The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Florida Appellate Court Disqualifies Judge in Gender-Transition Child Removal Case
Did the judge's remarks "suggest[] she had predetermined that the father had no right to oppose gender transition or otherwise direct the child's upbringing based upon his moral and religious beliefs"?
From Wednesday's opinion in H.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, decided by the Florida Court of Appeal (Judge Edward Artau, joined by Chief Judge Mark Klingensmith):
The right of parents to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of their children is older than our constitutional form of government and deeply rooted in our common law traditions. H.S., the father—who is a Christian minister and youth pastor—lawfully opposes, on moral and religious grounds, gender transition before adulthood for his minor child—who is a biological male.
We are asked in this case to determine whether the father reasonably feared that he would not receive a fair hearing on the appropriate placement for his child based on remarks the trial judge made suggesting she had predetermined that the father had no right to oppose gender transition or otherwise direct the child's upbringing based upon his moral and religious beliefs.
The father argues that he has a reasonable fear that he will not receive a fair hearing because the trial judge "has demonstrated a bias against [him] and a disregard for the requirements of the law."
We agree with the father and grant his petition for a writ of prohibition….
A party may move to disqualify a trial judge if "the party reasonably fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge[.]" … Here, the father's fear that he cannot receive a fair and impartial hearing before the trial judge is well-grounded and objectively reasonable.
"Children do not belong equally to parents and the state[.]" Rather, "their protection is first entrusted to the parents, extended family next, and then, if necessary, the state." However, government action that substitutes its views or beliefs on childrearing for that of the parent demonstrates a "zeal" for "paternalism." "That zeal going unchecked by a judiciary, far from protectionism, abnegates the child's reciprocal right not to lose a parent unnecessarily."
Our common law recognizes that the relationship between a parent and his or her child is "the most universal in nature," inclusive of the right of a parent to direct his or her child's upbringing…. "Historically, …. [t]he family unit was the most important association in life and therefore the foundation, not only of civil society, but of government itself. This view of the family created a high regard for parental rights in the common law." …
These rights still exist today because they have not been abrogated by statute. Indeed, our Legislature has codified these rights. Section 1014.04(1), Florida Statutes (2023), provides that "[a]ll parental rights are reserved to the parent of a minor child in this state without obstruction or interference from the state[.]" Among these rights are a parent's "right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of his or her minor child." Recognizing the common law rights of a parent, our Legislature expressly provided that "[a] parent of a minor child in this state has inalienable rights that are more comprehensive than those listed in this section[.]"
Therefore, the father has a right under the common law and section 1014.04(1)(b) to rely upon his moral or religious beliefs to direct his child's upbringing. Nothing requires that the father's moral or religious beliefs be aligned with those of the child as a condition of parenthood.
The father also has a lawful right to refuse to allow the child to seek any treatment furthering the child's gender transition before adulthood. See § 1014.04(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2023) (granting a parent "[t]he right to make health care decisions for his or her minor child, unless otherwise prohibited by law."). Moreover, the father's opposition not only to gender transition before adulthood, but also to any form of sex-reassignment treatment, is not prohibited by Florida law. Rather, preventing the child from undergoing any form of sex-reassignment treatment is consistent with Florida law, which prohibits minors from undergoing such treatment. See § 456.52(1), Fla. Stat. (2023) ("Sex-reassignment prescriptions and procedures are prohibited for patients younger than 18 years of age," except in limited circumstances.).
To an objectively reasonable person, the trial judge's pre-hearing remarks were antagonistic to the father and his right to direct the child's upbringing and moral or religious training. Those remarks when taken together—referring to the child by female pseudonyms, telling the child that "you are one smart, strong[,] [t]ogether, young lady," and to "[c]hin up, sister"—implied a foregone conclusion, before hearing the father's motion, that the trial judge was supportive of the child's gender transition before adulthood and opposed to the father's reliance upon his moral or religious beliefs to otherwise direct the child's upbringing.
Furthermore, the trial judge's in-camera interaction with the child went beyond mere attempts to establish a rapport with the child. Before hearing the father's motion to return the child to his custody, the trial judge explained to the child what would happen if she permanently removed the child from the father's custody contrary to the "placement priority" provided by section 39.4021(2)(a)(1.), Florida Statutes (2023), requiring that the trial judge first consider placing the child with the "[n]onoffending" parent before considering any other placement. Then, the trial judge verbally expressed an inclination—again, before hearing the father's motion—to order the father to submit to "professional help," "counseling," or "guidance" from DCF in an effort to change his moral or religious beliefs.
The trial judge's statements exhibited that she had predetermined that the father's moral or religious beliefs needed to be adjusted before he was fit to serve as the child's custodial parent despite "[t]he [father's] right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of" the child as expressly provided by section 1014.04(1)(b), and recognized at common law.
Thus, to an objectively reasonable person, it would appear that the trial judge had prejudged the case before hearing the father's motion such that she would not rule in the father's favor, regardless of the legal merits….
Here is the majority's summary of the facts, and of what the trial judge said:
In 2016, the child was removed from the mother's custody because of her substance abuse issues. The child was adjudicated dependent as to the mother. Because the father was not an offending parent, the child was not adjudicated dependent as to the father. In October 2017, the mother complied with a dependency case plan and achieved reunification with the child.
In April 2023, the child ran away from the mother and went to stay with a family friend after the mother had relapsed and had been verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive. The child reported that the mother would drink multiple bottles of alcohol a day and would drive while intoxicated. The mother also gave the child sex-reassignment hormones that she had bought on the internet without a lawful prescription.
At some point after running away, the child moved in with the father. Because of his moral and religious beliefs, the father refused to seek any sex-reassignment treatment for the child and opposed any form of gender transition before adulthood.
In June 2023, the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") moved for an emergency modification of placement for the child. In its motion, DCF sought to remove the child from the custody of both the mother and the nonoffending father. The only grounds that DCF provided for why the child should be removed from the father's custody were that the father was "emotionally abusive" toward the child because the father "doesn't understand [the child's] way of life" and does not allow the child to live and dress as a female or pursue gender transition.
However, the child has never been adjudicated dependent as to the father, and there have never been any findings that the father has abused, abandoned, or neglected the child. Moreover, DCF filed a notice it was not seeking any adverse supplemental findings against the father.
Nonetheless, the trial judge granted DCF's motion and removed the child from the custody of both the mother and the father. Despite his status as a nonoffending parent, the trial judge removed the child from the father's custody because the father "seem[ed] to be unaware[ ] [and] unaccepting of [the child's] current emotional situation and ensuing needs" based on the father's opposition to gender transition for the child before adulthood.
Following the trial judge's ruling, the father moved for the child to be returned to his custody on the grounds that it is unlawful to infringe on parental rights in the absence of any findings of actual or prospective abuse, abandonment, or neglect.
The day before the hearing was scheduled on the father's motion, the trial judge conducted an in-camera interview with the child. Instead of using the child's legal name during the interview, the trial judge referred to the child by female pseudonyms, as well as "sister" and "young lady." {To protect the identity of the child, we have generically referred to the female pseudonyms attributed to the child as "Female Name 1" and "Female Name 2" in this opinion.}
During one interaction, the trial judge referred to the child by Female Name 1, and remarked that the child was "one smart, strong[,] [t]ogether, young lady[.]"
After the child complained to the trial judge that the father uses "his beliefs and use[s] his religion[ ] to" oppose the child's gender transition, the trial judge asked the child if the father "has the potential to change to be more tolerant[,] [m]ore accepting[,]" if she were to put "some, like, professional help, like counseling and guidance and things that the department [DCF] could put into place[.]" In doing so, the trial judge essentially told the child that she could order the father to submit to "professional help," "counseling," or "guidance" from DCF as a way to change the father's moral or religious beliefs.
Later during the interview, the child told the trial judge that rather than being called by Female Name 1, the child instead wanted to be called by Female Name 2. In response, the trial judge agreed that she would recognize the child's name request and instructed the child "to update your Zoom name, next time you log in, okay?" {The record does not reflect that either parent was served with notice or had previously consented to legally change the child's name…. [Under Florida law,] a court may legally change a minor's name only if both parents consent or one parent consents and the other receives notice by service of process ….} And as a parting remark, the trial judge also told the child: "Chin up, sister." …
Judge Melanie May dissented, expressing "no quarrel with any of the law and principles espoused by the majority," but concluding that there was no basis on these facts to disqualify the trial judge:
Here, the trial judge's attempt to speak with a child in a manner that put the child at ease does not demonstrate the judge's predisposition of the pending issue. In fact, trial judges often take special care to speak with children to ensure they are comfortable in court proceedings; the decision to do so is within a trial judge's discretion.
