If any Texas Ricochet member can provide more/better background on this story it would be much appreciated.
Gateway Pundit posted a story about a case in Texas where a jury has severed the custodial interests of a father who is trying to keep his seven-year-old son from being transitioned to a girl at the insistence of the mother. What particularly caught my eye in this story initially was the involvement of a jury in what is generally a family court matter more typically adjudicated by a judge alone. And, then, a jury in Texas siding with the parent pushing for a sex change as opposed to the parent pushing to keep the child in the sex consistent with his genitalia. So I tried finding other online accounts to better understand just what the heck is going on?
Here is what I found out so far:
The mother is a pediatrician practicing in the greater Dallas area. So the jury pool was drawn from there. Apparently the mother and father are separated or divorced because they had a joint custody arrangement. But because the father disagrees with the mother regarding the child’s gender the child was a “boy” during time with the father and a “girl” during time with the mother. So the mother sued to sever joint custody and the father requested a jury trial (naturally assuming that “12 men good and true” would side with him).
Given the mother’s training and professional experience you would normally give some credence to her judgement regarding her son (daughter?). But the head of the American College of Pediatricians apparently believes that the mother is suffering from a mental illness:
“This case is consistent with a diagnosis of Munchausen by proxy,” Dr. Cretella told the media. “This is a disorder in which an adult feigns either physical or psychological condition in a child for their own subconscious reasons. Most often the perpetrator is the biological mother and she often has a background in health or medicine.”
“In the case of imposing gender dysphoria on a son, there are cases in the scientific literature of severe maternal depression triggered in a mother longing for a daughter. The mother’s depression lifts when the boy dresses and acts as a girl. This has been termed ‘gender mourning.’”
Apparently the jury was asked to determine whether (a) the joint custody arrangement should remain or sole conservatorship should be established, and (b) if a sole conservatorship which parent should be appointed. 11 of 12 jurors decided for sole conservatorship by the mother.
No report I have found details the evidence the jury heard. It is not hard to side with the jury on the termination of the joint custody arrangement as the child switching genders as he (she?) moved from one location to another was not sustainable. But why did the jury side with the mother?
From a far distance it seems that the father had every reason to suppose a jury would side with him. The child is seven years old. Wouldn’t most jurors find that awfully young to start a medical protocol to start transitioning? There must be more to the story.
[Update: The judge declined on Thursday, October 24, to follow the jury’s recommendation. Instead, the joint custody arrangement will continue, the parents are subject to a gag order, and the parents are to attend counseling.]