COVID Vaccination, Gender Fluidity, and Family Law

I don't quite know what to make of all this, but it seems like an interesting case, and I thought I'd pass it along. From Anaya-Alvarado v. Anaya-Alvarado, decided last week by the Nevada Court of Appeals; the ex-wife now "identifies as gender fluid/transgender and prefers masculine or androgynous pronouns" and goes by Jasper and the ex-husband is Carlos. They "were married from 2013 until 2017" and have two children, "S.A., born in 2014, and A.A., born in 2016." Here's an excerpt from the opinion:

After their divorce, the parties filed a joint stipulation and order in October 2017 granting Jasper sole legal and physical custody of the children. Then, in June 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation and order permitting Jasper and their new husband to relocate to Hampton, Virginia, with the children.

In January 2021, Carlos filed a motion to modify custody that was based, primarily, on his concerns about the children's gender fluidity and Jasper's decision to support the use of some strong psychiatric medications that had been prescribed to S.A. in 2020. {The record reflects that Carlos was aware of the children's gender fluidity before he agreed to the June 2019 stipulation and order.}

On May 16, 2021, the district court entered a temporary order granting Carlos joint legal custody that directed Jasper to "keep [Carlos] apprised of the children's medical treatments." … In the fall of 2021, Jasper and Carlos had a disagreement over whether to vaccinate the children against COVID-19. Jasper wanted to vaccinate the children; Carlos did not. In addition, the controlling June 2019 physical custody order entitled Carlos to parenting time with the children in Las Vegas for Christmas 2021; but Jasper was concerned about the children visiting Carlos and his new wife, … because they were both unvaccinated.

Therefore, in November 2021, in advance of the upcoming planned December visit, Jasper filed a motion and request for an order shortening time seeking the district court's permission to vaccinate the children against COVID-19, or alternatively, to postpone the children's upcoming visit to Las Vegas. In early January 2022, the district court denied Jasper's motion; however, by that time, Jasper had already withheld Carlos's Christmas 2021 parenting time in violation of the June 2019 custody order. Then, immediately after the district court denied Jasper's motion, Jasper vaccinated and boosted the children against COVID-19 in violation of the district court's temporary order and against Carlos's wishes.

In May 2022, the district court held a full-day evidentiary hearing, where it again addressed Carlos's January 2021 motion to modify custody but this time for the purpose of determining permanent custody…. After the hearing, the district court issued a 39-page order with detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding Carlos primary physical custody of the children and providing that both parents would continue to share joint legal custody. The district court disagreed that the children's gender fluidity was a substantial change of circumstance affecting the welfare of the children. However, it found that Jasper's violation of court orders regarding COVID-19 vaccination and withholding parenting time from Carlos during Christmas 2021 did satisfy the requirement of changed circumstances. The district court then evaluated each of the best interest factors enumerated in NRS 125C.0035(4), ultimately determining that it was in the children's best interest for Carlos to have primary physical custody and for both parents to have joint legal custody. Because the change of physical custody would necessarily require the children to relocate from Virginia to Nevada, the district court also addressed the standards for relocation set forth in NRS 125C.007 and found that relocation was warranted….

The temporary legal custody order was not void

[Details omitted. -EV]

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found a substantial change in circumstances based on Jasper's violation of valid and, enforceable court orders

… [E]ven if the [January 22] order did not expressly prohibit Jasper from ever vaccinating the children, the order clearly denied Jasper's request for permission to vaccinate the children over Carlos's objection, at a time when Carlos had joint legal custody of the children. Furthermore, Jasper admitted that immediately after receiving the court's order, Jasper had both children vaccinated and boosted against Carlos's wishes. So, even if Jasper were correct that the January 2022 order was ambiguous, Jasper's unilateral decision to vaccinate both children against COVID-19 knowingly against Carlos's wishes and immediately after the district court denied them permission to do so, necessarily violated Carlos's rights under the May 2021 temporary custody order….