To me, the trial judge simply attempted to relate to the child on the child's terms and to explain the legal process and options available. This was completely appropriate for the trial judge to do. The trial judge did not exhibit a pretermination that "the father's moral or religious beliefs needed to be adjusted before he was fit to serve as the child's custodial parent …." …
Despite the majority's description of what occurred, the trial judge's remarks were neither "antagonistic to the father and his right to direct the child's upbringing and moral or religious training" nor did they express an "inclination to order the father to submit to 'professional help,' 'counseling,' or 'guidance' from DCF in an effort to change his moral or religious beliefs." The trial judge made NO statement indicating how she would rule on the case…
As the First District held in Brown v. Pate, "Judge Pate's expression of 'grave concern' over possible visitation cannot serve as a basis for disqualification. A judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of presentation of evidence so long as she does not prejudge the case." Thus, I disagree there was any implied forgone conclusion the trial judge was "supportive of the child's gender transition before adulthood and opposed to the father's reliance upon his moral or religious beliefs to otherwise direct the child's upbringing." …
Antony P. Ryan and Richard G. Bartmon (Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel) represent the father.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000001971.20
https://www.sott.net/article/480555-Norway-advises-against-child-sex-changes-joins-Finland-Sweden-and-UK-in-rejecting-gender-ideology
Not quite. The organization mentioned seems to be an independent, government authorized agency, but it does not have authority to impose penalties or sanctions for not following its advice. The article might also be misrepresenting the board’s actual advice, at that.
“It is not true that the proposals or implementation of the requirements suggested will represent a ban,” Dr. Stine Marit Moen, the board’s medical director, told the AP in an email. “On the contrary, our report highlights the need to ensure safe help and secure the treatments given in Norway.”
Jasont20
the articles that are linked are just pointing out that many of the experts are beginning to recognize that “medical science” supporting the benefits of transitioning is dubious. European countries are backing off as better information becomes known unlike the activists in this country.
Or, it could be that opinion articles of biased authors are playing up legitimate differences of opinions among experts into “My side is finally being proved right” clickbait. Because articles like what you linked aren’t how science is debated among experts in a field. It is how selling selling books to people in the public that have picked a side in the culture wars debate a scientific topic.
Biases of the authors who are grabbling with the inescapable fact that you cant change biological facts.
Everyone who doesn’t agree with my ideology is dogmatic and biased!
“how science is debated among experts in a field.”
Scientist 1: I believe X might be true. Let’s test it.
Scientist 2: X is racist.
Scientist 3: When you say X might be true, you are actively harming marginalized identities.
Scientist 4: Your words are literally violence.
Scientist 1: Yeah, I guess you guys are right. Let’s write a paper showing X to be false before someone gets hurt.
Verbatim!
You laugh, but that’s how the scientists at Harvard rejected the greater male variability hypotheses.
oh yeah, sure, verbatim.
https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382
Thanks. Finally something from a reputable medical journal and not an opinion piece originally published in the Washington Examiner. The first thing I note is that the disagreements they talk about are over the prescribing of puberty blockers and other medical treatments for minors. The article you linked most definitely does NOT deny the existence of transgender identities. The argument of the father in this case is that allowing any treatment as if his child is experiencing something real is against his religion and thus his rights as a father.
Maybe he is correct, as a legal matter, but that is not at all a scientific argument.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656150/
Gender-tradition in the headline? Hmm. Probably a typo.
Yow, how did that happen? Fixed, thanks!
Sounds like a good father, and a horrible judge who removed the kid from his parents without basis due to her bizarre religious beliefs.
Judges like this need to be removed from the bench, and not just the case.
“Sounds like a good father, and a horrible judge who removed the kid from his parents without basis due to her bizarre religious beliefs.”
TwelveInchPianist, the opinion is here: https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2321822/opinion/Opinion_2023-1825.pdf Please identify the page(s) and line(s) that refer to the judge’s religious beliefs.
I never said the opinion referred to her religious beliefs. Please try to keep up.
You said this case involves “a horrible judge who removed the kid from his parents without basis due to her bizarre religious beliefs.”
If the antecedent of the pronoun “her” is not the judge, who does the pronoun refer to? And if you relied on sources other than the Court of Appeals opinion, what sources?
“her bizarre religious beliefs” is obviously a reference to the judge’s adherence to gender ideology, which is set out thus :
“Nonetheless, the trial judge granted DCF’s motion and removed the child from the custody of both the mother and the father. Despite his status as a nonoffending parent, the trial judge removed the child from the father’s custody because the father “seem[ed] to be unaware[ ] [and] unaccepting of [the child’s] current emotional situation and ensuing needs” based on the father’s opposition to gender transition for the child before adulthood.”
I confess – not having read the whole thing – that I’m not sure whether the trial judge who removed the child from the father’s custody as described above, is the same trial judge who has been removed from the next phase of the judicial operation, but I presume it is.
In the language from the opinion that you quote there is nothing referring even remotely to religious beliefs.
You are making shit up, as I suspect TwelveInchPianist is as well.
“Religious beliefs” was somewhat misleading; ideological beliefs would have been more accurate. Whether her beliefs were due to her participation in an organized religion or not seems immaterial. It is quite possible for someone to have similar beliefs as someone else–with or without the assistance of organized religion.
I have long argued that ideological Leftism is a de-facto religion.
Anything relying on faith rather than objective fact is a religion.
Ideologcal beliefs entirely in keeping with current medical practices, sure.
Bleeding was once a current medical practice, as was tossing LBGT in the loony bin.
Yeah, and long after those practices were abandoned you get throwbacks insisting that they were still the right thing to do and the changes are woke nonsense.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346
critique of the highly touted dutch study. Not a good look for the activists
Here is a story on a new piece of research finding that there is a very high incidence of serious adverse effects following transgender surgeries. 81% report constant pain, 57% have pain with intercourse and 30% can’t control their bladder. Now you would think the authors of the study might use this data to suggest that these surgeries aren’t advisable.
Link missing.
https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000001971.20
In summary – Due to his extreme ideology, Several commentators can not comprehend how poor the scientific literature is supporting the transgender ideology.
No matter how poor you claim it is, it’s still better than the science behind transphobia.
“Transphobia” is your go to justification to support your “gender disaffirming care” even though you know the medical science supporting the gender affirming care is quite weak.
No, transphobia is my go to for people who hate trans people so much they’ve launched an horrific campaign of fearmongering and hate against them while passing legislation to prevent them accessing health care, with an eye to eventually making it illegal to be trans.
Odd concept of hating trans?
The group that wants to provide the opportunity for those suffering from an illness to return to a normal life and prevent the activists from destroying the opportunity to lead a normal life are the ones “hating trans” while the ideologs encourage medical procedures which permanently prevents the person from even returning to a normal life, with life deforming medical surgery the trans group are the compassionate ones?
Forcing trans people to conform to your rigid ideas of normality is transphobia.
You obviously don’t get out much, NG.
The characterization of the judge’s dogma as “religious” is sarcastic. It means – you think the father’s ideas are based on irrational looney tunes ? Got a mirror, hun ?
It mocks the judge’s appeal to her own dogma as she “protects” the child from its father’s religious dogma, making the – entirely obvious – point that there’s no qualitative difference between the irrational value system she’s bringing to the party and the irrational value system that the father is bringing. It’s simply that she’s got the power to impose hers on him.
Except this time round, it seems she hasn’t.
That this has to be explained to someone over 12 years old is amazing.
There are none so blind as they that will not see.
‘point that there’s no qualitative difference between the irrational value system she’s bringing to the party and the irrational value system that the father is bringing’
Apart from the way the judge’s is supported by medicine and the father’s is made-up.
need to distinquish between ideological driven medicine and real medicine.
Need to rely on high quality medical studies instead of low quality ideologically / agenda driven studies.
Yes there is. Well-funded ideological weirdos and religious extremists like you are pushing back against medical progress.
Destroying a person ability to return to a normal life is not medical progress.
Throughout history , Surgery is to repair damage, not to create damage.
The damage from the use of Puberty blockers is far more extensive than admitted by the ideologs. For the most part the damage is not reversible.
