Indiana couple lost custody of their son for refusing to call him a girl - Anderson

Cameramonkey said:

Yep. This MIGHT explain why the local media didnt give it much play. gender issues aside, this is worthy of serious investigation.

And the reason it is just now hitting the national media is they (unlike local media) are pushing a narrative and not including the relevant issues below.



Its one thing to deny a child gender affirming care. Its another thing to ack that the kid has an eating disorder but then fail to seek medial attention for it. I can see that.

So I take the therapy removal and school withdrawal with a grain of salt.

1: as a homeschooler, were they actually homeschooling the kid? They dont say. Not saying they were/werent, but there is no mention. They could have said my son was being neglected because he only went to the fall semester of the 1st grade and we pulled him out with "no intent to re-enroll him" and started homeschooling 11 years ago. I would expect parents to show curriculum to counter that claim.

2: There is a good chance they pulled him from the therapist he was seeing for the eating disorder because the therapist bought into the theory that the DSM is wrong and transgenderism should be encouraged.

Click to expand...

1) There's no mention of homeschooling by either party in the appeal. My *assumption* is that would be listed in the report instead of just "withdrawn..." I don't know for sure, though.

2) As I read it, DCS wasn't able to verify the child had ever been in therapy up to that point as the parent would not consent to release any medical records. "Mother refused to sign any consents so that DCS could verify any medical concerns or past therapy services." So I think we're just stuck with spit-balling on that one as there are no facts presented as to the where, why, etc.

I note the parents attorney is saying the appeals court said the issue was moot because the child was now an adult so no remedy is possible. Per the actual appeal, the issue was moot because of the 3 "charges", 2 were dropped and they agreed to the 3rd. This is the equivalent of a guilty plea in criminal court as I understand it, you can't agree to it and then say it wasn't fair. There's no remedy available for the other two because they were *already dropped* and weren't used in the decision. So the fact the child is now an adult never entered in to that. (See pt 12)

Also of interest is the trial court specifically states that, were the medical issues not involved, this would not be a removal:

[¶19] Our review of the record shows that the trial court explained its understanding of this case as follows (emphasis added by the appeals court):

The ultimate goal is for family reunification […] the reality is this is an extreme example of a child having a certain lifestyle that the parent don't agree with. That has been going on for all time. There ha[ve] always been issues where children do things that the parent don't agree with be it religiously or morally or whatever. That happens and that is not a reason to remove a child from the home, but when it as in this case there is a clear nexus between that issue and the medical and psychological issues that the child is having that is when we get issues that we have here today that the State is now involved in and because of those issues the child is a ward of DCS and those decisions are going to have to be made through the Court so I certainly understand the objections and the parent[s'] views and I am not discounting the parent[s'] views

Click to expand...

at all[.] I am not taking any issue with the child's views or the parent[s'] views. They are differing views and that happens in life. ut to the extent that we now have these medical issues that again, there is a [nexus] between this discord about the lifestyle and the medical issues. That has to get resolved and this [is] going to take some therapy and that is going to take some cooperation from all involved.

Click to expand...

Again, appeals court:

...this is an extreme case where Child has reacted to a disagreement with the Parents by developing an eating disorder and self-isolating, which seriously endangers Child's physical, emotional, and mental well-being. The court's decision to continue Child's removal was not a response to the Parents' acts or omissions relating to their beliefs regarding transgender individuals, and the court was not treating the case as if it were based on a CHINS-1 or a CHINS-2 adjudication

Click to expand...

and

We observe that at the dispositional hearing, the FCM testified that it was not DCS's position to continue Child's removal from home if the Parents continued to exercise their religious views by affirming their view of Child's transgender identity. Tr. at 71. The FCM explained that it "was not a matter of who's right or who's wrong […], it's just more of a matter of ensuring [Child's] safety." Id. She also stated that it is "DCS's hope that family therapy will help to rectify any conflict between parents and child so that child can safely return home." Id. at 78. She attested that DCS had not made any decision in the case based on the Parents' religious beliefs. Id. at 79. Additionally, Mother acknowledged that no one from DCS ever made a statement to her indicating that DCS staff disapproved of the Parents' religious beliefs

Click to expand...

