- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Indiana parents warn nation after child is removed from home for improper pronoun usage
Posted on 2/20/24 at 2:50 pm to SouthEndzoneTiger
Posted on 2/20/24 at 2:50 pm to SouthEndzoneTiger
LINK
Here's an Indiana Law review of the case since most of the links are Christian sites. Seems the child was removed due to abuse/eating disorder more than the trans thing, but that would be harder to claim victimhood over.
It remained home for 2 years after declaring itself trans.
Hope this child received some help before it had any kind of gender reassignment surgery
Here's an Indiana Law review of the case since most of the links are Christian sites. Seems the child was removed due to abuse/eating disorder more than the trans thing, but that would be harder to claim victimhood over.
It remained home for 2 years after declaring itself trans.
Hope this child received some help before it had any kind of gender reassignment surgery
quote:
In 2019, the Coxes’ son informed them that he identified as a girl. But because of their religious belief that God creates human beings with immutable sex — male or female — they could not refer to their child using pronouns and a name inconsistent with what was given at birth.
In 2021, the Indiana Department of Child Services began investigating the Coxes following two reports that they were suspected of abusing or neglecting their child.
“The court emphasized that it was not removing A.C. from the parents’ home due to a disagreement or ‘a child having a certain lifestyle that the parent[s] don’t agree with.’ … ‘There ha[ve] always been issues’ when ‘children do things that the parents don’t agree with,’ the court explained, and those disagreements are ‘not a reason to remove a child from a home,’” according to the state’s brief.
The court ordered A.C. to participate in eating disorder treatment and individual therapy and also ordered the parents and A.C. to continue family therapy. Additionally, the court left in place its order limiting discussion about transgenderism during visitations. The court agreed that it was acceptable to have discussions about A.C. and the parents’ beliefs about gender identity.
“In fact, ‘at some point they have to have that conversation.’ The court emphasized that these conversations should occur within the ‘family therapy that is being ordered’ because of the connection between these conversations and A.C.’s anorexia,” according to the state.
In 2022, Mary and Jeremy appealed the trial court’s orders to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, which affirmed. They then sought rehearing, which the Court of Appeals denied.
Meanwhile, A.C. turned 18 years old and DCS terminated the case.
This post was edited on 2/20/24 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 2/20/24 at 3:09 pm to Corinthians420
quote:imagine being a marxist, aka a democrat, and blaming biology on religion.
But because of their religious belief that God creates human beings with immutable sex — male or female
im·mu·ta·ble: unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
your chromosomes are immutable, but again, marxists don't care about science or actual definitions.
quote:So apparently they were never charged, just suspected? oh sweet little ot "centrist," this quote you've posted as some sort of "gotcha" doesn't make it any better: if this article is correct, the police state took a minor from a home over a couple of "trust me bro" sources. it'd be really interesting to know who those 2 sources were.
Coxes following two reports that they were suspected of abusing or neglecting their child.
quote:well then what was it for? if they were never charged and convicted for abuse, then what was it? a hunch? they abducted a minor from his nuclear family over a hunch of eating disorder abuse?
“The court emphasized that it was not removing A.C. from the parents’ home due to a disagreement or ‘a child having a certain lifestyle that the parent[s] don’t agree with.’
and you "centrists" applaud it.
it's so funny watching you little avowed "liberals" (in name only) go to bat and make excuses for the police/nanny state. you think just what we need is MORE precedence of government intrusion into the lives and trials and tribulations of law abiding, taxpaying citizens and what goes on in their households. this is a family affair - something the police state has no business with.
Posted on 2/20/24 at 3:09 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
Meanwhile, A.C. turned 18 years old and DCS terminated the case.
And now AC is out there somewhere gobbling weiners like Kobayashi to keep a roof over "its" head
This post was edited on 2/20/24 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 2/20/24 at 3:19 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
Seems the child was removed due to abuse/eating disorder more than the trans thing, but that would be harder to claim victimhood over.
Per your quoted article...
quote:
“The court emphasized that it was not removing A.C. from the parents’ home due to a disagreement or ‘a child having a certain lifestyle that the parent[s] don’t agree with.’ … ‘There ha[ve] always been issues’ when ‘children do things that the parents don’t agree with,’ the court explained, and those disagreements are ‘not a reason to remove a child from a home,’” according to the state’s brief.
So why was he removed? It stops short of saying the specific reason. According to the Fox article, the family sought treatment for both disorders PRIOR to the child being removed. What did they do wrong, exactly? How in the hell can you claim these people are trying to glamorize their "victimhood"?
Posted on 2/20/24 at 3:23 pm to Corinthians420
quote:I only read what you quoted and not the article, but it only tells us why the kid was NOT removed but it doesn't tell us why the kid was removed?
“The court emphasized that it was not removing A.C. from the parents’ home due to a disagreement or ‘a child having a certain lifestyle that the parent[s] don’t agree with.’ … ‘There ha[ve] always been issues’ when ‘children do things that the parents don’t agree with,’ the court explained, and those disagreements are ‘not a reason to remove a child from a home,’” according to the state’s brief.
ETA: I see that was answered later in the thread
This post was edited on 2/20/24 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 2/20/24 at 4:35 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
Seems the child was removed due to abuse/eating disorder more than the trans thing, but that would be harder to claim victimhood over.
To be fair, the real issue of mental health still exists. That's the bigger issue being ignored by the parents/state, and there is a valid victim there.
Posted on 2/20/24 at 5:12 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
Seems the child was removed due to abuse/eating disorder more than the trans thing, but that would be harder to claim victimhood over.
quote:
Despite the unsubstantiated claims of abuse, they claimed the Coxes made the child's eating disorder worse even though it worsened after he was removed and placed in a transition-affirming home.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 8:07 am to Corinthians420
quote:pertinent question was the eating disorder, if true and accurate, a byproduct of the trans claim/process?
Seems the child was removed due to abuse/eating disorder more than the trans thing, but that would be harder to claim victimhood over.
And to be clear, the state is claiming they removed the child due to the parents inability to "effectively treat the eating disorder". So if that is indeed the wording, which I'm not sure it is:
- the state isn't claiming the parents caused the disorder, so no undue harm, negligence, or battery
- the state isn't claiming they did not attempt to have it treated, so no negligence
Hence, the parents should claim those pushing the trans lifestyle on juveniles caused the harm (the disorder) AND the harm was so extensive it could not be treated by experts.
Also curious if doctors, of various types, refused treatment because it went against "gender affirming care" removing any chance of effectively treating the disorder.
ETA: to me, it is also telling they did not cite the specific disorder in the sate's press release. Only the generic "eating disorder".
This post was edited on 2/21/24 at 8:10 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News