Read up on the subject with quality studies, not the agenda driven studies
You don’t give a shit about the welfare of trans people, let alone what they experience and what they think, stop trying to wave them as a bloody flag.
Yeah, I’ll go to Breitbart and other right-wing bullshit generators for the best info on trans health care.
Confirmation-biased sets of scientific studies are not really probative of anything other than that there is not a total consensus.
What about it, TwelveInch? How do you claim to know about the judge’s religious beliefs?
Still waiting, TwelveInch.
Unless I missed it, they didn’t identify the trial judge. Why?
It looks like the op says that the judge is Yael Gamm, unless I’m misreading it.
https://trellis.law/judge/yael.gamm
Why would you say that, when it’s right there in the opinion? Who knows?
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has some house cleaning to do at the DCF. He also needs to remove the Woke trial court judge and the dissenting court of appeals judge.
Does the Florida governor have the power to remove trial court and court of appeals judges?
I’m sure the Florida governor can find a way, just ask Disney. And stop pretending to be a moron or autistic. Unless you are in which case I guess you can’t stop.
Wait: You think governors should “find a way” to remove judges who render decisions that you think are mistaken, even when it seems there’s no actual legal authorization for them to do that? Is your sense that places where executive officials act that way are good places to live, and good at protecting individual rights (whether parental rights, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of speech, etc.)? And why are you spending your time reading a blog that’s published by someone who is a moron, autistic, or pretending to be either one?
Eugene Volokh – It occurs to me that you can be both a moron and autistic. You have certainly made a case that you are both.
Pure insults say a lot more about you than Prof. Volokh’s argument.
You have never been a moderate one but this isn’t your usual attitude.
Sarcastr0 – What’s the matter? Couldn’t find a rent boy?
You drunkposting or something?
You’re not usually this particular type of asshole.
” Is your sense that places where executive officials act that way are good places to live, and good at protecting individual rights (whether parental rights, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of speech, etc.)?”
Can you honestly say that Leftist executive officials wouldn’t/don’t act that way?
Take a hypothetical converse — a teenager with purple hair and a judge saying that the child belongs in a “military school” which would “teach [the child] some discipline and love of his country.”
Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that judge would remain in family court in Massachusetts or California or New York? At the least the judge wouldn’t be hearing child custody cases anymore…
And I don’t have any problem playing by the rules that the Left does. What was it that Scalia said about one side following Queensbury rules while the other fight’s freeform? (RAV).
Eugene is shocked, shocked, that his rabble-frothing promotion of a case about a trans kid in Florida has elicited an unhinged, moronic series of comments from someone who believes that Florida’s governor has (or ought to have) near-dictatorial power.
These are the fellow travelers you’ve chosen for yourself, Eugene. Enjoy their company.
Notice how Simon doesn’t answer the question I asked….
You’re a lunatic, Ed. I only respond to your comments to mock you, not to engage you in any meaningful way.
Simple Simon can’t justify his prejudice…
Contrary to fact hypotheticals never prove anything, Ed.
“Does the Florida governor have the power to remove trial court and court of appeals judges?”
Actually — yes.
“The [Judicial Qualifications] Commission is comprised of six judges, five laypersons selected by the Governor, and four Florida Bar members.”
https://floridajqc.com/about/
“the trial judge removed the child from the father’s custody because the father “seem[ed] to be unaware[] [and] unaccepting of [the child’s] current emotional situation and ensuing
needs” based on the father’s opposition to gender transition for the child before adulthood”
This is nonsensical. There is no reason to think that the father is unaware of his son’s desire to identify as female. He may have disagreed with the judge about what the kid’s needs were, but as the father he is in a much better position to assess the kid’s needs than the judge is.
as the father he is in a much better position to assess the kid’s needs than the judge is.
Is the father in a much better position to assess the kid’s needs than the kid is?
Yes. That’s why we let parents make decisions for their children until the age of majority.
Yes, you need to go to the bathroom before you get in the car, no, you don’t need another bowl of ice cream, Yes, you need to do your homework right when you get home, no, you don’t need to watch another hour of TV, etc.
Yes. That’s why we let parents make decisions for their children until the age of majority.
Up to a point. But there are limits. Religious fundamentalist parents that wanted to pray their kid’s Type I diabetes away rather than treat it medically might not get to keep making the child’s medical decisions. At least, I would hope not.
There’s probably a line to be drawn, but that’s not relevant to SRG2’s comment. No one is suggesting that parents be denied custody because they disagree with their kids about diabetes treatment, and there’s nothing in the op about medical issues, so I’m not sure how such an example would apply to this case.
And the “limits” are much scarier than the example you give. We saw in the famous Justina Pelletier case, for example, how parents lost custody in MA for preferring the advice of the kid’s regular doctor over that of a doctor who’d met the kid once, and the same family had issues with the CT DCF for preferring that the kid have outpatient psychiatric care rather than inpatient.
Those types of decisions are a far cry from praying diabetes away.
You made a general statement as if it should always apply, so I pointed out that there are lines. Is my example the same as this case? No, of course not. But we can’t let our agreement or disagreement with the result in a hot button issue case like this push us into applying it to all cases dealing with the same basic legal question (parental rights in this case).
“ You made a general statement as if it should always apply…”
Um, I made a general statement as a general statement. As with any general statement, there will be cases where it doesn’t apply, as you point out.
Begging the question.
Ordinarily, the state leaves the upbringing of children to their parents. But when you’ve got a couple fighting over custody in court, and a state agency charged with ensuring that parents aren’t putting their children in danger, the judiciary steps in to determine what’s in the best interest of the children.
The diabetes example is misleading because it’s self-evidently clear that parents’ general authority over their child’s upbringing doesn’t mean that they have an unlimited right to deny their kids access to insulin. But there are a host of other medical/moral decisions between diabetes and gender-affirming care where things get trickier. COVID vaccines? The HPV vaccine? Oral contraceptives? At what point does the kid have a right to say, to a judge, “I think this is actually in my best interest, no matter what my pastor parent thinks,” and a judge empowered to effect that choice?
You think that gender transitioning is an easy question, no different from a parent telling their kid that they can’t have ice cream for dinner. Does the same presumption apply to a kid who identifies as gay? “Not under my roof!” Okay, so – no gay dating, no gay friends, no gay media? At what point do we acknowledge that the parent’s exercise of authority over their kids’ upbringing has crossed the line between “knowing what’s best for the kids because I raised them” and “imposing my beliefs on my kids because there’s no way in hell I’m letting my son be a fag”?
“Ordinarily, the state leaves the upbringing of children to their parents. But when you’ve got a couple fighting over custody in court, and a state agency charged with ensuring that parents aren’t putting their children in danger, the judiciary steps in to determine what’s in the best interest of the children.”
Sure, but here there’s no couple fighting over custody in court. The father is entitled to custody under the law if he can meet the kid’s needs, and there’s no evidence, other than the judge’s naked ideology, that the father can’t meet the kid’s needs.
Where is this “naked ideology” you speak of?
The belief that any kid that wants to transition, needs to transition.
Like the belief that any kid that wants medicine for a fever, needs a medicine for a fever. The belief that any kid who wants stitches for a deep cut, needs stitiches for a deep cut.
Yes, exactly. Thanks for proving my point.
Just because a kid wants medicine for a fever doesn’t mean he has a fever or needs medicine. Sometimes medicine can be harmful.
This is a non sequitur. The judge never says that, do they? It seems like they just acknowledge that this kid may have a good reason to want to transition.
‘Just because a kid wants medicine for a fever doesn’t mean he has a fever or needs medicine.’
You’re almost there. You’re so close. Go on. You can do it.
It’s like if the father was a Scientologist and rejected counselling or psychiatric care for a child who needed it. If you disagree, it’s because of your naked ideology.
Except here there’s no evidence that the father rejected anything the kid needed.
Except the way it’s the entire basis of the case, sure.
No it’s not. There’s no evidence that the kid needed anything. Your comment is based on your ideology that anybody that wants to transition, needs to transition.
There is evidence the kid needs something – the kid, who is the only authority on their own physical and mental state, says they do.
My ideology is based on people getting the health care they need, yes.
Simon – those are very poor examples
There should never have been any debate regarding Covid vaccines for children. It was well known very early in the covid pandemic that children had extremely low risk with partially impeding the development of stronger long term immunity by getting the covid vax.