The district court did not modify custody to punish Jasper for violating the court's temporary orders …

In this case, the district court provided a detailed analysis of the substantial change of circumstances requirement. When evaluating this requirement, the court rejected Carlos's argument that the children's gender fluidity was a "substantial change of circumstances" because it predated the controlling June 2019 custody order. And Jasper contends that this particular finding was correct. However, the court further determined that Jaspers "pattern of violating Court orders regarding medical issues and withholding visitation" from Carlos (both of which occurred after the June 2019 custody order) constituted "a substantial change of circumstances, affecting the welfare of the children." Based on Jasper's testimony, the district court found that Jasper would continue violating court orders and undermining Carlos's joint legal custody rights if Jasper thought it best to do so, and that this constituted a change in circumstances. We decline to second-guess the district court's factual findings….

[T]he district court [also] addressed in detail the best interest factors set forth in NRS 125C.0035(4)…. [T]he district court found several best interest factors weighed in favor of Carlos, including the following: NRS 125C.0035(4)(c) (which parent is more likely to allow the children to have frequent associations and a continuing relationship with the noncustodial parent); NRS 125C.0035(4)(d) (the level of conflict between the parents); NRS 125C.0035(4)(g) (the physical, developmental, and emotional needs of the children); and NRS 125C.0035(4)(h) (the nature of the relationship of the child with each parent).

In reviewing these factors, the district court addressed concerns that did not relate to Jasper's violation of court orders. For instance, when discussing the level of conflict between the parents, NRS 125C.0035(4)(d), the court noted that Jasper had threatened to accuse Carlos of kidnapping after sending the children to stay with him and found that if "[Jasper] does not obtain what is requested, [Jasper] will not hesitate to cause additional conflict." When evaluating the ability of both parents to meet the children's physical, developmental, and emotional needs under NRS 125C.0035(4)(g), the court noted that the children both suffered from mental and physical issues, but that Jasper had done nothing to address their needs since December 2020, and struggled to articulate the children's learning disabilities. And when addressing the nature of the children[']s relationship with both parents under NRS 125C.0035(4)(h), the district court determined that the factor favored Carlos because there was no direct testimony about the children's relationship with Jasper, Carlos described a "fun and loving" relationship with the children that involved "going to the park and doing affirmations," and Jasper was unconcerned about Carlos's relationship with their children. Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion or make its final custody determination for an inappropriate reason.

Jasper has not shown that the district court modified custody due to bias or prejudice against Jasper's transgender status and parenting style

Finally, Jasper contends that the district court's rulings in this case may demonstrate a bias or prejudice against Jasper[']s transgender status and parenting style. As evidence of the district court's alleged bias, Jasper points to statements made by Carlos at the evidentiary hearing about their "biologically male" children "wearing girl's clothing," Carlos's testimony about his church teachings, and Carlos's inability to accept the children's gender fluidity because it conflicts with his values. Yet, Jasper fails to explain how statements made by a party litigant indicate bias on the part of the district court in this case in reaching its decision, particularly where "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for bias or partiality motion." …

{The district court [also] recognized that both parties had violated court orders, thus it could not say the factor weighed more heavily in favor of Jasper or Carlos; "[Carlos] admits to stopping the child's medication, when [Jasper] maintained sole legal custody, without consulting with [Jasper]. [Carlos] also cut the child's hair without consulting [Jasper], [Jasper] unilaterally vaccinated the children for Covid without [Carlos's] permission (while the parties had joint legal custody) and contrary to court order. [Jasper] also withheld Christmas 2021 visitation unless [Carlos] and his wife received vaccinations. This factor is neutral."}

Comments

[Illocust]

Well that was dumb but not unexpected behavior. First rule of family court, the judge is god. You do what the judge says or you'll never see your kid again.

[Krychek_2]

In any custody dispute (or any other dispute for that matter) somebody is going to have to be the decision maker, and that person is the judge. And whomever loses is likely going to have bad feelings about the judge.

Do you have an alternative system to propose?

[Illocust]

No, I was just making a statement. If you want to see your kids again, do what the judge tells you. It's kind of like if you don't want to go to jail don't punch a police officer. Right or wrong doesn't matter, these people have power and the law over you, fighting that reality won't end well for you.

[ducksalad]

The first rule of family court is to avoid it at almost any cost. Settle your problems without lawyers, even if that means swallowing some bitter pills and conceding when you know you're right.

Actually goes for court in general.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed on the contempt of court -- but there is a larger issue -- if "it" is willing to ignore the judge on this, what else is "it" willing to ignore the judge on?

