An Arizona appeals court has reversed a decision granting custody to a father after it was revealed his mother was encouraging the boy to go to school dressed in a skirt and behave as a female.
The father is now battling to regain custody from the child’s mother who believes their son is transgender.
Court records reveal the mother “through various acts, was pushing a female gender identification” on the child, who is known as “L.” in legal documents. The father requested to receive sole custody to determine the best course of action for the child’s health care and education. He also petitioned the court to allow his son to live with him on a full-time basis, reports AZ Central.
The family court judge reacted by granting stipulations which prohibited the mother from addressing L. as “her,” “she” or a “girl.” The injunctions extend to her not dressing her son as a female, not encouraging female oriented toys, and not discussing gender identity issues at home.
The temporary injunctions will remain in place for at least the next two years while the case is under review. In 2016 some of the rulings were temporarily removed after a court decision “that all three children’s best interests” were in better hands by giving the father sole custody.
Recently, Arizona Appeals Court looked over the case, now dealing with the modern issue of mediating the custody battles between parents with different ideas of gender in their children. LGBT activists complain that most family courts do not know how to handle the problem.
No fewer than ten states have now had disputes between parents with different approaches to raising a child, if one of them believes the child is “transgender.”
“What seems to happen is that the supportive or affirming parent is accused of pushing the child toward a transgender identity,” said Katherine Kuvalanka, an associate professor of family science at Miami University who is conducting research into family court issues regarding a child’s gender.
“Lack of education is a major problem,” she told AZ Central.
In 2013 the issue with L. began. He was allowed to wear skirts to school at the age of six, with his mother claiming he preferred more feminine items and “would wear female clothing at home.”
The American Psychiatric Association makes the claim that “cross-gender behaviors” usually start between two and four years old.
In June 2016 the American College of Pediatricians addressed gender dysphoria in children. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), “as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.”
“What I always find interesting is when a child asserts a gender that we’re expecting based on their sex assigned at birth, no one says, ‘Well, you’re too young to know your gender,’” Kuvalanka said. “But when a child is asserting a gender that people aren’t expecting, that’s when people say the child maybe doesn’t know what they’re talking about, and maybe they’re too young.”
In L.’s circumstance, he was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2014 by a psychologist, physician and psychotherapist a year after the unusual behavior began. The child’s mental health is a growing concern after L. “made statements about dying” and “threatened or engaged in self-harm,” according to court records.
People with gender dysphoria have an increased risk for depression and suicide comparable only to other cases of people who are severely mentally ill; suffering from conditions like bipolar disorder and borderline personalities.
For people with gender dysphoria even “transitioning” doesn’t ease their risk of suicide with the American College of Pediatricians citing “rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries.”
With the suicidal tendencies of trans people not being a fully understood science, the judge stated the father’s “view of L.’s situation may lead him to make less-than-ideal choices regarding L.’s care,” however ultimately decided granting the father full custody was best for the boy. The judge ordered the parents not to discuss gender issues with the child and mandated treatment with a gender expert.
That ruling stood until the Appeals Court recently reversed the orders, calling the limitations on gender discussion “severe micromanagement of Mother and Father’s parenting.” Arizona law believes limiting certain types of parenting time is something that “would endanger seriously the child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health.”
Gender-revisionists celebrated the Appeals Court decision of lifting the “gag order.” They told The Republic they still weren’t satisfied with the rest of the ruling, mostly due to L’s suicidal thoughts.
“In a lot of these cases, children are stating, ‘I don’t want to live,’ or they’re getting admitted to Phoenix Children’s because they’re slamming their heads against floors,” said founder of Mothers in Transition, Cammy Bellis.
“Parents feel that it’s their right to be able to make legal and medical decisions about their child,” she told The Republic. “But when your child’s making death statements and having suicidal ideations, when do the courts plan to step in?”
Every child’s case is different, and even self-proclaimed “gender-experts” encourage parents to do their own research. Rushing into hormone replacement therapy is a drastic move and surgery cannot be undone.
Kuvalanka, the Miami University researcher, remembers, “We had a case where a (female) child asserted a boy identity, and the mom was being taken to court for supporting the child,” she said. “At one point, they were driving and the child, a second-grader, said, ‘I’m just going to go back to being a girl. It’ll be easier for everyone.’ It’s a lot for an eight- or nine-year-old kid to deal with.”
When dealing with children who don’t have fully developed minds and bodies Dr. Michelle A. Cretella,Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians, has a warning for parents:
“Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.”
Free speech is under attack. Share this article on Social Media by clicking the share button, do your part to keep independent journalism going.