Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Jury Rules Against Dad Trying To Save His Son.

Nice to see you posting.

As I understand it, it is on hold now and she will not be able to precede at this time.

Ever notice how many missing child posters and Amber alerts
are because a family member took the kid?

Most.

Ever wonder WHY, they chose to became a wanted criminal?
We are supposed to picture the violent, abusive man who may
molest the kids.

How many "abductions" are desperate rescues.
Here (most places?) support is high $$.
The woman is automatically given custody, if contested.
I have seen desperate men fight for years to get their kids
away from addicted, negligent mothers.


As for Texas?

No surprise, that could happen aanywhere.
There isnt a state that isnt infiltrated, except perhaps
Utah. Which is it's own unique situation.

No, he's not! I believe Jesus called him the prince of this world, at the last supper and other places as the ruler of this world.

Here's an update:
"Judge rules in favor of dad fighting 'transition' of son"

https://onenewsnow.com/legal-courts...-favor-of-dad-fighting-transition-of-son

I agree....I'm surprised that somebody hasn't put a bullet between her eyes....

It never really was on go to begin with.

"Earlier this week, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) urged federal officials to investigate the powerful medications to treat children with gender dysphoria."

They don't use drugs to treat these children for gender dysphoria. They use these drugs to intensify their gender dysphoria.

You have some demented agenda.

Your first spurious claim was this post on this very thread.


You then create another thread about this topic and start it with falsehoods that were nothing more than someones opinion that was exposed as fake news.

You then spend most of yesterday defending your lies.
From a juror on the Texas transgender child custody case

Now this post today which is another lie.

Only until the Texas State attorney general,U.S. senator Cruz and finally the governor of Texas express an interest in this case,did the goofy-ass judge decide to allow the father his rights.

So what is your agenda? Do you have a member of your family that is mentally afflicted with gender Dysphoria and you're attempting to defend or excuse it?

Why don't you come clean and stop lying.

You’re literally dumber than schit.

First of all, you should be thankful that the judge has some sense. Second of all, there is nothing that the governor, the attorney general, or Senator Cruz can do to a district judge in Texas. Thirdly, THE FATHER ASKED FOR A JURY TRIAL. He wasn’t forced to a jury trial, HE ASKED FOR IT. And no, despite all the fricking fake news, the jury NEVER ruled that mom could proceed with medical treatment without the father’s consent. They gave her sole managing conservatorship but the judge was ALWAYS going to get to make the conditions about any medical treatment.

Now what actually happened is actually better than that even. Joint managing conservatorship is the default position in Texas. In order for someone to get sole managing conservatorship, a number of conditions must be proved. A motion was made by the father’s counsel and the judge apparently ruled that jury had erred in its determination and concluded something not supported by the evidence as presented.

I’ve said since I heard about this case that no court in Texas was going to let a mom force a seven year old into a sex change, and it didn’t. Now, in my opinion the court could have gone farther and restricted mom’s visitation.

I wonder if the child had an ad litem or amicus attorney and if there was any court ordered evaluation by a neutral psychologist.

That "mom" shouldn't be allowed within a thousand yards of that kid till he's 18.

Yes indeed.
She is sick, demented, wicked.

The jurors found in favor of the mom, handing her the right to dress young James as a girl, to force others to treat him as a girl and ultimately, potentially, to chemically castrate him with the administration of puberty blockers and hormones.A court document at a time that the parents were joint managing conservators, listed a number of exclusive rights the court was granting Anne Georgulas. Among them, the exclusive right, after notifying the father, to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures” and psychiatric and psychological treatment of the children.So you're wrong again.


The arrogance of some shysters always shines through.Everyone else is to blame except the legal system,the other shysters or the judge..LOL



Your claim the judge has some sense is again not even remotely accurate and another attempted spin of the actual events.The judge was pressured by 200,000 signatures on a petition to the governor to intervene.She was also swayed by comments from senator Cruz and the attorney general of Texas.
Several state representatives vowed to draft legislation that would protect children against hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria because of the this case.Representatives Jared Patterson and Cody Harris both voiced their support for such legislation in replies to Krause.Rep. Chip Roy sent a letter about the issue to U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, the director of the National Institutes of Health, and the director of the National Drug Control Policy, asking for a federal study on individuals who undergo sex-reassignment surgery or hormone treatment before the age of 18, and the potential harmful consequences of such procedures.All of this was made public before this judges decision.Now who's dumber than s h i t? LOL



More bull s-h-i-t from our resident clown. James Younger’s mother Dr.georgulas, argued that the child is a girl named Luna and a jury gave her the decision making authority.Georgulas argued the child should wear dresses and be considered a girl named Luna at school.A court document at a time that the parents were joint managing conservators, listed a number of exclusive rights the court was granting Anne Georgulas. Among them, the exclusive right, after notifying the father, to provide medical,dental and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures and psychiatric and psychological treatment of the children.



