Comet now! Court rules dad can't stop 7 y/o son from transitioning.
quote:
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL: Yep, and try to get an countering decision, it will get pricey really, really fast.
An experienced psychologist would charge a significant amount for an independent evaluation, but it should not exceed the price of two kidneys. The problem is complex, controversial, and clinically complicated. If you are disagreeing with another professional you better have all your ducks in a row. That sort of thing adds to the cost. Many psychologists do not do forensic or child custody work because of the emotions involved, and the difficulty in dealing with the legal system.
The little boy is on video tape saying mom tells him he's a girl, punishing him if he does things different from that. (see my LINK above or that of oddball).
_______________________________ NRA Life Member NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
October 24, 2019, 03:51 PM
ZSMICHAEL
quote:
The little boy is on video tape saying mom tells him he's a girl, punishing him if he does things different from that. (see my LINK above or that of oddball).
^^^^ That would add to the cost, as the mother would be in need of a complete psychological evaluation as a result of that behavior. Still shy of the cost of two kidneys.
October 24, 2019, 04:30 PM
Andyb
The "mother" should be jailed.
"Pickin' stones and pullin' teats is a hard way to make a living. But, sure as God's got sandals, it beats fightin' dudes with treasure trails."
"We've been tricked, we've been backstabbed, and we've been quite possibly, bamboozled."
October 24, 2019, 04:36 PM
Voshterkoff
Stuff like this is probably why witches were burned back in the day.
October 24, 2019, 05:17 PM
pessimist
Fortunately, the widespread outrage over this has had an impact.
I hope this isn't the end of the matter though. The mother shouldn't have custody of the child at all. The Department of Family Services needs to intervene.
October 24, 2019, 05:44 PM
ffips
Thoughts that come to my mind:
It saddens me that these children will never know "normal" based on the desires of the parents to have 15 minutes of fame.
Why are the children's names shared?
Minors commit far more heinous crimes daily yet they are afforded the protection of anonymity and sealed records.
When will the lust for everything to be shared on social media no matter how right or wrong, big or small, or left or right stop?
When is enough enough?
This will end up as some made for TV production at some point.
Damn! Just damn....
October 24, 2019, 06:12 PM
oddball
quote:
Originally posted by pessimist: Fortunately, the widespread outrage over this has had an impact.
I hope this isn't the end of the matter though. The mother shouldn't have custody of the child at all. The Department of Family Services needs to intervene.
This is good news, gives the father more leverage in dealing with this shit. Odd, this all happens after Gov Abbott's involvement, and national pushback . Also exposes the "mother" as someone who should not take care of children, including hers.
"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
October 25, 2019, 06:32 AM
Pipe Smoker
“A judge has ruled that a father fighting to stop his seven-year-old son from transitioning to a girl will be allowed to have a say in future medical decisions related to his child…”
^^^^^ Well maybe a SLIVER of sanity is starting to seep through in this case. Good lord...
"If you’re a leader, you lead the way. Not just on the easy ones; you take the tough ones too…” – MAJ Richard D. Winters (1918-2011), E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil... Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isaiah 5:20,24
October 25, 2019, 01:44 PM
dewhorse
Good to hear Texas will be investigating this situation.
Glad to hear some sanity prevailed
October 25, 2019, 03:52 PM
jhe888
As I said before: the original custody decision, which carries along with it the right to make medical decisions, was made by a JURY not the judge. (A jury the dad asked for, by the way.)
The judge, who many of you criticised, has reversed the jury on that. While it doesn't happen often, judges can enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict in some circumstances.
This means the parents will have joint decision-making power on medical decisions, and therefore, the mom will not be able to act unilaterally.
Many of you were suckered by the reporting of "judge rules" when what the reporters should have said was "jury verdict is." The judge has done what you want in this case. It was bad reporting, and because you were primed to hate on a female, black, Democrat judge, you went off. You were wrong.
This case is a long way from over. But this boy will not be "transitioned" under the current set of circumstances.
As some of you know, I practice Family Law in Texas. This is a hot topic among us here. Lots of chatter about this case.This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
October 25, 2019, 05:17 PM
Russ59
Thanks jhe888 for the clarity. I haven't been following this case too closely, but I'm glad the judge intervened as needed.
P229
October 25, 2019, 08:56 PM
Icabod
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888: As I said before: the original custody decision, which carries along with it the right to make medical decisions, was made by a JURY not the judge. (A jury the dad asked for, by the way.)
The judge, who many of you criticised, has reversed the jury on that. While it doesn't happen often, judges can enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
I’m considering the time of the judge’s ruling. It comes after the verdict made the news and the state became involved. As for the jury verdict, the judge has a good amount on control over it. The selection of jurors, who’ve evidence and testimony is admitted, and the instructions to the jury. Taken together, my bet is on the judge have had a discussion with her superiors and the state.
“ The work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation is slow, laborious and dull.
October 25, 2019, 09:52 PM
Voshterkoff
The judge was scared to death of the national attention her case was getting, and did the right thing out of fear.
October 25, 2019, 10:01 PM
divil
quote:
Originally posted by Voshterkoff: The judge was scared to death of the national attention her case was getting, and died the right thing out of fear.
Sometimes a little fear is good thing. James’s sorry excuse for a maternal unit now cannot unilaterally act to “alter” him.
October 25, 2019, 10:01 PM
darthfuster
This smells like Munchausan syndrome by proxy
You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
October 25, 2019, 10:08 PM
BB61
quote:
Originally posted by Icabod: Taken together, my bet is on the judge have had a discussion with her superiors and the state.
^^^^^^ Judges don't have superiors except for a higher court (and the electorate for non lifetime appointments) and lower courts don't talk with higer courts about cases. Finally, a judge would violate all sorts of ethical rules talking ex parte "with the state." A good rule of thumb for news reports on court cases, by the media, is that they missed something critical, left something out, or just didn't understand what happened.
__________________________
October 25, 2019, 11:20 PM
DaveL
Gad to hear the original story wasn’t the end. This whole saga brought to mind this quote by Malcom Muggeridge:
“Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct.”
October 26, 2019, 06:29 AM
Skins2881
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888: As I said before: the original custody decision, which carries along with it the right to make medical decisions, was made by a JURY not the judge. (A jury the dad asked for, by the way.)
The judge, who many of you criticised, has reversed the jury on that. While it doesn't happen often, judges can enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict in some circumstances.
This means the parents will have joint decision-making power on medical decisions, and therefore, the mom will not be able to act unilaterally.
Many of you were suckered by the reporting of "judge rules" when what the reporters should have said was "jury verdict is." The judge has done what you want in this case. It was bad reporting, and because you were primed to hate on a female, black, Democrat judge, you went off. You were wrong.
This case is a long way from over. But this boy will not be "transitioned" under the current set of circumstances.
As some of you know, I practice Family Law in Texas. This is a hot topic among us here. Lots of chatter about this case.
Is it normal for a judge to set aside a jury verdict this long after they issued it? Not knowing any better, I would think that judge would call for a recess or somehow otherwise indicate that she was considering overruling them?
Also for all the mentions of the judge feeling the heat, what's that all about? They should be impartial and follow rule of law not public opinion. Is it normal for a judge to change her ruling based on public outcry or are people misinterpreting what actually happened?
Jesse
Sic Semper Tyrannis
October 26, 2019, 07:18 AM
egregore
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888: As I said before: the original custody decision, which carries along with it the right to make medical decisions, was made by a JURY not the judge.
So twelve people (or however many it was) thought this forced "transitioning" was OK? That is even worse.
. Also exposes the "mother" as someone who should not take care of children, including hers.