Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire From a juror on the Texas transgender child custody case

This puts a little different light on things. It looks like there was no good choice between these two nuts. And no, the kid is not in danger of chemical castration. That will still take the consent of both parents.

Link


i was one of the 12 jurors on this case. Let me just say that the vast majority of the news articles out there have either completely over sensationalized this trial or simply gotten it wrong. Everyone on the jury took our charge very seriously and kept these kids at the forefront of our minds as we listened to 5 days of testimony from a litany of medical experts with all manner of degrees, specializations, and initials after their names.

Here's what we, as the jury, were asked to decide.

Should the current joint custody be changed to sole custody? (<-- the legal term is "conservatorship" rather than "custody", but custody is a word most people will recognize so I'll use that.)
If yes, should sole custody be granted to the father?
To question 1, we unanimously answered yes.

To question 2, we answered no in an 11 - 1 vote. Only one juror believed the father should be granted sole custody. The rest of us strongly felt the mother should maintain the vast majority of the custody and decision making authority.

What hasn't been mentioned in the majority of the articles that I've read is exactly how unfit James Younger, the father, is to be sole custodian of these kids. He's unemployed. He's mooching off his girlfriend, living in her house rent free, using her car, and being supported by her. That, in and of itself, should preclude any parent from being solely responsible for two kids. What happens if he and his girlfriend breakup?

The marriage to his ex-wife was annulled because of a chronic history of misrepresenting himself. He's a con-man. He lied about nearly every facet of his life from his education, his military service, to his employers, etc. It's a matter of legal record that he did all these things. In my and many of the other jurors' eyes, he lacked credibility.

Meanwhile, even if the mother has been over-eager to a fault have a transgendered child (which she definitely has been), she's a pediatrician who has her own practice, owns her own home, and unconditionally loves and supports her kids. She's the one who filed this lawsuit over a year ago. Over course of that time, her demands have changed to a point where we as a jury felt comfortable with her continuing to have custody and decision making authority. Had her petition not been amended, we would have had a much harder time grappling between these two people. I'll get to that in a second.

The only "gender transition" therapy that's being sought now is what's called "social affirmation". That means that in public, their child is being presented as a girl in accordance to the recommendations of therapists and psychologists who have diagnosed their child with "gender dysmorphia". This kid has been going to school and activities as a girl since kindergarten. S/he's in the 2nd grade now. What the mother is asking the court is that the father respect the doctors recommendations to present their child as a girl in public. That's essentially it. The mother has some very legitimate reasons for asking for that cooperation, the details of which I'm just not going to explore in a public forum like this.

What's NOT on the table is what most folks have been reading: chemical castration and gender reassignment surgery. What the mother is now asking the court in her amended petition is that the father have veto power over the use puberty suppressant medication. He's going to say no and that's that. Puberty suppression comes before hormone medication. Hormone medication comes before gender reassignment surgery. It's not going to snowball like that. The father and his attorney are screaming about the sky falling, that this kid is imminent threat of chemical castration that will swiftly be followed by life altering surgery, and that's just not the case. It was a scare tactic to convince the jury that the father needs immediate sole custody.

So, we the jury decided not to award sole custody to an unemployed con-man who's been sensationalizing this case in conservative media for his own selfish reasons. This was a jury in Texas, not some ultra-liberal enclave of San Francisco. There were conservative individuals on the jury who had misgivings, but were ultimately very comfortable in rendering the verdict we did.

The judge is going to be the one who ultimately decides the particular details of new custody arrangement. Luckily we weren't charged with that. I don't envy the judge. It's going to be very difficult navigating those decisions. Through all this, it's my fervent hope that we did the right thing for these kids. I believe we did.

The kid is probably still fricked, but often in these cases there is no good choice. Might as well flip a coin.

Any way you look at it the kid is screwed. The mother having all the cards gets to socialize the kid through all his formative years as a female. Dress him like a girl, the whole nine yards. To my mind she's just as crazy as the father is. why not take custody away from both and place him in foster care and give the little guy a chance of having a normal life. If he really is a woman then when he's 21 he can do the deed himself.

As it is he has no choice. He's going to grow up thinking this is Normal. Sheesh. Our judicial system is stupid and more often than not juries do not get it right.

All that crap will most likely damage that kid.

Let me take up for the legal system a bit. If you can’t define transgenderism as a mental illness and imposing it on your kid as child abuse, and you can’t by law, then, the legal system is bound to follow the law.

If you want to be mad at the legal system, it’s the system far above this nuts and bolts stuff. It’s true activists appellate and Supreme Court that render these decisions that have shaped the way the rest of us have to approach these issues of transgenderism and the like in court.

Fifteen years ago, a homosexual dad living with his boyfriend would have been grounds to lose custody of his kids. Now, in the most rural and conservative counties in the country we have homosexual divorces fighting over custody of kids. That change didn’t come from those counties, it was imposed from above.

And still, in the end it was a jury decision. The jury could have found any number of reasons to get a different decision and it had wide discretion to do so, but it didn’t.

I tend to think a deadbeat dad is better than a mentally ill mom, but I wasn’t there.

Nothing like a few facts to spoil a good rant.

Don’t impregnate a wierd,crazy bitch.

Don’t impregnate anybody if you don’t have a good job.