[Krychek_2]

You obviously didn't actually read the decision. Both of them violated court orders, so the judge determined that was a neutral factor in the decision.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I didn't see mention of an explicit order that the child's psych med(s) not be interfered with, nor that his hair not be cut.

I just read the entire .pdf -- Footnote 7 mentions that he did this without consulting the child's mother which I'm distinguishing from an explicit "thou shalt not" from a judge.

Granted, we don't have the original custody order but -- absent language in that -- vaccinating the children after an explicit order not to do so strikes me as worse. More flagrant.

[Joe_dallas]

Vaccinating the vulnerable for covid is valid and based on a reasonable assessment of medical risk. Vaccinating children for covid is absolutely stupid, especially at this point in the pandemic cycle, with the exception of children with life threating illnesses.

[santamonica811]

Joe,
You're thinking with the hindsight of Feb 2023. The events took place in late 2021. I'd suggest that, at that time, the pro-"vaccinate-your-kids" evidence was more compelling than it perhaps is today.

In other words; I'd have a lot more sympathy for an anti-vaxx parent right now than I had 14+ months ago. (The absolutely stupidity of deliberately going against an existing court order is a separate matter, and the mom gets no sympathy for me.) [I'd like to know more about dad's decision to cut the kid's hair. If it's just a normal haircut, then there is zero wrong with it. If it's actually, "Your hair is too long, son. You look like a girl. We're cutting it short, like a regular boy's haircut!", then I could see how that could cheese off a judge in this case...even absent a direct order to refrain from giving haircuts.

[Lee Moore]

I think this confuses the absence of evidence that vaccinating healthy children was pointless, with evidence that vaccinating healthy children was useful.
There never was any evidence of the latter. All we had was a relatively short track record of Covid 19 resolutely refusing to kill otherwise healthy kids. Now we have a longer track record of this.
So it’s true that the argument against vaccinating healthy kids has got stronger with the passage of time. But that is nothing to do with the fading or debunking of evidence of the usefulness of vaccinating healthy kids. That evidence was always zero and has just continued to flatline at zero.

[Joe_dallas]

It was very evident December 2020 which was in the early stages of the vax rollout and 4-6 months before the vax was available for children) that the risk of covid was near zero, such that the benefit of vaxing kids was pointless.

[Joe_dallas]

santamonica811 13 hours ago
Joe,
"You’re thinking with the hindsight of Feb 2023. The events took place in late 2021. I’d suggest that, at that time, the pro-“vaccinate-your-kids” evidence was more compelling than it perhaps is today."

Actually foresight -
I have made a lot of comments about covid - most of which were controversial and widely denounced when I made those statements, yet have proven to be largely correct as we have become more knowledgable about covid. One comment I frequently made in March of 2020 was that A) the mitigation protocols were not going to work and B) even if they did work, it was effectively advocating for the evolution of the human species such that humans could only survive in a sterile environment.

[SMP0328]

The mother (regardless of what she considers herself) has serious psychiatric issues. There's no way the kids are deciding their gender identity. Her blowing off the judge's order regarding Christmas visitation was an emotion-based, irrational decision that cost her custody of her children. Based on the article, I believe the children will be better off with their father.

[Joe_dallas]

This gender fluidness should scare anyone with a basic knowledge of biology.

Its biologically impossible for a male to function as a female and it is biologically impossible for a female to function biologically as a male. You can only trick the human body so far.

Everything done to facilitate a "transition to the opposite gender" create permanent damage to the human body and to the mental illness. Its basic biology, to believe otherwise is delusional.

[Bubba Jones]

I'm not reading all that, but I gleaned that ex-wife became a him, and then married a man? So heterosexual ex-wife transitioned to homosexual man?

Meanwhile ex-husband was fine with this until he wasn't. He opposes "strong" psychiatric drugs, but he also opposes COVID vaccination.

I do sympathize with Jasper on the matter of vaccinating the kids prior to Christmas break with the unvaccinated father.

But this seems more like a COVID disagreement than a gender disagreement.

Don't stick it in crazy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I suspect the “psychiatric drugs” are puberty blockers — "strong" in that they have lifelong consequences.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The wife became an “it” — neither female nor male — and if I remember my basic Latin,
the third case is….