Regarding cosmetic sex change / gender conforming surgery, the jury is very much in doubt regarding whether there is any long term benefit.
Regarding puberty blockers, contrary to the activists, the damage done by puberty blockers is not reversible. Its also during puberty that critical brain function is develop.
There is a good reason the european countries are backing out as new and better information becomes available.
The kid has an alcoholic for a mother who appears to have emotional issues in addition to being an alcoholic, The kid is likely going through a lot of other emotional issues associated with divorced/separated parents, lack of stability in family life etc.
So the kid is not likely to be able to access his own needs in a meaningful way, at least not with respect to the issue of transgender. .
But that’s nothing to do with the father’s decision. It’s entirely because of his religous beliefs.
‘at least not with respect to the issue of transgender. .’
You’re looking for rationalisations to ignore the kid’s health needs in a way that would be rightfully castigated if they were applied to any other health complaint the child made.
Religious and moral believes. Not to mention the fact that such treatment is illegal in Florida.
The father is a religious extremist. Gender dysphoria a recognised medical condition with a recognsed series of treatments. Making those treatments illegal is right-wing persecution of a vulnerable minority. It might even count as *religious* persecution if the religious extremists who pursue it insist on seeing it that way, however erroneously.
There’s no evidence that this kid has any recognized medical condition. And in any event, the legislature gets to decide which treatments are so harmful that they should be banned. Protecting a vulnerable minority from being mutilated isn’t persecution.
And there will never be, other than what the child says, because the father will never take them to a relevant health care specialist. It’s like saying there’s no evidence the kid has measles, just the kid sctatching and complaning of red spots, so long as we don’t take the kid to a doctor.
Yes, that’s the lying scaremongering propaganda being used to justify the persecution. Tha Nazis would be proud.
No evidence that the father won’t take the kid to a doctor. The Mother was giving the kid hormones from the internet with no prescription. If the kid had a medical condition, why didn’t she get a diagnosis and prescription?
The entire court case is about his religious blinders to a particular health condition. I’d say that counts as evidence, but I hope I’m wrong, for the sake of the kid.
Good question. Is it because Florida is a repressive anti-lgtbq state?
You know, I try to keep an open mind. I can’t be right about everything, right? I should be open to considering contrasting viewpoints and seeing how my own position might be mistaken.
That can be challenging, though. You never know if you’re reading people you disagree with fairly. Maybe they are making good points that I’m too blinded by my own preconceptions to see.
That’s why it’s helpful when people like you make your self-contradictions and inconsistencies so blazingly obvious as to remove that self-doubt. Here, you are saying that “the legislature gets to decide which treatments are so harmful that they should be banned.” But when someone else suggests that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration, when resolving disputes like that in the OP, you protest that state bureaucrats don’t understand a child’s “best interests” better than their own parents.
So which is it? Do parents have rights, or don’t they? Do kids’ best interests matter, or don’t they? What’s the difference between the legislature deciding that a procedure is so harmful as to merit banning, and an agency deciding that a parent is so harmful as to merit removing a child from their custody?
I realize, of course, that in your muddled little mind, you won’t see this as contradictory at all, because of course gender affirmation therapy, hormone blockers, etc., are all so self-evidently harmful as to be beyond the legitimate authority of any parent to decide they’re appropriate for their child. As I’ve noted elsewhere, you simply beg the question, and the analysis clicks into place. But even on your theory of the case, you need to be able to draw a line between bannable “harmful practices” and practices that are best left to parents to decide, and you trust the legislature to draw that line. Again, that can’t easily be reconciled with your other beliefs that parents have rights, too, and those rights take precedence over whatever the state thinks best for kids.
Like I said, I really don’t like to assume you’re all morons; I feel that leads me to complacency in my own reasoning. But sometimes you just make it too obvious to proceed otherwise.
“Here, you are saying that “the legislature gets to decide which treatments are so harmful that they should be banned.” But when someone else suggests that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration, when resolving disputes like that in the OP, you protest that state bureaucrats don’t understand a child’s “best interests” better than their own parents.”
Perhaps if you had better reading comprehension you would, well, comprehend more. Of course parents are best positioned to make decisions about their children. But Nige doesn’t buy that. He was making an argument from authority based on the medical establishment. I merely remined him that they aren’t the only authority.
But as you continue to convince me, the last people who should be making these decisions are judges, who are almost uniformly narcissistic idiots.
This response is a bit like what happens when you give a program an unexpected input and it just spits out gibberish in return. Broken bits of code, intelligible strings here and there, but clearly not a real response.
‘But Nige doesn’t buy that. He was making an argument from authority based on the medical establishment. I merely remined him that they aren’t the only authority.’
I think it might be a better authority than a god.
That’s why it’s helpful when people like you make your self-contradictions and inconsistencies so blazingly obvious as to remove that self-doubt. Here, you are saying that “the legislature gets to decide which treatments are so harmful that they should be banned.” But when someone else suggests that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration, when resolving disputes like that in the OP, you protest that state bureaucrats don’t understand a child’s “best interests” better than their own parents.
If the state did not allow its bureaucrats the power to interfere with the parents decisions on how to bring up their children, the legislature would need to not be doing anything to correct the overreach of its officials. It would be laissez-faire.
But because it is accepted – by everybody – that it is occasionally necessary for the state to override the parents (eg if they are in the habit of renting out their 8 year olds for Hollywood sex parties) then :
(1) state officials have to be granted the power to interfere by the legislature, and
(2) the circumstances in which they may interfere have to be specified, by the legislature
Thus if and when the legislature discovers that the state officials are interfering way more often than the legislature had expected, and doing so for flimsy or absurd reasons, the legislature tweaks (2) to underline that state officials only have the power to interfere in rare and specified circumstances. If the courts then interpret these rare and specified circumstances much more widely than the legislature expected , then the legislature may have another go at it.
So the legislature intervenes to prune the activities of state officials, when they have become outrageous. There is only any need for such pruning because of prior legislative acts granting power to state officials.
Thus when the legislature intervenes to prevent state officials from overreaching their prior grant of power, that restores to the parents some of their parental rights which have wrongly been appropriated.
As mentioned elsewhere the whole idea of “best interests” is wrong headed and liable to egregious overreach. All that is necessary is that the state sets a high bar for intervention based on parental behavior which is clearly, and significantly, harmful to the child – together with an equally high bar to demonstrate that the state’s intervention is going to deal with that harm.
There is no need for the state to claim to understand the child’s best interests better than the parents. The concept is absurd. Who even knows what their own best interests are ? At best we have possible implications of a few different course of action that we juggle, mixing in reason and our values and our emotions, and then we decide to act. No one else can substitute for our values or emotions, even if they can have a stab at predicting the future facts.
The only function that “best interests” serves is to grant the judge plenary power over parents bringing up their children. That’s a power that judges should not have.
A lot of words, but you don’t do much more than hand-wave at the core problem with TwIP’s views.
You do not (i) explain why the legislature properly has any power over deciding what kinds of parental behavior is “clearly, and significantly, harmful to the child,” (ii) justify this “clearly and significantly harmful” standard you’ve invented from whole cloth or reconcile it with some presumed “parental rights” over the upbringing of one’s children, or (iii) distinguish what you say the legislature may legitimately do from what judges or bureaucrats cannot be empowered to do. Several paragraphs, but it’s just an ipse dixit with the same internal contradictions that TwIP displays.
Simple question: Suppose the legislature decides that parents may not indoctrinate their children into any religion prior to the children’s reaching the age of reason. This protection is intended to ensure that children are free to adopt whatever religion they should choose, if any, once they are free of their parent’s undue influence over the matter. Setting aside separate constitutional objections to such a rule – if you respond that the only problem with such a rule is that it violates the First Amendment, then I will surmise that you agree that absent a separate constitutional prohibition on such a rule, you would agree that the legislature may legitimately impose that standard upon parents – what objection would you, or TwIP, have to such a prohibition?
You do not (i) explain why the legislature properly has any power over deciding what kinds of parental behavior is “clearly, and significantly, harmful to the child,”
Either the state has the right to exercise some power over the way parents bring up their children, or it doesn’t, not ever. Since nobody thinks the answer is “never” the question is then, who in the state apparat gets to decide when, why and how. And if you have a dictator the answer is – the dictator. If you have a priestly caste as rulers, it’s the priestly caste. But in a system attempting the rule of law, it’s the legislature that makes the rules. That’s why the answer to the “who” question is the legislature. This doesn’t seem very difficult to me. For those who reject the dictator, priestly caste option.
(ii) justify this “clearly and significantly harmful” standard you’ve invented from whole cloth or reconcile it with some presumed “parental rights” over the upbringing of one’s children,
Obviously I’ve made it up because I’m saying what I think the law should say, not what it does say. The reconciliation – see above – is that “never” is not a plausible answer, but that the “presumed parental rights’ are maximized when the state intervenes least. Thus a standard which makes it hard and rare for the state to intervene, except in egregious cases which hardly anyone would disagree with, is the sort of standard that best preserves parental rights to bring up their children. Except for “never” which we have already ruled out.
As I have explained already at tedious length any standard that allows a large amount of judicial discretion necessarily and proportionately reduces parental discretion. Any discretion offered to the judicial or executive branch limits parental rights to the full extent of the potential intervention of the state. ie in assessing how much damage you have done to parental rights, you must assume the state officials will use their powers to the fullest extent possible under the law.
This is the standard analysis for the liberty cost of any law or regulation. If the state can make you do this or stop you doing that, then you’ve lost your liberty in that area already, whether they do actually exercise their power over you or not. Hence discretion for the state officials is bad. They should get powers that are tightly specified and constrained.
(iii) distinguish what you say the legislature may legitimately do from what judges or bureaucrats cannot be empowered to do.
Well, judges and bureaucrats are obviously empowered only to do what the legislature has said they can do, under the laws written by the legislature. Unless you are keen on the dictator / priestly caste variants. So the question is then what limits should be placed on the legislature, either by a constitution or by its own restraint, as to how much empowering it can do – ie how far should the legislature permit the infringing of parental rights ?
I‘m not going to draft the law here, because detail is required. So, in broad terms, we don’t want parents to be left free to torture their children, or sell them into slavery, or sexually abuse them. That sort of thing would probably command a 95% vote in the population. But if you have things that say 25% of the population is OK with – like taking them to church, not taking them to church, sending them to school, homeschooling them, not letting them dress this way, or making them dress that way, controlling their diet, restricting or allowing their use of the TV or mobile phones – then the state officials should have no power to intervene. However strongly the state officials disagree with the parents decisions.
Thus the standard, instead of the deliberately and dangerously woolly “best interests” should be negative – ie you can’t do that (like any law, if you are commanded to do X, that is much sterner restriction on your freedom of action than being commanded not to do Y); to a standard of similar severity as “beyond a reasonable doubt” – we only want the state officials to intervene in clear cases that the vast majority of other parents would accept
So that is how I arrive at something like “clearly, and significantly, harmful to the child,”
The parent foul needs to be clear – and clear to the vast majority of parents
It needs to be significant – de minimis non curat state busybodies
And it needs to prevent a harm – not create a supposed benefit; the former, if real, is easily identified in its approach, the latter is not, is heavily value laden, and judicial speculation is no more valuable than anyone else’s. Moreover if you could find a clearcut potential benefit that the parents are denying to child, the state officials charged with intervening could find a thousand for every one you could find. Remove the temptation, even at the risk of letting the occasional benefit slip away.
Lee, the reason I posed a hypothetical for you to address was that, by addressing it, I expected to be able to tease apart the underlying assumptions that you still are having difficulty understanding you’re making.
I’m not responding to these comments otherwise. You’re just repeating yourself, with more words. You haven’t actually explained, or justified, anything.
I do beg your pardon.
The answer is that indoctrinating your children in a religion is not usually harmful, so your proposed rule falls at the first hurdle – that of preventing harm to the child.
There may be some particular religions that are clearly and significantly harmful to the child – eg ones where the child is required to engage in satanic sex rituals from age 4 onwards, but you do not need your absurdly over broad hypo to catch that. You can focus on the compelled sex rituals whether religiously inspired or not.
If you think things like Christianity and Bible studies are harmful per se, then fine, whatever floats your boat. But call me when you get to 50% acceptance on that never mind 95%.
One reason why – even if being indoctrinated in Christianity etc is entirely useless to the child – can’t rise to the level of clear and significant harm is that it’s easily reversible. There are millions of examples of people who do not adhere to the faith that their parents attempted to get them to adopt.
So except for human sacrifice type religions ( where the harm is the human sacrifice rather than the religion) parents trying to indoctrinate their children in a religion is not harmful; even if it’s a waste of time, and even if it were mildly harmful during childhood that’s not both clear and significant, and it’s easily reversible.
Much like trying to get your children to understand chemistry. Highly unlikely to be harmful even if a waste of time in most cases, and very easily reversible. Unless your children really take to it with enthusiasm it’ll all be gone by the time they’re 25.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346
The “medical Science ” and the Medical expert ” opinions are much weaker than you believe
They’re not as weak as you want to believe.
Often, yes.
Just why is it that the age of majority is 18 rather than 12?
The way I understand it is that the adolescent brain isn’t fully developed, especially among biological males between the ages of 13 to 24.
A 13 year old isn’t considered mature enough to drive, and even an 18 year old isn’t considered mature enough to drink or carry a concealed handgun. However some people think they are mature enough to decide they want to be chemically castrated, or surgically sterilized, which typically leaves them sexual cripples requiring lifetime medical care.
Why is it ok to ignore the child’s own description of their own physical and mental condition, to dismiss it entirely out of hand? If any other health complaint the chld made was ignored simply because they supposedly weren’t competent to understand their own needs, it would amount to negligence. Even worse if they were dismissed for religious reasons.
A lot of children at that age would like to drink, smoke, have sex, get a tattoo, join the military, drop out of school or even get breast implants.
Why is it that you activists think transgenderism is the sole, magical exception where a child’s decisions should usurp those of the parents, or the state recognized age of majority?
None of those are health issues, and more cis kids get breast implants than there are trans kids.
Every single one of those is a health issue, and I have never seen anyone march for the right of 13 year old females to get breast implants.
However, people are pushing for 13 year old females to have their breasts removed for trans purposes.
https://bioedge.org/beginning-of-life-issues/13-year-olds-given-mastectomies-at-california-clinic/
If that were always true, cases like this would never happen. But the father isn’t prioritising the child’s needs. He’s prioritising his own religious convictions.
Another example of the reactionary American idea that children are the chattels of their parents, for the parents to do with as they please.
There should be nothing controversial about this, and yet the US is the only country in the world not to subscribe to it:
No more so than the children are the chattels of governments in other places. And it’s the parents, not judges, who understand what’s in the best interests of their children, and who care about their welfare.
And it’s the parents, not judges, who understand what’s in the best interests of their children, and who care about their welfare.
Parents are entitled to a presumption that this is true. But it won’t always be the case that it is true. The relapsed, abusive, alcoholic mother lost the presumption that she knew what was best for her child, right?
Correct, it won’t always be the case. But there’s no reason to think it’s not true in this case, right?
Perhaps, but I’m struck by the fact that the appellate court didn’t just decide that the trial judge was biased, but also seems to have decided the merits of the case.
it’s the parents, not judges, who understand what’s in the best interests of their children, and who care about their welfare.
You’d hope so, but I see no reason to assume that that will necessarily be the case.
Nobody said it was necessarily the case. I mean, heck, there might be a case where a judge might make a better decision about who your spouse should be that you yourself would. But its generally the case that you make those decisions better than judges.
And to be clear, is it your position that parents don’t have any rights at all? Should children be removed from their parents and placed elsewhere merely because the state decides that it would be better for the child to be raised by someone else?
And to be clear, is it your position that parents don’t have any rights at all?
I think that an all or nothing answer to these questions is wrong from any direction.
Right. But Martinned’s Quote begins with”In all actions concerning children…”
Yes, and it ends with “a primary consideration”, not “the only consideration”.
Not to mention that the Convention continues by talking a lot about parents (because, as multilateral treaty, it’s a compromise between lots of different countries):
Let’s do a quick drive by fisk of Article 9 para 1 :
States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.
Note that the “except” clause entirely swallows the soothing opening pablum about not separating a child from its parents against their will. And the standard is still “the best interests of the child” – ie it’s left entirely to the judge as to whether he/she prefers his/her opinion of the child’s best interests, to that of the parents. Study French or German in school ? Parents go for French. Judge marginally prefers German. German it is then ! But with buckets of respect for the parents rights to bring up their child.
Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents,
And we get a recitation of the scariest contents of the motte, so as to get the rubes nodding along. But don’t worry we have the whole bailey in there too because it’s only a “such as.”
or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.
