.
Younger was also required to schedule supervised parental visits in the county where the children live, according to the order.
Brown instructed the mother not to tell the boy’s father where they would be in the future. Additionally, the judge permitted her to apply for new passports.
Younger obtained documents during previous court proceedings and became concerned that his ex-wife would take steps to medically transition James. According to the documents, she took James to a therapist, who advised her to investigate gender transitioning at the Genecis medical clinic in Dallas.
On December 22, the office of Texas Attorney Ken Paxton submitted an amicus brief in support of Youngers’ case and requesting that the court grant Youngers’ petition. The same was done by Texas Values, a conservative nonprofit organization that advocates for parental rights.
In 2022, Paxton issued an opinion stating that, according to Texas law, medically transitioning children constitutes child abuse. The brief stated that Youngers’ request for an emergency injunction was required by Paxton’s office. According to his opinion, California had directed its courts to assert jurisdiction over children who were prohibited from receiving medical treatment to change their biological sex in another way by passing the new law.
Paxton wrote that the question presented here is both of constitutional significance and likely to recur, making the need for relief even more pressing in this instance.
In response to the amicus briefs, Georgula’s lawyers stated that the new California law was not in effect when Younger filed his petition. Their client moved to California to protect her children and remake her pediatric practice, they said.
The attorneys added that the mother, a pediatrician, had no intention of requesting temporary emergency jurisdiction in California.
The attorneys wrote that Mother freely acknowledges that she is bound by the order in both Texas and California.
Republicans in Texas spoke out against the social media ruling.
In a letter, State Rep. Bryan Slaton, R-Royse City, stated that one of several bills filed by him and others to outlaw the gender transition of minors in Texas was defeated during the Texas 2021 legislative session.
We had chances to stop this and keep children safe. We failed. In an effort to stop this, I submitted numerous amendments. Numerous Republicans attempted to halt my efforts. What a shame! He tweeted, “God have mercy on us.”
Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas Matt Rinaldi referred to Youngers’ situation as a complete failure on the part of Texas political leaders to safeguard children.
According to Younger, he received a confirmation email on December 20 that Georgulas was residing in Los Angeles County with their twin sons.
He requested that his children remain in Texas when he initially requested an emergency stay on December 16. He claimed that at the time, he was unaware that his ex-wife and sons had already relocated to California.
Younger went back to court the following day and amended his petition, requesting that the high court direct his ex-wife to return his sons to Texas.
Attorney Jeff Childers, who practices Constitutional law in Florida, stated that he tends to concur with the Texas Supreme Court’s argument that California cannot disregard a court order from another state.
He told The Epoch Times, however, that the mother might try to have her case moved to California. A California judge’s new court order could alter the situation.
Childers said that if the family law case were in California, a court would look at a situation in which the state says that the child should get the transfusion. The Epoch Times was unable to obtain a response from Georgulas. A request for clarification from her KoonsFuller attorneys was unanswered prior to publication.