[santamonica811]

Romance languages are way ahead of English in terms of dealing with gender fluidity...the good ole' neuter is always available, in a pinch. (Um, 'neuter,' as a grammatical case, that is--not as an act of cutting off one's testes. The facts of this particular case make it important to emphasize this distinction, I reckon.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Liability question here:

Let's say the child develops a problem from the vaccine. Could the mother be liable for getting the child vaccinated in violation of the court order? She may have been the custodial parent but not in the sense she had the right to give permission.

How about the person who administered the vaccine? My thoughts on that is how would he/she/it know of the court order?

[Joe_dallas]

Actual risk for the vaccine is trivial, so I would not put that as a factor. The broader point is children are near zero risk (absent existing life threatening illness), as such, there is virtually zero reason to vaccinate children.

[Longtobefree]

Death is not trivial.

[Joe_dallas]

Long - my point is that the risk to children is near zero. The only children in the US that have died from covid have had pre existing life threatening illnesses. Those children should have had vaccinations.

[Bruce Hayden]

Turns out, the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus to this aged kids. Absent serious comorbidities, the virus just doesn’t kill kids. Even with those with comorbidities, COVID-19 ranks nearly at the bottom of things that kill kids. Below lightening strikes, and maybe at the level of drowning in mop buckets. Just doesn’t happen. Then, when they go through puberty, the risks of the virus inch up, but that of the vaccine appear to skyrocket, esp in the male 15-30 bracket.

Go keep pretending that the vaccines are safe. Keep believing the FDA and Pfizer mis and dis-information. And while you are at it, try explaining why Pfizer has delayed reporting on follow up myocarditis and pericarditis studies for an additional half year, to June of this year, from a study they were supposed to have concluded last June. And why the FDA obligingly acquiesced and is allowing them to, hopefully, report, a half year late. Meanwhile selling $billions$ in their vaccines the whole time. But then the FDA has allowed them to dispense their vaccines to kids with barely any additional testing. Testing was greatly abbreviated two years ago, because of the emergency they envisioned with the original variants of the virus. But they have had two years to complete those tests, and apparently never did. One of the tests skipped was the CDC required “shed test” that almost assuredly would detect that the spike proteins, along with the mRNA generating it, can often be detected 2 months after injection, and has been detected 4 months after injection. So much for the safety factor of breaking down quickly at the injection site.

[Joe_dallas]

Bruce

I recognize there is a dispute on whether the vaxes create additional risks of heart issues in children. There are conflicting studies on the topic, though the best evidence is that risk difference of heart issues from the vax vs actual infection is a very slight increase in risk with the vax.

My point is that there is absolutely no reason to vax children for covid since the overall risk from a covid is so trivial that it simply isnt justified from a medical perspective (with the exception of those children already suffering a life threatening illness - where most any infection will cause the final blow).

[David Nieporent]

You forgot to mention that Damar Hamlin was killed and replaced by a body double/CGI to cover it up.

[Joe_dallas]

Hamlin took a blow to the chest - one of those freak blows at just the wrong time. Absolutely nothing to do with heart problems caused by covid or the covid vax

Unfortunately about every 15-20 years or so , you hear about a little league baseball kid that dies from a freak blow to the chest by a baseball. Very similar to Hamlin incident.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't quite know what to make of all this {anti-vaccination kookery with a transgender chaser, or vice versa), but it seems like an interesting case, and I thought I'd pass it along.

This blog has some strange fixations. It evokes awkward teenage incel and elderly bigoted uncle who brings his guns to the Thanksgiving table.

[Longtobefree]

"Furthermore, Jasper admitted that immediately after receiving the court's order, Jasper had both children vaccinated and boosted"

I guess I missed the part where Jasper was immediately jailed for contempt of court?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope these children overcome the disadvantages that include both parents.

[Joe_dallas]

Basic biology – taught in high school.

Just to clarify - to think otherwise is delusional

[Lee Moore]

Just out of interest, is anyone aware of a case of someone being fired for tweeting that “X is a dyed blonde not a real blonde” ?

[Joe_dallas]

Queen - demonstrates his lack of basic knowledge of the subject matter with a nonrelevant comment.