Another one plucked from the motte. Though note it doesn’t say that this applies only where the parents can’t agree, nor that there’s a default where one parent is responsible for the separation and the other is not. Nor that the places the judge can pick are limited to “with Dad” or “with Mom”. Nope the judge can send the little rugrats wherever it pleases him or her to send them.
And this is just one of many paragraphs of pablum. But in the end it comes down to the same answer. Your child is the government’s child. A government official will decide how it is raised. In the meantime you the parents are the provisionally recognised government agents, so make sure you don’t stray from the guidelines you may get from time to time from Child Services or your child’s school.
This ‘motte and bailey’ thing must be going round the right at a fierce clip.
‘Your child is the government’s child.’
Here we go. They’re going to pass laws that reflect this nonsense. An unintended consequence of the trans panic will be making it illegal to remove children from abusive households.
These laws are intended to clarify the distinction – as compared to current law and practice – between “abusive households” and abusive households.
Obviously the removal of a child from an “abusive household” is a tragedy for the child and the family, wrought by the state. It is an excellent thing for state legislatures to perceive the abuse of “abusive” and to try to limit the scope of state intervention to actually abusive households.
It is not just the children (and parents) in “abusive households” that will benefit from being left alone. Children in actually abusive households will benefit because instead of pursuing the political fad du jour, state officials will have time and resources for those children suffering actual harm from their parents.
And if it is made clear that child services is no longer a stage on which you will be allowed to strut your politics , the political narcisists will be weeded out and the departments will be staffed by people who can reliably distinguish “abuse” from abuse. A win-win.
‘These laws are intended to clarify the distinction’
You can’t protect parents who deny their chldren medical care due to idtiotic religious beliefs and not threaten the safety of kids in housholds who do all sort of other horrible things based on idiotic religious beliefs, or who claim their rights to do what they want with their children. The people doing this aren’t smart enough, and they don’t really care.
I haven’t really noticed that Europeans are more well adjusted when the reach adulthood than Americans.
Or that matter better outcomes than even more rigid social systems like China Japan and Korea.
I have, but that seems like a broader conversation that we’d better leave for another day.
O, those reactionary Swedes and Norwegians! I would think martinned would vent his spleen on them, but curiously, he does not.
Both Norway and Sweden have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and apply their laws accordingly.
And would reach the exact same result in this case as the American court. But without reference to the common law, which offends Continental Europeans, who prefer Napoleonic diktat to Saxon freedom.
You’re saying that every country in the world would take a kid away from their only remaining good parent because that parent wouldn’t help the kid go trans?
That’s really messed up and fortunately not even close to correct.
Fortunately then that that’s not remotely what I was saying, as you well know.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2024/04/gender-affirming-care-18-tattoo-too-permanent.jpg
I mean, based on what you quoted (and claim to should be uncontroversial), let’s say a kid steals my money or car or something, and I want it back.
You think a primary consideration of the government should be whether or not it’s in the child’s best interests to have to give it back?
Do you understand the difference between “a primary consideration”, “the primary consideration”, and “the only consideration”? I mean, English isn’t my native language, but I think that distinction is pretty clear.
Yes I do, as should be evident from the fact that I used that phrase in my comment.
So again, if a kid steals my car, should the best interest of the child be a primary consideration in deciding whether or not he should have to give it back, even if it’s not the primary consideration or the only consideration?
As I have mentioned before “the best interests of the child” is a ludicrous formulation inviting judicial megalomania. Because the standard is “the best” that necessarily requires the judge to substitute his or her own estimate of the best for that of the parents. There’s no space for “I’m not sure I’d be doing what the parents are doing , but I can’t say that the parents are doing anything wrong or harmful.”
So the standard should be about whether the parents are doing something that is clearly harmful. “The best” here is definitely the enemy of “the good”.
Secondly the child in question is not the only member of the household. There’s also the parents, the other children, the grandparents, the dog and any guests. Not to mention the neighbors.
The child’s interests, best or otherwise, do not outweigh the interests of everyone else, and the parents have to take account of all of these interests.
Maybe a judge thinks it would be in the child’s best interests if Mom gave up her job as a college lecturer so that she could spend more time with her children ? Maybe Mom and Dad do actually discuss that. But who thinks that’s the judge’s job to decide ?
‘Because the standard is “the best” that necessarily requires the judge to substitute his or her own estimate of the best for that of the parent’
‘Denying health care for religious reasons’ doesn’t usually require much substitution.
As noted up top, the Europeans have sniffed this particular “health care” and concluded that it smells surprisingly ratty.
Europe has right-wing religious and secular bigots too, you know.
The best interests of the child standard does not apply here at all. A fit parent has a constitutional right to custody of the child unless found unfit. Best interest of the child only applies if a judge has a right to assign custody, and absent either of a finding of unfitness or a divorce with contested custody, a judge has no such right.
Given that state law agreed with the father (whether one thinks this law correct or not), the father could not possibly have met the standard for unfitness.
Martinned is complaining that if we hicks were as enlightened as Europeans then the “best interests of the child” would be the legal standard.
This is true, from which we may concluded that European “enlightenment” is to be avoided at all costs.
Which is probably the moment to remind y’all once again that Germany does not permit homeschooling. You are allowed one guess at who enacted that – extant – law.
That is an astonishingly stupid thing to say. Nobody disagrees that the best interests of the child are “a primary consideration”. The debate is solely over who gets to decide what those best interests are.
In the US, we believe that (absent extraordinary circumstances justifying the termination of parental rights) individual parents have the best incentives to figure out what’s best for their individual children.
Yes, and that is patently wrong, and leads to children being tortured by their parents like, arguably, the child at issue here.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/
If a country decided that the best way to decide what the best interest of the child was to draw a number out of a hat, you’d also rightly think that they weren’t really interested in the best interest of the child.
You know what I don’t see anywhere in all that? Any mention of professional mental health treatment for the child. There are the mother’s apparent opinion that the child is trans, the father’s belief that children shouldn’t be medically transitioned, and the judge’s apparent sympathy with the child’s trans leanings. The mother bought hormones, apparently prescribed by Dr Google, off some website. I happen to agree with the father, but has this kid even been seen by a physician to monitor the hormone treatment?
Very good point, but the only accepted view on the political left is that self-identification should be the sole criteria for being trans.
The Obama “dear colleague” letter (which the Biden administration revived) specifically stated that kids aren’t required to have hormone treatments, and doctor’s diagnosis or even parental permission to change their identity.
Seems strange that a Florida judge can remove a child and terminate parental rights for opposing elective medical treatments that are not allowed under Florida law.
SB 254 section 5, doesn’t allow prescriptions for puberty blockers or other “gender affirming” hormones, or surgical procedures for minors.
I kept wondering that myself. Dad is a “bad parent” because he won’t allow his son to be given illegal drugs and undergo an illegal surgery? Make it make sense.
“Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown.” (Here, it’s a woke judge’s courtroom. Rules / laws don’t apply.)
“Seems strange that a Florida judge can remove a child and terminate parental rights for opposing elective medical treatments that are not allowed under Florida law.”
Kazinski, what page(s) and line(s) of the Court of Appeals opinion mentions termination of parental rights?
As I have reminded you before, ctrl-f is your friend.
The court didn’t terminate the father’s parental rights. But she did deny the father “placement priority” required by 39.4021(2)(a)(1.) based on a spurious finding about the child’s needs. So you can consider that nit picked.
Kazinski has an odious history of making shit up. This is merely the latest example.
I get called a liar here quite often for just saying things you don’t want to hear.
You spent a fair amount of time accusing me of making stuff up when I said that conviction under 18 U.S.C. Section 2383 was the only way to disqualify Trump from the Presidency under current law.
Again, what page(s) and line(s) of the Court of Appeals opinion mentions termination of parental rights?
“Nonetheless, the trial judge granted DCF’s motion and removed the child from the custody of both the mother and the father.“
Kazinski described the relevant facts perfectly reasonably for the purposes of this discussion. Even I, who have no legal training whatsoever, understood his point. Would you care to address it?
>The right of parents to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of their children is older than our constitutional form of government and deeply rooted in our common law traditions.
Hoo boy is that going to upset the Sarcastr0’s of the world (like Martinned2). Destroying the biologically intact natural family is one of their core directives. They know a biologically intact natural family is the last bulwark against the encroachment of the State, and they have been trying to make that bond meaningless for decades.