Timothy 5:8

And like almost other issue we face today the transgender debacle isn’t nearly as black and white as each side would want to believe.

Your link provides none of the information that you placed in your post.So where did you find this information from a juror?

This is the information gleaned from your link:
LINK

Hundreds of thousands demand Texas leaders step in to prevent gender transition’ of 7-yr-old boy.

UPDATE, October 23, 2019, 7:50PM: This report has been updated to include additional reactions, including a comment from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

DALLAS, October 23, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – As the country watches in horror a Texas father’s legal battle to prevent his ex-wife from “transitioning” their seven-year-old son into a faux girl, a growing chorus of Americans is demanding state and federal leaders intervene to save James Younger.

On Monday, a Dallas jury ruled 11-1 against father Jeffrey Younger in his fight against his ex-wife, Dr. Anna Georgulas, who wants to subject young James to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as well as legally force his father to treat him as a girl. Mr. Younger contends that all of this is being pursued against his son’s will.

The case has sparked intense national outrage even as the mainstream press largely ignores it, with experts warning that not only is affirming a child’s gender confusion psychologically unhealthy in the long run, but exposure to sex-change hormones carries serious physical risks including infertility, impairment of adult sex function, and reduced life expectancy.

As of the time of this writing, a Change.org petition calling on Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and state lawmakers to intervene has received more than 211,000 signatures. LifeSiteNews has also launched its own petition calling to support James and his father, which will be delivered to the governor and Jeffrey Younger. LifeSite’s petition has collected more than 26,000 signatures so far.

“Conservatives would be wise to pressure Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick to convene a special session of the legislature and criminalize all non-medical removals of male or female genitalia,” Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz said. “Other states where Republicans control the governorship and state legislature should be encouraged to do so as well. In addition, Senate Republicans, who seem to have nothing better to do with their time anyway, should pass legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to interfere with these state laws.”

Several prominent conservative commentators also called on Gov. Abbott and state and federal lawmakers to intervene, as well as for President Donald Trump to help bring more attention to the case:

At one time I'd have agreed with you. Now I think we need as many white kids as we can get. IMO this is more of the war on the white race.

You can present lots of "facts" in support of something that's wrong and also present them all reasonably and level-headed while the side that's right is frothing at the mouth and unable to mount a cogent rebuttal. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. This kid should be waiting until it's eighteen to do any physical transitioning whether by chemical or physical methods, and it should be the kid's own decision at that time and not either of the parents. If the mom can't respect that it demonstrates she is loony tunes.

So it's "He said she said." What's the kid's side of the story? Shouldn't he have his own representation? At least have him meet with the judge?

Wait! Wait! Wait!

Before I buy one word of this "Juror", somebody needs to clear something up. In every article I read the dad's name is "Jeffrey Younger". Juror says here the dude's name is "James Younger".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/24/james-younger-luna-transgender-greg-abbott/

So unless this guy's name is James Jeffrey Younger or something like that, this is a bullst story. I'm also suspect about the line that the mother "unconditionally loves her kids". Not a line that I see a juror using, but a line someone sympathetic to the mother and her cause would throw into story to garner sympathy for the cause.

I like how the "juror" talks about what the mother wants "now". She and her attorney has worked through this to figure out how to get the jury to side with her. Once she has sole custody, it will be nigh impossible for the dad to exert any influence over the boy's future. HE will become "Luna" psychologically, and then mom will make it physically and the dad will have no way to stop it. "Mom" can start slipping the boy birth control pills and effectively feminize him to the point that even if the dad didn't go bankrupt fighting in court, that irreversible damage would be done and there would be no going back to male. However, she's a pediatrician, so she can administer the drugs to him herself to the kid. Nothing you can do once the kid starts growing breasts and the hips flare out. The deed is done.

So until I see some other evidence, I'm not buying this story.

That's a great point and it's a common logical fallacy known as cherry picking.

As far as I'm concerned, neither one is fit to be a parent.

Facts further demonstrating the insanity the queer nation has fostered. People are what they are plumbed to be. Period. There has never been a time in history save the last 20ish years that the level of absolute decadence has impacted this nation, and western nations. China, Russia, and muslim countries have it right. The west does not. They are fools.

It sure doesn’t. Did you make up that quote OP or did you insert that link by mistake?

You can sensationalize a judgment by cherry picking a few allegations. But if you have to consider all the facts and law in the case the judgement can be eminently reasonable. Happens all the time.

I challenged Joe Bob's original post,since his link proved nothing.

He has remained conspicuously silent.

Whether using medicine or knives to change a boy into a girl or simply treating a child of one sex as they are of the opposite is wrong, regardless of it being a parent, judge or jury deciding it.

This ‘Statement’ seems to be fictional. It is just too well crafted, to perfect, and there is no way to corroborate the info. I believe it to be fake.

The standard for child custody is simply “best interests of the child”. That’s pretty broad. The jury could have easily made the decision and justified its decision on any number of factors and without too much worry. Frankly, I’m more concerned that the jury listened to this and ruled the way it did. I would suggest that the dad is really unlikeable. More jury cases have been lost because the jury took a disliking to a litigant than have ever been decided by the facts or the law.

But, just to be clear. There is no danger of any actual sex change without further litigation as that the father still has a veto over any chemical or surgical treatment.