Red-State Goes Far-Left, Rules To Allow The Unthinkable
We recently covered Jeff and James Younger’s terrible story. There appears to be more awful news on the way.
Jeff’s young son’s name is James. However, Jeff Younger has been battling James’ mother in various custody disputes for years because of his mother, Anne Georgulas, maintaining that James is in fact really a girl whose name is Luna. As we previously reported, numerous witnesses stated that James appeared to act more genuinely as a boy. Georgulas moved James and also Jude, his brother, to California, and Jeff is concerned that his mother may expose him to transgender operations in order to transition him. Georgulas is a Texan pediatrician, and Younger believes she is utilizing her child’s predicament to enhance her “gender-affirming” profession.
Younger asked the Texas Supreme Court to have his boys brought back to Texas because he’s worried about a California law that will come into effect in Jan. that he feels may harm his kid. This law “prohibits the execution of an order that is based on another state’s statute allowing a child to be taken from their parent or guardian only because that parent or guardian allows their kid to obtain gender-affirming treatment or gender-affirming psychological care.”
“According to Jeff Younger’s petition, if allowed to remain in California, his son would be exposed to transgender operations regarded to be child abuse by the official stance of the Texas Attorney General.”
“In the last year, Texas has examined cases of gender change surgery as “child abuse” under Texas law. In February, the probe was expanded to include puberty-blocking medicines when the Office of the Attorney General provided a non-binding legal argument supporting the notion that it satisfies the criteria of “child abuse.” Younger claims that “the Children would lose the safeguards of court orders on the Mother that prohibit her from chemically castrating the Boys or sexually dismembering them in transgender procedures if the court does not intervene.”
James hasn’t yet been subjected to any transitioning treatments, despite the fact that the mother with whom he lives treats him as a female.
However, the Supreme Court of texas has now rejected the order to return the sons to Texas.
While the mother was granted full custody of James in Aug. 2021, she still needed to obtain Younger’s approval before making any decisions regarding puberty blockers or gender transition.
The Court ruled that as a result of the Texas order, the mother will be barred from transitioning the child if she does not have the father’s agreement and that she would be unable to evade the order simply because she had relocated to California.
Younger feels that the Texas order will not be enough, and that the mother might be able to bypass the Texas ruling in California; he was attempting to intervene before it was too late.
Although the Court did not “terminate his parental rights,” it is easy to understand the father’s anxieties. He fears that if the mother takes action, regardless of the Texas decision, those rights will be meaningless. Given what we’ve observed in California, it’s fair that he doesn’t want to lay everything on Californians following the Texas orders. And, regrettably, there is a little child in the middle of it all who is the most vulnerable in this conflict.