Texas dad blocked by court from stopping gender transition of 7-year-old son

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the removal of a child from religious parents, after the child became "self-isolating" and ate worse in reaction to the parents' opposition to the child's claiming a gender identity at odds with the child’s biological sex. The court ruling is somewhat disingenuous: It says the child is being removed based "not on the Parents' disagreement with Child's transgender identity," but rather "based on Child’s medical and psychological needs." But the "needs" it cites are the fact that the child became "self-isolating" in response to disagreement with the parents about the child's gender identity, and developed "an eating disorder."

Indiana courts remove transgender child from religious parents - Liberty Unyielding, October 2020
The ruling was made by Judge Terry Crone, joined by Judges Nancy Vaidik and Robert Altice.

The Department of Child's Services initially alleged the mother was verbally and emotionally abusing the then 16-year-old child by using rude and demeaning language toward the child regarding the child's transgender identity. But then they later dropped that and changed tactics, alleging that the child was endangering their own health, under the CHINS-6 statute. Allegedly the child's eating disorder was worsening, the child had lost "a significant amount of weight" and was throwing away and hiding food and not eating full meals. After taking to the child they came to the conclusion that the child's health and the eating disorder was fueled partly because of the child's self-isolation from the parents, behavior likely to reoccur if the child were placed back in the parents' home.

 

A right wing misinformation site quoting another right wing misinformation site

Yep that is believable

 

Ooooh! Look another far right site

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/liberty-unyielding/

However I will give you this - they rate median on factual reporting

So what does the article actually say? The child had mental health issues? Hardly a newsworthy issue as a large number of transgender children have mental health issues

 

It sounds like the Department of Child's Services might have been using the child's alleged mental health issues as a legal excuse to win their case and get the child removed from the parents, when the real issue was all about the parents not being very accepting of the child's transgender issues.

 

Dad needs to grab the kid and skip the country.

 

I read that the egg was donated.

Anyway, do you think James can sue the jury when he discover his life was ruinged by transmania?

 

I think a child should be able to sue when an adult for getting a circumcision without their consent, so yes

let them choose for themselves when old enough

"I read that the egg was donated."

yes, then in-vitro, thus her baby

 

That's an interesting question. What makes somebody "your" child? Genetics, birthing, or law? Or all three?

 

And perhaps the parents may consider the transgender issues to be mental health issues. Kind of ironic.

 

in vitro is her baby

 

Law, since it can override the other two, as per adoption and other legal procedures.

 

Not necessarily. The terms does not address genetics or legal relationship. A surrogate can get an offspring that is not hers in any manner through IVF.

 

It was never claimed that it was not "hers;" only that she was not biologically related to the child(ren). As the egg was not hers, this is a factual statement.

 

the post I replied to was about if in vitro was her child, I answered

 

you're correct, but she was not a surrogate for another woman though, this was her baby

 

That is the ridiculous attitude, which fuels the demonization of transsexuality, by the Right. Clearly, to any sensible person, the "onus" is upon one who wishes to change a child's natural, physical development, when that child is too young to make such a decision for themself. It is not a non-consequential decision, as your post suggests, to be taken lightly. It should be very well grounded, such that objective minds could recognize the evidence, before steps are taken, with lasting repercussions-- not something automatically available to the whim of any parent who had wanted a child of one sex, but got the other, instead.

 

You are incorrect. Your reply was only to the OP, as it was post #2:

What the OP had said, which brought up the topic, was this:

 

did you forget what post you replied too, post #35

my post #35
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-7-year-old-son.563527/page-2#post-1073870908

your post #38
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-7-year-old-son.563527/page-2#post-1073873221

 

This is becoming ridiculous. I was responding to the contention you had been making, since post #2. Sorry if you were confused by my quoting you saying the same thing, later on, but meant to refer to a different situation. I did not notice, anywhere in the thread, you correcting the statement of your post #2, in reference to biological relation. That is clearly what point I have been making.

 

My point was that you presented the term in vitro as if that showed that by default it was hers. And many a woman who has a working uterus but no eggs have had donated eggs, fertilized by her mate in vitro, inserted into them. Looking at other posts, I am guessing that you intended to show that in vitro didn't automatically make a difference in whether it was hers or not.

 

sorry if you got confused by which post you replied too, glad we got that figured out

 

that is why I started with "you're correct", I agree with that

 

So then, you understand that this mother, is not biologically related, to the child in question (but the dad, is, genetically the father)?

 

No, it isn't.

 

agree, but both are the legal parents of that child