BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Yep. This MIGHT explain why the local media didnt give it much play. gender issues aside, this is worthy of serious investigation.
And the reason it is just now hitting the national media is they (unlike local media) are pushing a narrative and not including the relevant issues below.
Its one thing to deny a child gender affirming care. Its another thing to ack that the kid has an eating disorder but then fail to seek medial attention for it. I can see that.
So I take the therapy removal and school withdrawal with a grain of salt.
1: as a homeschooler, were they actually homeschooling the kid? They dont say. Not saying they were/werent, but there is no mention. They could have said my son was being neglected because he only went to the fall semester of the 1st grade and we pulled him out with "no intent to re-enroll him" and started homeschooling 11 years ago. I would expect parents to show curriculum to counter that claim.
2: There is a good chance they pulled him from the therapist he was seeing for the eating disorder because the therapist bought into the theory that the DSM is wrong and transgenderism should be encouraged.
1) There's no mention of homeschooling by either party in the appeal. My *assumption* is that would be listed in the report instead of just "withdrawn..." I don't know for sure, though.
2) As I read it, DCS wasn't able to verify the child had ever been in therapy up to that point as the parent would not consent to release any medical records. "Mother refused to sign any consents so that DCS could verify any medical concerns or past therapy services." So I think we're just stuck with spit-balling on that one as there are no facts presented as to the where, why, etc.
I note the parents attorney is saying the appeals court said the issue was moot because the child was now an adult so no remedy is possible. Per the actual appeal, the issue was moot because of the 3 "charges", 2 were dropped and they agreed to the 3rd. This is the equivalent of a guilty plea in criminal court as I understand it, you can't agree to it and then say it wasn't fair. There's no remedy available for the other two because they were *already dropped* and weren't used in the decision. So the fact the child is now an adult never entered in to that. (See pt 12)
Also of interest is the trial court specifically states that, were the medical issues not involved, this would not be a removal:
[¶19] Our review of the record shows that the trial court explained its understanding of this case as follows (emphasis added by the appeals court):
The ultimate goal is for family reunification […] the reality is this is an extreme example of a child having a certain lifestyle that the parent don't agree with. That has been going on for all time. There ha[ve] always been issues where children do things that the parent don't agree with be it religiously or morally or whatever. That happens and that is not a reason to remove a child from the home, but when it as in this case there is a clear nexus between that issue and the medical and psychological issues that the child is having that is when we get issues that we have here today that the State is now involved in and because of those issues the child is a ward of DCS and those decisions are going to have to be made through the Court so I certainly understand the objections and the parent[s'] views and I am not discounting the parent[s'] views
at all[.] I am not taking any issue with the child's views or the parent[s'] views. They are differing views and that happens in life. ut to the extent that we now have these medical issues that again, there is a [nexus] between this discord about the lifestyle and the medical issues. That has to get resolved and this [is] going to take some therapy and that is going to take some cooperation from all involved.
Again, appeals court:
...this is an extreme case where Child has reacted to a disagreement with the Parents by developing an eating disorder and self-isolating, which seriously endangers Child's physical, emotional, and mental well-being. The court's decision to continue Child's removal was not a response to the Parents' acts or omissions relating to their beliefs regarding transgender individuals, and the court was not treating the case as if it were based on a CHINS-1 or a CHINS-2 adjudication
and
I'll quote one more thing then leave it be, as this post is as too long as it is and will get the TLDR treatment anyway.We observe that at the dispositional hearing, the FCM testified that it was not DCS's position to continue Child's removal from home if the Parents continued to exercise their religious views by affirming their view of Child's transgender identity. Tr. at 71. The FCM explained that it "was not a matter of who's right or who's wrong […], it's just more of a matter of ensuring [Child's] safety." Id. She also stated that it is "DCS's hope that family therapy will help to rectify any conflict between parents and child so that child can safely return home." Id. at 78. She attested that DCS had not made any decision in the case based on the Parents' religious beliefs. Id. at 79. Additionally, Mother acknowledged that no one from DCS ever made a statement to her indicating that DCS staff disapproved of the Parents' religious beliefs
Child's mental health evaluations both indicated that Child suffers from significant psychological disorders and conditions that would benefit from therapy. A clinical neuropsychologist performed an in-person clinical examination of Child, at which Mother was present. The doctor diagnosed Child with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, parent-child relationship problem, and gender dysphoria.
So there's a lot more going on than just the parents won't call him a girl so the state swooped in and took him. The parents agreed to place the child with DCS but then felt that DCS should return him when his eating disorder continued. DCS refused to do so for multiple reasons. Then we ended up here.
*edit* no idea why the bold and strikethrough formatting happened, it didn't look like that when I submitted it. Trying to fix.
*edit* fixed.
Last edited: