- 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: Son, age 10, on scheduled agenda to eventually be chemically casterated
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:10 pm to oogabooga68
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:10 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
This Dad is trying to save his son from a bunch of little Mengeles'...that's enough in my book to make him the least worst of the bunch.
I'm not blaming the dad in this particular instance. The shitty dads are the reason why he and many other dads who care have an uphill battle. The family court system is bullshite. There's a good documentary on it called Divorce Corp that sheds a light on a lot of this.
I would guarantee we reform the family court system to something more equitable. It would put a stop to these selfish women who use the family court system to destroy dad and the kids.
This post was edited on 1/4/23 at 12:11 pm
2
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:13 pm to Pechon
quote:
The shitty dads are the reason why he and many other dads who care have an uphill battle.
This premise discounts the notion that there are just as many shitty Moms.
Sorry, IRL, this just isn't true.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:14 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:The problem here is that you are probably JUST reading Younger's press releases. I recommend that you read the concurrence in the SCoTex case from last week. It outlines in great detail the myriad ways in which Younger is mischaracterizing the new California statute.
California is a transgender sanctuary state. How is the father going to be able to enforce a court order from Texas in California when the state is a sanctuary state for transgenderism?
In simplest terms, the statute seems to say that California will not recognize or enforce an out-of-state Order that terminates the parental rights of a parent who transitions a child (it is a bit more complicated, but that is a good working description). There is no such Order in the Younger case, so this new statute does not even come into play.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:15 pm to Pechon
quote:
It would put a stop to these selfish women who use the family court system to destroy dad and the kids.
Thankfully I don't have any first hand experience in this.
My wife and I mated for life.
Course she may end up killing me...
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:25 pm to Padme
quote:
whose son is now in California with the mom
quote:
Mom and grandma were lgbtq activist,
Here is the cause. Mom and Grandma trying to score "cool" points by having a transgender kid/grandchild. It's the latest progfilth trend.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:36 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
This premise discounts the notion that there are just as many shitty Moms.
Sorry, IRL, this just isn't true.
Oh there are plenty of shitty moms. The problem is with the judges on the bench doing the "we've always done it this way" thing thinking mom stays at home and takes care of the kids all day. Even if she does, still doesn't make her a good mom.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
so this new statute does not even come into play.
Sure, Jan
All she has to do is find an activist judge in California to ignore the Texas order.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 12:40 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
Mom and grandma were lgbtq activist,
Nothing screams affluenza more than transgender activism.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 1:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No one cares about your court bullshite. What about the child?
Apparently "Ten Bears" did care, because he specifically asked "How could a parent prevent this?"
I gave you numerous chances to stand up for the child but you again ignore children. You have proven in the past that you don't care about children you only care about trying to be" right ". It's always about you Hank isn't it.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 1:48 pm to Padme
That boy is eventually going to grow up and kill his mother and his grandmother. And, they'll have both deserved it.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 2:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As just one example, the Temporary Orders basically said "status quo ... act like the kid is a girl when in mom's possession and act like the kid is a boy when is in dad' possession." The REASON for this was to give the Court time to gather medical evidence, etcetera before making a final ruling.
It's baffling people don't see a problem with this ruling. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the boy will be mentally hurt while he's with his mother. So that court is stupid or evil. This isn't a game and is long term damage. This ruling was 100% in favor of the mom, so thinking a dad doesn't have a natural right to give the judge the middle finger is what is wrong with people.
There is no difference in this than a mother letting her minor daughter have unprotected sex with whomever in her home, and the court allowing it when the daughter is with the mom. The damage continues to be done. And the father isn't allowed to do anything about it because the court said so.
Again there's common sense right and wrong, and the law doesn't always understand this. If I were the dad I would have left the country with my sons already. Just like the mom essentially just did and just like the Muslim dad in the NW that rooted up his family and left the state, because he couldnt stop the school from sexually transitioning his autistic son.
ANYONE that shrugs his shoulders at "it's the law so is what it is" when it comes to these basic moral issues, has major issues.
This post was edited on 1/4/23 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 1/4/23 at 2:58 pm to Ten Bears
Anyone who does this to any child of any gender will feel terrible pain while burning in Hell.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 3:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
On this one point regarding "judge shopping," the case has been pending in the 301st for something like seven years. The notion that the mother recently "judge shopped" is verifiably, objectively WRONG. He LIED, again. And on something ridiculously inconsequential and easily-disproven.
Why are you the way that you are?
quote:
the case has been pending in the 301st for something like seven years.
Wrong - the case was in the 255th court, presided over by Judge Kim Cooks until Dec. 6, 2019. LINK
quote:
The notion that the mother recently "judge shopped" is verifiably, objectively WRONG.
