Jeff Younger’s ex-wife wants to transition his young son into a girl, and he has been fighting in court to prevent her from doing so.
Jeff’s ex-wife is a pediatrician and has been socially transitioning James since he was two years old. He is now 10.
The ongoing custody battle between Younger and Georgulas, who practiced as a pediatrician in Coppell, began when his ex-wife started dressing James as a girl when he was around 2 years old.
Georgulas argued that James chose to identify as a female, wear dresses, and go by the female name Luna.
On the other hand, Younger accused his ex-spouse of leading their young son to socially transition his gender before he could understand the concept or its implications.
Earlier this year Texas declared the medical transition of children through hormones or surgery to be a form of child abuse. In response, Jeff’s wife sought to move to California and did so earlier this year, with the permission of a liberal judge. Younger’s rights to be informed of his son’s medical treatment were also terminated. The judge also hit him with a gag order, forbidding him to discuss the case–a ruling he has obviously failed to follow because it violates his rights.
Younger did retain the right to consent or not to medical transitioning, ensuring that if his son remained in any state other than California he could prevent the medical castration of his son. But beginning January 1, California will ignore any court orders from other states in such matters.
Earlier this month he appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court denied his appeal.
And just like that — the trans industry beat parental rights,..in TEXAS.
You all shouldn’t be afraid of Democrats, you should be more afraid of sell out Republicans. They are the real threat to your life. https://t.co/DuTHQGcQ6u
— Terry Schilling 🇺🇸 (@Schilling1776) December 31, 2022
What makes the case especially disturbing is that Younger’s wife has fled to California, which come tomorrow will be a “sanctuary state” for people bringing children for medical transgender treatments. That means that Younger’s rights to protect his son from chemical or surgical castration have essentially been terminated.
California will no longer enforce any court decisions from other states, including custody decisions. That is when California Senate Bill 107, a so-called transgender sanctuary law goes into effect, which would mean the end of protection for James under Texas law. The Texas Supreme Court decision thus essentially terminated all his parental rights, despite technically retaining them.
Earlier this year I called California a kidnapper’s sanctuary state, since the law protects people who have either legally or illegally brought children to the state for gender “treatment.”
The California law safeguards against the enforcement of other states’ laws, such as those in Texas, that would “penalize individuals from obtaining gender-affirming care that is legal in California.”
The legislation prohibits medical providers from releasing information in response to lawsuits in other states that oppose “gender-affirming” care for children. It also bars California state and local police from arresting or extraditing someone for violating other states’ laws regarding treatment.
Texas Attorney Ken Paxton’s office filed an amicus letter supporting Younger’s case and urging the court to grant Younger’s petition.
Younger says he fears his ex-wife will chemically or surgically castrate James because of documents he obtained during court proceedings. They show she took James to a therapist who recommended the family “explore” gender transitioning at the Dallas-based Genecis medical clinic.
Paxton issued an opinion this year that medically transitioning children constituted child abuse under Texas law. Paxton’s office said in its amicus brief Younger’s request for an emergency injunction was necessary because California had directed its courts to assert jurisdiction over children prohibited from gender medical intervention in other states.
I haven’t found anything yet about the details of the court’s decision to not intervene in the case or their reasoning. One would have expected a Texas court to side with the father in this case, given that under its rules the path the mother has chosen is explicitly defined as child abuse.
Younger is not giving up. This will inevitably lead to challenges of the California law in federal court, given that California is clearly violating the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. I expect that the California law will eventually fall. At least that is my hope.
But that may not save James, should his mother start puberty blockers while the case continues. Despite what is constantly asserted, puberty blockers are neither safe nor reversible.
What an unpleasant way to ring in the new year.