I'll quote one more thing then leave it be, as this post is as too long as it is and will get the TLDR treatment anyway.

Child's mental health evaluations both indicated that Child suffers from significant psychological disorders and conditions that would benefit from therapy. A clinical neuropsychologist performed an in-person clinical examination of Child, at which Mother was present. The doctor diagnosed Child with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, parent-child relationship problem, and gender dysphoria.

Click to expand...

So there's a lot more going on than just the parents won't call him a girl so the state swooped in and took him. The parents agreed to place the child with DCS but then felt that DCS should return him when his eating disorder continued. DCS refused to do so for multiple reasons. Then we ended up here.

*edit* no idea why the bold and strikethrough formatting happened, it didn't look like that when I submitted it. Trying to fix.
*edit* fixed.

Trapper Jim said:

So I guess the unanswered question is what would you do if it was your children?

Click to expand...

In general terms, the question is nearly never: how do you get out of a bad situation. The question is nearly always: how do you avoid a bad situation.

It is impossible to give an intelligent answer to what to do to a situation there is nearly no information on. It is an exercise in internet masturbation to do that.

The answers (in general terms) to how to work to avoid that situation are:

• Don't send your kids to schools. Homeschool pods are the answer.
• Avoid churches that are introducing these ideas as acceptable and tolerant. This is a foot in the door technique.
• Teach your kids how to have a grip on reality and show them how to be resilient to outside pressure.
• Form friendships with others who hold similar values.
• Speak to your kids about the psychotic belief that gender / sex is fluid and that sexualizing kids is acceptable. Teach them to identify mentally disturbed people that push these ideologies, and attempt to normalize it by being overly "accepting" to the point of causing harm.

Explain that there are people who legitimately have a belief that they are the wrong gender. They are the exception, not the rule. Explain that the people like this who do not push that belief on others are not evil. Explain that those who do push these beliefs on others are evil.

These are intentionally vague. It is impossible to give a exact answer to a situation that is hypothetical [ETA: has many unknowns].

I'm not really speaking to the details of this case, just the ideology at large... I get so tired of this fantasy-land bull crap of kids trying to get attention because their parents let them have a cell phone with Tik-Tok and Fakebook by the time they were 10 years old. Usually because it was a good babysitter. "I can't tell Johnny or Suzie no"

Consequently, they listen to and watch other's with screwed up emotions and insecurities, many who have been abused at some point in their life and see them getting attention so they decide they want to do the same thing! They believe the lies and jump on the bandwagon out of vulnerability and it can very quickly turn into irreparable damage both emotionally and physically.

Furthermore, the greed of the ravenous pharma and medical machines smell blood in the water and see dollar signs. They get their cronies to make up new "conditions" so they can create the next multi-billion dollar industry of pills and mutilations at the expense of mostly young and/or vulnerable children who have no guidance.

They pump the Marxist propaganda into the school systems and anywhere else they can to get traction and acceptance and then dare anyone to challenge them. Get the lawyers and politicians involved and, tah dah, more overreach, more money and power for the elitists. All the while calling you the uncaring, homophobic, (fill in the blank) parent.

The solution has never changed, the West has just moved further away from it. (More specifically away from Him) We are living in the results of multiple generations wanting to be their own god.
DO WHAT THOU WILT has spread like wildfire and this is where it leads. Like it or not, believe it or not, the proof is in the pudding and denying it won't change a thing.

The enemy has brought this country to it's knees in agony from the bottom up and it will lay flat on it's back and die if it doesn't get resurrected from the bottom up. As long as the destruction of the family continues and pride and selfishness prevail, America's demise is imminent.

It will never recover from a top-down scenario, even if your favorite candidates ALL made it into office and were never voted out.

rbhargan said:

I am sure there is more to the case that what we are seeing.

However, if a child says, "I am not a boy, I am a girl and you must treat me as such!" are the parents supposed to comply with this? I don't doubt that the State will.