No, YOU are verifiably, objectively WRONG. The mother appealed Judge Cooks' decision granting both parents joint managing conservatorship and requested that the judge be recused from the case. The case was then moved to the 301st with Judge Mary Brown.
quote:LINK
On Oct. 21, a jury ruled 11-1 that James should be under sole conservatorship. The jury did specify that the father should not be the one with said conservatorship, but it did not explicitly state that the mother should be that person either.
Less than a week later, on Oct. 26, Cooks surprised the nation by refusing to uphold the jury’s ruling. Instead, she granted joint managing conservatorship, with equal decision-making authority, to both parents, and denied Georgulas’ request to require Jeffrey Younger to affirm James as a girl in public.
On Nov. 5, Georgulas filed a motion for Cooks to be recused from the case and for the court’s ruling to be overturned, making the jury’s ruling final and granting her full conservatorship. The judge’s decision to recuse Cooks resulted from Georgulas’ motion, though no decision has been made on Cooks’ ruling giving both parents joint conservatorship over the child.
quote:LINK
“According to The Dallas Morning News, Georgulas is now seeking to have Judge Cooks recused and filed a motion ‘to conform to the jury’s verdict granting the mother sole custody’ of James and Jude.
According to Georgulas, Judge Cooks should be recused for posting about the case on social media. The female judge shared a post from The Dallas Morning News a friend has shared, and captioned it with: ‘The Governor nor any legislature had any influence on the Court’s Decision.'”
Posted on 1/4/23 at 3:55 pm to SOSFAN
quote:And I have answered your question twice in this thread alone.
I gave you numerous chances to stand up for the child but you again ignore children
You really are a whiny little bitch, aren’t you
Posted on 1/4/23 at 4:00 pm to Padme
Another reminder to a tale as old as time...
Don't stick your dick in crazy...
Don't stick your dick in crazy...
Posted on 1/4/23 at 4:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I cannot speak to IOWA, but this is categorically not true in Texas.
I can’t speak to Iowa either. My experience is only in Texas. First in A county outside Dallas county to the north where my now ex files for divorce even though our residence was well established in Cypress.
She had stayed with her mother for 6 weeks (weeks not months) helping with a supposed health issue. When I had my attorney file for the venue correction to Harris county the judge stated “ she has 40 days of the required number. We can either proceed now here or wait the remaining days and pick it up then”. In other words the actual law didn’t matter.
The second is in Dallas county (I had the case moved to Dallas county later with her agreement since we both lived in Irving) where the court allowed her to move from here to out of state with the kids because she chose to marry a guy from out of state. I was going to spend 10s of thousands to fight it but the judge straight up told my attorney behind closed doors I was going to lose in the end.
Eta to try to generalize it a bit.
This post was edited on 1/4/23 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 1/4/23 at 4:06 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
Judge is absolute scum.
Agreed.
Hopefully someone doesnt snatch the judge from his bed and beat him to death with a brick.
That would be awful.
Just awful.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 4:18 pm to Lightning
You are correct. I misremembered the year of the recusal proceedings.
I still maintain that the assertion of "judge shopping" is wrong. That just is not how case assignments are handled in Dallas County. It is random, and there are seven Family Law district courts.
I still maintain that the assertion of "judge shopping" is wrong. That just is not how case assignments are handled in Dallas County. It is random, and there are seven Family Law district courts.
Posted on 1/4/23 at 4:19 pm to AggieHank86
You can't handle being called out on your bullshite can you...
Posted on 1/4/23 at 4:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I am willing to assume that you just are not very familiar with this case, because you reside outside Texas.
The father has REPEATEDLY violated court orders, has lied REPEATEDLY, and has spent YEARS attempting to try this case on the internet and in the blogosphere ... ever more so as he has lost ruling after ruling, BECAUSE he has been violating court orders.
As just one example, the Temporary Orders basically said "status quo ... act like the kid is a girl when in mom's possession and act like the kid is a boy when is in dad' possession." The REASON for this was to give the Court time to gather medical evidence, etcetera before making a final ruling. What did the dad do? He immediately started attending events during mom's possession periods and refusing to "act like the kid is a girl" at those events. You may not have LIKED the Temporary Orders, but he clearly violated them. And each time he did something like that, he lost more and more rights.
He didn't lose every time. The very first ruling the new/current judge Mary Brown made on the case in January 2020 reaffirmed Judge Cooks' October 2019 decision granting the parents joint custody. LINK
Then a year and a half later, that same judge reversed the previous ruling and gave the mom full custody for everything *except* hormone suppression, puberty blockers, trans surgery. LINK
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News