- 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: Jury rules against dad trying to save his 7-year-old from gender ‘transition’
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:42 am to Azkiger
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:42 am to Azkiger
quote:
Pedophiles are celebrating. If 7 year olds can make decisions like these what else can they decide for themselves?
Great point. The slippery slope is real.
0
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:43 am to AggieHank86
There’s a difference between approving of killing the batshit crazy woman that wants to abuse a little boy and being surprised by the killing.
It would be about as predictable as the sun rising this morning.
You cuck.
It would be about as predictable as the sun rising this morning.
You cuck.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:43 am to WaWaWeeWa
Are you going to shoot the jurors?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
No doubt your experience with Texas juries far exceeds my own.
What does this have to do with jury's ability to assess scientific fact?
Juries aren't filled with scientists.
Another thread of your running pathetic interference for the left.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:45 am to AggieHank86
quote:She should most certainly be killed.
I suspect that he (like me) would opine that the child is too young for any physical transition AND that he (like me) would disapprove of the father, if he were to kill the ex-wife in vigilante fashion.
Protecting your child is paramount. Even if you have to sacrifice yourself.
I'd kill the bitch. And, go to jail knowing my son was now safe.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:45 am to VOR
It will be a bad look when you and your Ilk spike the football over this.
Just FYI.
Just FYI.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:47 am to Sentrius
I'm not reading this entire thread, but, does the child have ambiguous genitalia?
If not, then this is ridiculous. A seven year old cannot possibly know who and what they are well enough for anyone to take this course with them. There can be no fully informed consent provided by child or guardian without the effects of puberty informing their decision. I also wonder how much undue influence is being exerted upon this child.
If not, then this is ridiculous. A seven year old cannot possibly know who and what they are well enough for anyone to take this course with them. There can be no fully informed consent provided by child or guardian without the effects of puberty informing their decision. I also wonder how much undue influence is being exerted upon this child.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:49 am to RebelExpress38
From the comments:
"They voted that the current Joint Managing Conservatorship should be replaced by a Sole Managing Conservatorship, but that Mr. Younger should not be that person. Judge Kim Cooks will read her ruling on possession, child support, and Dr. Georgulas’ other requests at 1:30 p.m. CST on Wednesday."
Maybe the judge is going to give conservatorship to another person not the wife?
"They voted that the current Joint Managing Conservatorship should be replaced by a Sole Managing Conservatorship, but that Mr. Younger should not be that person. Judge Kim Cooks will read her ruling on possession, child support, and Dr. Georgulas’ other requests at 1:30 p.m. CST on Wednesday."
Maybe the judge is going to give conservatorship to another person not the wife?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:52 am to Stan Switek
Doubtful, I’d say. That’s too bad.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:53 am to VOR
quote:
Are you going to shoot the jurors?
Agree, only crazy people would want to shoot jury members.
The sane people are those who want to let a 7 year old chemically castrate themselves.
/s
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 8:55 am
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:04 am to Stan Switek
Texas terminology on these matters is confusing.
Texas does not deal with “custody,“, but rather with “conservatorship.”
In essence, conservatorship is a bundle of rights related to the child, ranging from management of finances to school selection, to healthcare decisions. In most instances the two parents are named joint managing conservators, which means that they share (to some extent) in all of these decisions. but a judge also has the option of separating out the rights related to conservatorship on an individual basis. For instance, one parent might be placed in charge of all finances, while the other parent might be placed in charge of all medical decisions.
It is also possible for the court to name one sole managing conservator and the other as possessory conservatory. This is extraordinarily unusual, and normally happens only when one parent is a really, really bad parent
Possessory conservatorship means the opposite of what many people would expect it to mean. It does not mean that the child lives with the “possessory conservatory.” In essence, it means that periods of possession (in most states called “visitation”) will be the only right afforded to the possessor conservatory. Most legal rights of control are awarded to the sole managing conservator, in this instance.
Back in the “bad old days,“ a divorce almost always resulted in the mother being named the managing conservator, and the father being named the possessory conservatory. That changed many decades ago, and joint managing conservatorship became the norm.
In essence, this jury determined that this father should not have the right to make any decision of legal significance whatsoever with regard to his children.
Change the medical issue for one with less emotional resonance, in order to objectively understand the issues that were presented to the court. Imagine that 10 doctors had opined that this child needed heart surgery, yet the father refused to accept that diagnosis, refused to acquiesce in heart surgery, and continued to insist that the child engage in sporting activities involving cardiovascular stress while in the father’s possession.
In that case, would you expect a jury to allow the father to continue making medical decisions for the child?
now, in anticipation of the inevitable responses, I do not support the mother’s medical decision in this particular instance. If I were the managing conservator, I would make a different decision. Nothing in this paragraph, however, changes the fact that under Texas law it is her decision to make.
So, should the State step in and take this medical decision away from a parent? What other medical decision should the state take away from parents? What other financial decisions should parents not be allowed to make? What educational decision should the state be making for the parents?
Do you see the Authoritarian concerns raised by this case?
Is it likely to work out badly for this child? Yes, probably so. But the old adage is true… bad facts do make bad law.
Texas does not deal with “custody,“, but rather with “conservatorship.”
In essence, conservatorship is a bundle of rights related to the child, ranging from management of finances to school selection, to healthcare decisions. In most instances the two parents are named joint managing conservators, which means that they share (to some extent) in all of these decisions. but a judge also has the option of separating out the rights related to conservatorship on an individual basis. For instance, one parent might be placed in charge of all finances, while the other parent might be placed in charge of all medical decisions.
