re: Son, age 10, on scheduled agenda to eventually be chemically casterated

quote:

---

there needs to be laws preventing any of this transition stuff until age 18.

Aside from this particular case, how could anyone prevent an ex-spouse from taking their kid to California and doing this?

---

I agree. On something as irreversible as gender transition, there should be no irreversible changes regarding a minor child. The only exception that I think might be appropriate is if BOTH parents agree that it is in the best interests of the child, but I waiver on even that exception.

quote:

---

how could anyone prevent an ex-spouse from taking their kid to California and doing this?

---

There has been a trend for the SAPCR order to SHARE consent for all non-emergency procedures, which would effectively prevent transition (either medical OR surgical) if both parents do not agree. Unfortunately, this language not the norm yet.

Under the Standard Possession Order, it is more complex. In general, the parent in possession at a give time has the right to consent to all NON-INVASIVE medical procedures. Thus, absent a revision to the standard order, one parent COULD initiate MEDICAL transition, but not SURGICAL transition. The ONLY time that a parent can UNILATERALLY consent to non-emergency, invasive procedures is when that parent has been appointed "sole managing conservator." That is EXTREMELY rare ... maybe 1-2% of cases, when one parent is a VERY bad actor.

But, the parent with the primary medical conservatorship rights (simplified language) is usually required to provide prior notice of non-emergency medical procedures to the other parent. The REASON for this requirement is to provide the other parent an opportunity to seek court involvement to prevent a procedure that such parent sees as being unnecessary or not in the best interest of the child.

For example (sort of analogous), if Mom is PMC and wants to let 16yo daughter get a boob job (an elective, invasive procedure), she is required to tell Dad beforehand, and Dad has the chance to ask the Court to stop Mom.

EDIT:
Even if the current SAPCR Order does not provide the non-PMC parent with a unilateral right to STOP such a procedure, he can ALWAYS move for a modification (subject to limits on how many times he can request changes in a 3-year period)

quote:

---

The deck is so fricking stacked against dads the dude could be Ward fricking Cleaver and still lose his parental rights.

---

I cannot speak to IOWA, but this is categorically not true in Texas.

In two decades, I was involved in only one case in which the parental rights of one parent were involuntarily terminated (several in which it was voluntary). In that case, I represented the father and was successful in terminating the rights of the MOTHER.

In all likelihood, you are just complaining that you paid more support than you wanted to pay or got less possession than you wanted to have.

quote:

---

Have you ever been to a family court as a divorced father?

If not stfu. The deck is so fricking stacked against dads the dude could be Ward fricking Cleaver and still lose his parental rights.

---

Texas has automatic joint custody…

quote:

---

The dad said he only knows they are in LA county

---

If true, the mother is in violation of the SAPCR Order and is subject to contempt for failing to provide her current address. The 301st District Court retains jurisdiction to enforce that Order.

quote:

---

The dad lost custody and was limited to supervised visits by a Texas court. The mom agreed to a court order for zero puberty blockers, etc.

The guy obviously did something to lose custody and unsupervised visits. You should think twice about going to bat for him.

---

Doesn't give the ghoulish mom the right to mutilate her son's body for her own demented virtue points.

frick you, mmcgrath. Your just as morally bankrupt and ghoulish as the monsters trying to do this to children.

quote:

---

10 year old child having toxic chemicals given to him that will forever alter his life?

---

If I heard/caught it correctly in the interview, the dad made it sound like the chemicals, the boy may have already been given, have already been banned for use.

quote:

---

The deck is so fricking stacked against dads the dude could be Ward fricking Cleaver and still lose his parental rights.

quote:

---

Texas has automatic joint custody…

---

---

Sort of.

There is a rebuttable presumption for "Joint Managing Conservatorship," which means sharing all the DECISIONS between the two parents.

That is quite distinct from "joint custody," in the sense of equal time with the child. Even when the LEGAL rights are shared equally (more than 90% of cases), there is usually still a disparity in the length of the periods of possession, per the SPO described above. USUALLY, one parent gets only 1/3/5 weekends, etcetera, even when sharing all the important LEGAL rights.

quote:

---

No counselor, it is not. There is currently a sitting judge in Ft Bend who listened to my son say he wanted to live with me, listened to the ad litem explain the stress his mother was placing on him, the distance involved, and ignored it all to let my son remain with mom. So, your assertion is null.

---

You were involved in one case, in one court, in one county, in which you were emotionally invested. I was involved in hundreds of cases across dozens of counties. No personal offense, but I have a better understanding than you of the "big picture."

How old was your child at the time? He must have been over 12, right? I told clients all the time that it is helpful to have an older child want to live with you (express his opinion to the court), but it is not remotely dispositive. The example I always used is that the judge will not care, if the kid wants to live with you so he can run the streets, rather than with mom who makes him stay home and study.

I am NOT saying that this was your situation ... only that you are providing one example, in which you MAY not be a reliable narrator.

As anyone familiar with literature understands, the term "reliable narrator" is not necessarily a reference to truth or falsity, but to the fact that one's perspective or personal beliefs CAN influence the way that one sees and/or reports events.

quote:

---

As to the distance and who caused it, it was spelled out for us, and it did state the party that moved must bear the burden (she agreed to that believing I would intentionally move out of state). She was the one who moved.

---

So, are you claiming that the SAPCR Order said that she would bear all travel costs if she left the state, that she left the state, that she refused to pay for travel, and that the Court allowed her to avoid that cost?

Because that result would be VERY anomalous, in my experience.

My main issue with the puberty blocker debate is how little we know about the long term side effects. The only semi-well documented side effect I can find is related to bone marrow density and the potential to never fully develop strong bones even when supplementing with calcium/exercise.

It is very hard to find real material that isn't left or right wing biased on the topic.

This is a handout from the Oregon Health and Science University on puberty blockers, they mention the BMD, but nothing else really (lefty hospital system):

LINK

NYT article which mentions bone density issues:

LINK

NIH study:

LINK

So what are the other, documented, long term issues? Chemical castration seems reversible, but I don't see anything related to the side effects on ones fertility anywhere besides one medical journal saying it takes about a year to have a fully functioning reproductive system again.

Seems pretty crazy to allow kids to undergo treatment that we know so little about. If you guys know anything else, that is documented, I'd like to know more.