Destroying the biologically intact natural family is one of their core directives
The Sarcatr0 of WhitePride’s imagination is like some kinda libertarian robot.
I don’t want the government telling people how a family’s gotta be.
It’s actually a pretty libertarian position, if you think about it.
You think destroying the nuclear family is a Libertarian position? It’s a Marxist/Democrat one.
Further, your position is counter to a worldwide recognized position on the natural family.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society and entitled to protection by society and the state.
Note the last part.
If whatever notion of family you have in your head requires governmental authority to protect it, maybe people don’t like it and you are an authoritarian puritan weirdo.
You’ve never heard of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have you?
lmao, of course not.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society and entitled to protection by society and the state.
And there we see the problem. We have a “by” when we should have a “from.”
In this sort of case in Florida, is the standard for granting a writ before trial the same as the standard for ordering a new trial?
The OP isn’t about trans stuff, it’s about the integrity and independence of the judiciary from populist politics.
Some of you folks just love to go at the latest outgroup, eh?
Tags:
PARENTAL RIGHTS
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
TRANS
DUE PROCESS
Nothing about what you say it’s about. But as usual, you don’t let facts get in your way.
And in any event, the latest outgroup appears to be parents who don’t want to trans their kids.
What exactly do you mean by “the integrity and independence of the judiciary from populist politics”, anyway? The right of the judiciary to shit on long standing social arrangements that actually predate the existence of government?
Did you even read the OP? This is some weird appellate overreach.
Trans means you didn’t even see the other bits though. That’s how hate works.
And yes it is hate. You don’t just call them mentally ill based on your personal take on gender, every government action that messes with a trans person you favor. And you favor it so hard you don’t even bother to read the OP.
Also your idea of the scope of the judiciary’s authority is outcome oriented twaddle.
Courts do a lot of pushing back on stuff that predates civilization. Part of their core jobs
Only thing is this time there’s a trans person involved and you hate those people.
So what exactly do you mean by “the integrity and independence of the judiciary from populist politics”?
He means the reaction is “populist”, not the action. That’s always the way.
The trial judge’s pandering to genderish ideology is not “populist” – how could it be, since it’s wildly unpopular ? It appeals only to a small cadre of lutta continua folk.
But the appelate court’s push back – which is popular – is “populist.”
And please identify the page(s) and line(s) in the opinion that refer to a “government action that messes with a trans person”
I guess NG’s schtick has its uses.
People saying the district court is ideologically biased are ignoring that the appellate court’s more openly got the same issue.
So maybe quit with the ‘my ideology beat your ideology so this is good’ and look at the doctrine here.
Bare of the facts, is it OK for an appellate court to overturn a district court finding like this?
Like, if the ideology were about the merits of the Grateful Dead or something.
I don’t think granular second guessing is an appellate court’s job, especially with such a political push.
If you want to overturn a case, find a legal standard beyond the political one.
“If you want to overturn a case, find a legal standard beyond the political one.”
Nothing was overturned; the judge was removed. And the opinion lays out the reasoning quite clearly and, spoiler alert, it wasn’t because of politics. That’s what YOU’RE saying because YOUR preferred outcome didn’t prevail.
You and I both know the effect here. In fact, removal of the judge is perhaps a more seismic change than just overturning the case.
I don’t really have that much of a dog in this fight, outcome-wise. I don’t have the facts to know and the conflict between parental rights and the best interest of the child.
I’m not knee-jerk ‘the trans person is right’ when it’s a minor.
That’s one of the reasons I want to talk about the doctrine here, which is where I have more of an opinion (though a lot of the comments here evince a pretty fucked up hatred of trans people that goes well beyond a conflict over the science)
You, as you do, project your own extremism on all who disagree with you.
I don’t get why you think removing a judge from a case for perceived bias is “seismic.”
It may be unusual, but perhaps it shouldn’t be. Why should the higher courts be expected to bend over backwards to pretend that it’s unthinkable that a judge who seems to be displaying bias, is biased ? Nobody on this blog thinks that. Why would an appeal court ?
As I mention below when it comes to recusal the standards are way over the top to avoid even the appearance of bias. If the appearance of bias is a problem, it’s a problem.
Apart from hurting the judge’s feelings I can’t think of any reason why an Appeal Court should apply a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in removing a judge for bias.
Judges get overruled all the time. Lawyers are embarrassed by being slapped down by judges in court. Parties to the case and witnesses can be hurt by the judge making unkind remarks about them in his judgement.
If judges are going to get all weepy if a higher court says “looks like you’re biased here, we’re taking you off the case” they should either take more care to avoid the appearance of bias, or seek a different line of work.
Did you even read the OP? The appellate court didn’t overturn the trial judge’s finding.
The trail judge removed a kid from his father’s custody based on her ideology, contrary to the law.
Due to her pretrial remarks, it was clear that she was going to do so, and so the father couldn’t get a fair hearing.
There were no findings that the father was an unfit parent or anything like that.
This isn’t a case of the appellate court imposing its ideology on the trail court, it’s about the trial court being unable to separate her ideology from the law.
And, to save NG the trouble:
“is it OK for an appellate court to overturn a district court finding like this”
Please identify the page(s) and line(s) in the opinion that indicate that the district court and the appellate court are different courts.
If the Court of Appeals opinion correctly describes Florida law, this father is within his legal rights.
That having been said, it appears that his decision making skills are atrocious. He unwisely chose a female with whom to beget a child. He is unwilling to accept the child as she is, ostensibly for religious reasons.
As the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion.”
“He is unwilling to accept the child as she is,”
Huh? The child is a boy, and he is perfectly willing to accept the child as a boy. Many people think that it is moral to call things what they are, and decline to call them what they are not. Would you think the father was unable to accept the child as he was if the child insisted he was black, with the father correctly insisting the was not?
It is the judge who is unwilling to accept the child as he is.
Yes, the father is completely unwiling to contemplate that his child might be different and will instead try to force the child to be normal under a religious regime, that is sure to be fantastically healthy for the child.
Religious and moral. You know how some people have a moral opposition to, say, conversion therapy? Same thing here.
Yes, the same religious extremists who deny the existence of gender dysphoria and who want to deny health care to people with that condition and who also hate LGTBQ people in general invented this quack form of mental and physical torture to infict on vulnerable children. It is not recognised by any credible medical body. Gender dysphoria and its treatments are. But you know this.
I don’t think anyone denies the existence of gender dysphoria. That’s a very different statement than denying the existence of gender identity. And you are very much overstating the idea of some sort of medical consensus about treatment for gender dysphoria.
Denying the concept of gender identity? Such as your gender identity being male? They sure do go to some dumb places with their tunnel vision and entirely shifting to whatever argument of convenience best suits the moment.
I’m not overstating it, most trans people would say it leaves a lot to be desired. But while a bunch of religious and ideologicial right-wing extremists screaming culture war bullshit might pose a danger to what there is, it doesn’t undermine the actual facts.
I think there is a consensus for treating adults based on gender identity being a trait. I also think there is consensus on social transitioning and against surgery for minors. The most contentious area is hormones and puberty blockers.
‘The most contentious area is hormones and puberty blockers.’
But only for gender dysphoria, because of reasons. For every other usage, they’re absolutely grand.
Not seen that Weinberg quote before. And what a silly one it is too.
He probably means that religious dogma provides rules or justifications for things that are “evil” as measured outside the frame of reference of the religion in question, which might lead an otherwise ordinarily moral person to do “evil.”
Sure they might.
But did the guy miss the whole 20th century ?
Any dogma or ideology risks leading ordinarily moral people astray. Nothing special about religion there.
And recent evidence suggests that Nietzsche was right that we have much more to fear from men without God than men with one.
I should perhaps add that I am not suggesting that “ordinary men” need ideology or dogma to lead them morally astray :
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062303023/reasonmagazinea-20/
He probably means that religious dogma provides rules or justifications for things that are “evil” as measured outside the frame of reference of the religion in question,
I don’t agree, Lee. Religion has a history of encouraging behavior that pretty much anyone outside the group, and probably even some inside, would have no trouble identifying as “evil.”
A religious code of behavior can involve some pretty grim stuff, especially, but not only, when the behavior is directed at non-members.
Sure, there’s been lots of beastly stuff done in the name of religion. But the same is true of secular ideologies. As I said, did the guy miss the whole 20th century ?