It is also possible for the court to name one sole managing conservator and the other as possessory conservatory. This is extraordinarily unusual, and normally happens only when one parent is a really, really bad parent
Possessory conservatorship means the opposite of what many people would expect it to mean. It does not mean that the child lives with the “possessory conservatory.” In essence, it means that periods of possession (in most states called “visitation”) will be the only right afforded to the possessor conservatory. Most legal rights of control are awarded to the sole managing conservator, in this instance.
Back in the “bad old days,“ a divorce almost always resulted in the mother being named the managing conservator, and the father being named the possessory conservatory. That changed many decades ago, and joint managing conservatorship became the norm.
In essence, this jury determined that this father should not have the right to make any decision of legal significance whatsoever with regard to his children.
Change the medical issue for one with less emotional resonance, in order to objectively understand the issues that were presented to the court. Imagine that 10 doctors had opined that this child needed heart surgery, yet the father refused to accept that diagnosis, refused to acquiesce in heart surgery, and continued to insist that the child engage in sporting activities involving cardiovascular stress while in the father’s possession.
In that case, would you expect a jury to allow the father to continue making medical decisions for the child?
now, in anticipation of the inevitable responses, I do not support the mother’s medical decision in this particular instance. If I were the managing conservator, I would make a different decision. Nothing in this paragraph, however, changes the fact that under Texas law it is her decision to make.
So, should the State step in and take this medical decision away from a parent? What other medical decision should the state take away from parents? What other financial decisions should parents not be allowed to make? What educational decision should the state be making for the parents?
Do you see the Authoritarian concerns raised by this case?
Is it likely to work out badly for this child? Yes, probably so. But the old adage is true… bad facts do make bad law.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 9:20 am
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:08 am to RebelExpress38
This nutty bitch has been brainwashing the kid since he was 3 years old.
The current situation is entirely her creation. As with most of the trans movement, we are required to kowtow to the whims of a mentally ill person.
We're witnessing a very strange form of Munchausen by proxy.
The current situation is entirely her creation. As with most of the trans movement, we are required to kowtow to the whims of a mentally ill person.
We're witnessing a very strange form of Munchausen by proxy.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:22 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Change the medical issue for one with less emotional resonance, in order to objectively understand the issues that were presented to the court. Imagine that 10 doctors had opined that this child needed heart surgery, yet the father refused to accept that diagnosis, refused to acquiesce in heart surgery, and continued to insist that the child engage in sporting activities involving cardiovascular stress while in the father’s possession.
You're going to compare a life saving procedure with a woman who is hell bent on ruining her ex-husband by forcing her son to become a girl at the risk of his wellbeing for her own selfish wants and needs. On top of that you completely ignore that the mother is absolutely nuts and should not be raising a child, period.
Wow.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:25 am to AggieHank86
quote:
this jury determined that this father should not have the right to make any decision of legal significance whatsoever with regard to his children.
First of all, we need to know if this decision is because he wouldn’t agree to chemical castration and sexual abuse of his son.
quote:
Change the medical issue for one with less emotional resonance, in order to objectively understand the issues that were presented to the court. Imagine that 10 doctors had opined that this child needed heart surgery, yet the father refused to accept that diagnosis, refused to acquiesce in heart surgery, and continued to insist that the child engage in sporting activities involving cardiovascular stress while in the father’s possession.
This isn’t a medical decision. It’s purely ideological. Which of course you know.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:32 am to RebelExpress38
My seven year old can't even decide on what clothes to put on. Absolute insanity to say this is his decision. Can only hope some deep pocket religious folks back this legal case all the way up.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Change the medical issue for one with less emotional resonance, in order to objectively understand the issues that were presented to the court. Imagine that 10 doctors had opined that this child needed heart surgery, yet the father refused to accept that diagnosis, refused to acquiesce in heart surgery, and continued to insist that the child engage in sporting activities involving cardiovascular stress while in the father’s possession.
What tests are run to determine a child is transgender outside of their own opinion on the matter?
Heart issues can be identified via tests, you just dont take someone at their word and open them up.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:37 am to Dlawnboy
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Having a trans kid is like a vegan cat, you know who's making the decisions.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:42 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:The medical community seems to disagree with your assessment.
This isn’t a medical decision. It’s purely ideological. Which of course you know.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:45 am to Pechon
quote:I agree. Read Dr. Debra Soh’s analysis on this point. Example
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Having a trans kid is like a vegan cat, you know who's making the decisions.
quote:For the 50th time, I disagree with the mother’s “medical” decision, and I would have acted differently. I am NOT analyzing that issue. I am analyzing the legal framework of the judicial decision.
But research has shown that most gender dysphoric children outgrow their dysphoria, and do so by adolescence: Most will grow up to be happy, gay adults, and some, like myself, to be happy, straight adults. There is a small proportion of trans kids whose dysphoria will persist and who would benefit from medical intervention, but the tricky part remains predicting whom these ideal candidates will be.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 9:53 am
Posted on 10/22/19 at 9:52 am to Pechon
Careful now, there are some women and men like this doctor here in the Baton Rouge area. One Baw I know (unnamed to protect the innocent ) was mind phucked by his ex wife over a 3 year period into a divorce on the main reason that he was boring ( he lost everthing,including his kids and wound up with less than a 1k in his pocket.).Now she sluts around town with a different man each month. Another baw (also unnamed,she innocent) was divorced because he kept her pretty much imprisoned at their home( he mindphucked her too) and would not take her out in public and would not let her out on her own(no car or phone). Be careful folks.
Page 10 of 45
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News