quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
This smells like Munchausan syndrome by proxy

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
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?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
So twelve people (or however many it was) thought this forced "transitioning" was OK? That is even worse.

quote:

Is it normal for a judge to change her ruling based on public outcry or are people misinterpreting what actually happened?

quote:

Originally posted by 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.