What if the child says, "I am not a boy, I am a cat! You must provide me with cat food and kitty litter." Are the parents supposed to comply? If the State takes custody, will they comply?

What if the child says, "I am not a boy, I am the grand high Zultan from the planet Grog, and you must acquiesce to my every wish and do as I command!" Are the parents suppose to comply? Will the State?

At what point do you draw the line in mental disorders and stop enabling and begin treating them?

Click to expand...

If they claim to be a white tailed deer, are we obligated to agree that they are a deer? If so can they legally be hunted? Exactly how far do we allow the charade to go?

I am a mod!

Activate my credentials and give me the keys to the Bronco!





Dang. That was easy!

BehindBlueI's said:

1) There's no mention of homeschooling by either party in the appeal. My *assumption* is that would be listed in the report instead of just "withdrawn..." I don't know for sure, though.

2) As I read it, DCS wasn't able to verify the child had ever been in therapy up to that point as the parent would not consent to release any medical records. "Mother refused to sign any consents so that DCS could verify any medical concerns or past therapy services." So I think we're just stuck with spit-balling on that one as there are no facts presented as to the where, why, etc.

I note the parents attorney is saying the appeals court said the issue was moot because the child was now an adult so no remedy is possible. Per the actual appeal, the issue was moot because of the 3 "charges", 2 were dropped and they agreed to the 3rd. This is the equivalent of a guilty plea in criminal court as I understand it, you can't agree to it and then say it wasn't fair. There's no remedy available for the other two because they were *already dropped* and weren't used in the decision. So the fact the child is now an adult never entered in to that. (See pt 12)

Also of interest is the trial court specifically states that, were the medical issues not involved, this would not be a removal:

[¶19] Our review of the record shows that the trial court explained its understanding of this case as follows (emphasis added by the appeals court):









Again, appeals court:



and

I'll quote one more thing then leave it be, as this post is as too long as it is and will get the TLDR treatment anyway.



So there's a lot more going on than just the parents won't call him a girl so the state swooped in and took him. The parents agreed to place the child with DCS but then felt that DCS should return him when his eating disorder continued. DCS refused to do so for multiple reasons. Then we ended up here.

*edit* no idea why the bold and strikethrough formatting happened, it didn't look like that when I submitted it. Trying to fix.
*edit* fixed.

Click to expand...

Not too long. I read it a couple times, and also went back and re-read some earlier posts in this thread. I had also read the decision back when this first happened (over a year ago at this point, I think. Guess it's just now making major news?)

I reached the same conclusion then as I have now: the state is doing wrong here.

The issue is that, regardless of whether or not the disagreement over the sons' "gender identity" was the primary reason for removing him from his parents, the state is clearly not approaching the whole "gender identity" thing from the right angle. What we have here is a case of a child with a dangerous delusion, i.e., the delusion that he is actually a girl. So whatever decision is reached regarding his custody, the state should be focused on ensuring that this delusion is properly addressed, and that he receives proper mental health treatment to try to help him correct this delusion. Instead, you have the state handing him over to people who are going to reinforce and enable this delusion, while insinuating that his other mental health issues are caused, or at least exacerbated by, his parents refusal to reinforce and enable that delusion.

It's possible that the state was right that the child needed to be removed from his parents home in order to resolve a dangerous eating disorder, I'll grant that.

But, if I'm being honest, all that language in the decision saying "Oh, this decision is totally not about the parents' religious beliefs regarding their son's gender" sounds like they're just trying to cover their rear end in case of an appeal. Maybe I'm too cynical, maybe I'm too used to seeing the devious playbook that proponents of this "gender identity" nonsense use, and maybe I'm starting to read into things too much. But between the court ordering the parents not to discuss their son's gender with him, and the vague insinuations about a "nexus" between the disagreements over gender and the other mental health issues, the whole thing just stinks to me.

Trapper Jim said:

So I guess the unanswered question is what would you do if it was your children?

Click to expand...