The judge was under pressure from the outraged public and the governor.Judge Cooks also issued a gag order against Jeffrey Younger, which meant he is not allowed to discuss the case with members of the press.This is an act of a coward.Cooks final decision was made because of public outrage,nothing more.



You never stated this new opinion in any previous post so why should anyone believe you now.You're still responsible for posting utter bull s h i t in falsely claiming, that a member of the jury made statements concerning this case.In fact is was fake news posted to another forum .

Why are you talking about the jury and then talking about the order when they were joint managing conservatorship before the jury trial?

Link me to the order. It didn’t say what you’re saying it said. Like all Texas orders it had a list things that each parent could do. For joint managing conservators the list is exactly the same. To someone, like you, who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground when looking at one, I can understand how it would be confusing. Hell, I’ll admit that Texas orders are ridiculous and waaaaay too long. But anyway, it will list all of one parents rights, then in an identical section list the others. For JMC it’s the same.

But show us a link to the order or STFU.

Great post, SportingSpecialist.

Mom is a complete whack-job.....sorry to be late to the party but this is some sick schit...

WTF

Here is a procedural history of the case if anyone is actually interested in what actually happened:

1). They were never married. Yeah, you heard that right. Their marriage was annulled by petition of the mother. I can’t even begin to tell you how rare annulments are in Texas. I can’t even think of one I’ve ever actually seen. What that means is that by a finding of the court, the father is a liar. It means that he lied about certain material facts that induced the he woman to marry him;

2). They had two children during the “marriage”. They were awarded joint managing conservatorship. That is true joint legal custody. That generally means exactly equal rights and responsibilities in all respects. The only difference is that the child will generally, but not always, live with one parent or the other. And the other parent will receive standard visitation. The parent who has the child live with him will have the exclusive right to “choose the geographic location of the child.” It’s been said that the mother was granted the right control to exclusively control the child’s medical treatment in the first Decree of Annulment. I doubt that based on how I just explained JMC works, but even it was the language I’ve seen people quote in refenrence to this story was “after notice”. Why is that important? Because if moma says “Hey, I’m gonna have Johnny’s dick cut off” dad can rush out and get a court order stopping it

3) At some point moma decided her boy was a girl and disagreements arose. Eventually mom filed a motion seeking to make dad treat the kid as a girl or restrict his visitation if he didn’t. She didn’t try to change from joint managing conservatorship to sole and specifically she didn’t seek to gain the unilateral right give the he child hormone therapy or surgery. In fact, she did the exact opposite and asked the court to enter an order that such measures could only be undertaken by express written agreement of the parents;

4) Dad naturally objected to being asked to call his boy a girl and filed an Answer and a Counterpetition. In his counterpetition he alleged that mother’s actions constituted child abuse and asked to be named sole managing conservator. He also asked for a jury trial. Most child custody cases are tried to a judge and the mother had not requested a jury trial.

5). So when they eventually had the jury trial, the jury heard the case and gave mom sole managing conservatorship. Remember, she hadn’t even asked for that in her pleadings. It’s like a prosecutor asking for five years and a jury giving the defendant 50. The jury was not asked to rule on any of the other issues regarding custody and those were left to the judge.

6). The next day, when the judge came back, she ruled that the jury had exceeded its authority and granted something not asked for by the parties and that the jury’s finding was contrary to Texas law as it fit the facts. She kept JMC, granted mom’s motion to make all hormonal and surgeries require written consent of both parties, noted that despite the hysteria, there was never any danger of that happening, she denied mom’s motion to have dad refer to the kid as a “she”, ordered the parents and the child into counseling, admonished them to shut up and grow up, and gave them a gag order on the case. She noted that regardless of what else happens to this kid, the publicity has been and will continue to be for many years, very harmful to him.

That’s it. From what I can tell that is a pretty concise procedural history of the case.

As usual, much less interesting when you know the facts behind a case.