Well... we happen to have a child in the alphabet community. Our youngest daughter. She came out to us a few years ago.

Her situation:

She states she is "Pan-sexual" Supposedly she can be attracted to either sex, though I think she's straight up lesbian as she's never had a boyfriend, just girlfriends. More recently, she has expressed interest in possibly becoming a man and informed us that most of her friends use "they" and 'him" pronouns for her, but she had not made up her mind 100% yet.

Our situation:

We have been as accepting as we can. We have listened to her, and have tried to learn about her world from her, as (of course) we know nothing about this crap ourselves being normal straight people.

BTW... she HATES the use of the word "normal" despite me trying to explain it's definition using synonyms like ... mean, average, most, usual, ordinary, typical, garden variety... She doesn't seem to understand that being part of a small percentage of a population... being not the norn... isn't always a personal attack... Such is the fragility of the disorder we're dealing with here. SO... when talking with her, we have to be careful of how we word things. She also has anxiety problems.

We do keep a relationship with her, and she with us. That said, she does understand that we we feel she has a very unusual, and unnatural way to live. We may not agree with her choices, but being she is our kid, we would still love her even if she were an axe murderer.

As far as the trans issue goes... I had a long talk with her. I explained about having known many guys with feminine traits, and also chicks that were strong, and independent. It didn't mean that either had to change their sex or gender, and it never diminished them in any way. (well, they wimpy guys it did... but I didn't tell her that) Having been a soldier for 28 years though, a strong woman is a good thing in my book. I told here as much, and since she's not interested in men... she need not worry about intimidating some wussy little prick. Although she sees thing a lot differently than I do, she has the same protector gene.

She still hasn't made a final decision, but she does seem happy as is... at least for now.




Now if only I could pry sonofmaximus away from the computer games...

Easy fix, parents turn off the tv. No social media or cell phone for the kids. They will no longer be brainwashed by hollywood & the media. All of this is a mental health issue. The parents were in the right.

cburnworth said:

Easy fix, parents turn off the tv. No social media or cell phone for the kids. They will no longer be brainwashed by hollywood & the media. All of this is a mental health issue. The parents were in the right.

Click to expand...

What about schools and (some) churches?

Cameramonkey said:

I suspect the yout was upset that they were being deadnamed and misgendered on purpose. Speech is literal violence, y'all.

Click to expand...

Speech is literal violence?! That HAS to be sarcasm at it's finest... I pray to god it is.

Instead of ripping families apart and and promulgating mental illness (which trans theory is) maybe the right school of thought is mental health resources that ALIGN with the values of parents.

Praying to God is literal violence.

R3p1lc3 said:

Speech is literal violence?! That HAS to be sarcasm at it's finest... I pray to god it is.

Instead of ripping families apart and and promulgating mental illness (which trans theory is) maybe the right school of thought is mental health resources that ALIGN with the values of parents.

Click to expand...

Yes. It is so obviously sarcasm I didn’t notate it in the traditional purple text which indicates sarcasm.

Cameramonkey said:

Yes. It is so obviously sarcasm I didn’t notate it in the traditional purple text which indicates sarcasm.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

printcraft said:

Praying to God is literal violence.

Click to expand...

Ok.. you guys got me... feeling sheepish.

cburnworth said:

Easy fix, parents turn off the tv. No social media or cell phone for the kids. They will no longer be brainwashed by hollywood & the media. All of this is a mental health issue. The parents were in the right.

Click to expand...

Don’t forget to pull them out of compulsory government schools.

BehindBlueI's said:

I realize few people will and almost everyone will go off media reports based largely on the plaintiff's attorney's statement, but before forming an opinion read the decision from the first appeal:.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this, there’s probably more to it than that but it’s a good outline.

This doesn’t sound very compassionate of the mother. Doesn’t sound like she was cooperative in the are plan either. DCS prefers reunification of the family, but the parents need to participate in the process.

Mother said things such as "[Child's preferred name] is the bitch that killed my son";

Click to expand...

Stop encouraging mental delusions. That is all.