Once we move the analysis down a level from the helicopter view, we might consider the actual content of some particular religions and some particular secular ideologies.
Modern day Christianity and Judaism are waay less scary than [some versions of ] modern day Islam. All of these are way less scary than the human sacrifice jamborees of pre Columbian Central America.
And veganism is a lot less scary than Marxism a la Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. (I wonder if any parent anywhere has yet lost custody of a child for failing to feed it meat ?)
So I have no objections at all to considering the actual content of the ideology in question – including its practical applications. But while we are still at the helicopter level – which is where Weinberg’s quote puts us – I’ll summarize thus :
I do not find it in me to believe in any gods myself, and never have, but in remains my opinion that generally speaking my family and I are much safer in societies that are still living on the vapor of the three large monotheistic religions, than they would be in a thoroughly atheisitic world.
And one reason for that, IMHO, is that most religions, including the three aforementioned ones, have a Powerful Supernatural Being who regards it as His Business to watch what y’all are up to, and reserves the right to hold you to account. This constitutes a substantial addition to the deterrent value of the secular police, even if it only influences the behavior of the godly. And it may account for the fact that secular tyrannies are famous for the ubiquity and ferocity of their “here on Earth” police presence.
‘And veganism is a lot less scary than Marxism a la Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.’
Imagine being scared of people who don’t eat meat.
Imagine being scared of modern day Christians or Jews.
Meanwhile some news from Woke Central no less :
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220525-is-a-vegan-diet-healthy-for-kids :
Feeding your kids a vegan diet can seriously damage their health.
If we’re talking about Christian fundamentalists who want to overthrow progress and hardline Jews in Israel, they’re each scary in their own way. Hardline vegans mostly just have a real hard time in a society designed to maximise beef and poultry profits. Feeding kids on sugar and fast food can seriously damage their health too, and is more likely to.
The world is full of nutty people scared of shadows or otherwise possessing a hair trigger intolerance for other people’s way of life.
Alas there are many people who have been appointed as judges who are nearly as intolerant as you – hence the need to have a very high bar for judges to be allowed to interfere with parental rights to bring up their children as they think fit.
As Lee said above, did you miss the entire 20th century?
Yes, there is a several thousand year history of religious-motivated evils. But the past century of entirely secular wars and abuses demonstrates very clearly that it is a fundamental problem of human nature, not something unique to religion.
You don’t seem to acknowledge or understand that “accept the child as she is” assumes a meaning of “is” which is entirely dependent upon a specific ideological viewpoint. Its use demonstrates that the judge has a specific ideological viewpoint on the matter in question (the recounted evidence of which, if you ask me, is downright creepy).
Perhaps you have been led astray by the religious aspects of the fact pattern? Let me (as someone is about as hostile to religion as one can be) assure you that religious belief is not even remotely necessary to sincerely believe that the best interests of a child do not include allowing that child to make reckless, life-changing decisions for which he or she is not mentally prepared or capable.
It would be potentially even more reckless and life-changing to force the child to be ‘normal’ when she is not.
Weak response, Nige. I can guess why. Can you?
“for good people to do evil – that takes religion”
I can forgive someone for not knowing ancient history, but how are you so unfamiliar with the very century in which you were born? Completely unhinged take.
I think it is remarkable, and unfortunate, that a judge can be found to be so biased against a parent as to warrant removal by… acknowledging the child by her preferred name/pronoun and exploring whether the father might come to acknowledge his child for who she claims to be.
I wish that the choice here wasn’t between an abusive mother, the state foster system, and a father who might provide a more stable home at the expense of refusing to understand whatever his kid is going through. I respect the judge for trying to find a path that reconciles the kid with their father, and I think it’s shameful both that the father felt that this attempt to resolve a challenging situation merits disqualifying the judge, and that the appellate court agrees.
Gross, too, that Eugene feels the need to pump this up for his audience, but we’re used to the transphobia by now, I think. Half the commenters really seem too enjoy it.
“I respect the judge for trying to find a path that reconciles the kid with their father, ”
Huh? The judge removed the kid from the father’s custody, for absolutely no reason other than ideological differences.
The judge’s decision was in line with medical practice, the father wished to ignore the reality of what is going on with their child because of religion. That is not an ideological difference.
Repeatedly claiming that the judge was motivated by “ideology” does not make it so.
Read the OP if you need to. Seems you might have skipped the part laying out the facts.
The pecker checkers glommed onto hating trans folks soon after it became less socially acceptable to bash gays and lesbians. My theory is that that happened after more gays and lesbians came out, and more of the haters realized they were hurting someone dear to them. They instead turned to a group that is less populous, less politically powerful and less likely to be “out.”
The need to have a group of people to look down on is powerful and pernicious. Then-Senator Lyndon Johnson said it best during 1960 in regard to racial hatred:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/
You know, open borders advocates do this same thing. They portray opposition to illegal immigration as opposition to all immigration and all immigrants. You portray opposition to permanently altering the body and physiology of minor children to be the same as trans hatred. I am not against adult trans people transitioning. I am against minors transitioning.
Is that so hard to understand? Is it so bad that I want the choice to permanently alter a person’s body to be made by that person once they become an adult?
It is quite difficult to understand, because in no other area of medicine is there an arbitrary line drawn based on age whereby someone with a health condition cannot get treatment for that condition, and only in this area because of political reasons and religious extremism.
Havery – Very good points – Nige resorts to the accusing people of religious bigotry or hating trans. That is his defensive mechanism that he uses to compensate and justify his defending those wanting to mutilate those suffering from a mental illness.
Its not easy to handle a child suffering from a mental illness whether it is autism, bullimia or any other mental illness. Most of the kids are suffering from multiple mental illnesses.
Several people have posted links to newer and more update studies which he refuses to read.
European countries are backing off transgender treatment as better information becomes known. Nige simply is too deeply embetted in his false ideology.
I don’t claim to be a mental health expert, but I wonder. Is an adult blog commenter fixating on a child’s genitalia a mental illness?
Do you think folk who believe the custom of female circumcision is child abuse likely have a mental illness ?
People who think being trans and female circumcision are equivalent may or may not have a mental illness, mostly they’re just repeating the same bad arguments over and over again.
Autism isn’t a mental illness, for a start.
That’ll teach the judge to put the child first and foremost in such proceedings.
This is not such an easy case. Let’s try to set aside the politics and symbolism of all this for a moment and try looking at this straight, as if we were newly arrived from Mars.
I think a corollary of the principal that disqualifying a judge is disfavored is that what happens has to be interpreted, if possible, in a manner putting the judge in the best light and only if looking at things that way is still disqualifying should the judge be disqualified.
I think if this is fairly done, the judge shouldn’t be disqualified. I understand the state law on this is pretty open and shut. The Florida procedure restricted the procedure the child wants, and it is simply not open to a state judge to remove a child from a fit parent merely for agreeing with the state legislature on what constitutes child welfare.
But what the judge did here could be construed as talking to each party from their own point of view, which could be interpreted as maintaining neutrality, not throwing the case completely to one side or the other. If the judge had referred to the child as “he,” that could be interpreted as prejudice the other way. And referring to the child as “it” or other completely impersonal terms might not have been considered as helpful to maintaining rapport.
And I think if it can be construed that way, it basically has to be. The judge has to get the benefit of the doubt if there is one.
It could still have been open to the judge to say, at the end of the case, that she’s very sorry but the law forces her to rule for the father.
the judge did here could be construed as talking to each party from their own point of view, which could be interpreted as maintaining neutrality, not throwing the case completely to one side or the other.
Have we been advised as to how the judge talked to the father ? Did the child become a “he” in those conversations ?
btw I disagree with your premise that disqualifying a judge should be disfavored. When it comes to recusal the rules and practices are ludicrously over sensitive, to avoid the merest suspicion of bias. eg who cares if the Chief Justice has a $15,000 shareholding in a company whose value may change by 20% according to how the court rules – does anyone really believe that $3,000 is going to sway a SCOTUS Justice’s decision ?
If the rule is hypersensitivity about barely conceivable theoretical bias when it comes to recusal, I can’t see that disqualifying a judge for apparent bias in presiding over a case should be disfavored.
I understand of course that it might hurt the judge’s feelings, to be removed for their own apparent failing rather than because of some nonsense that has nothing to do with them, and that other judges might not want to hurt their fellow judges feelings ….but there we have a prime example of actual bias ! If judges are swayed into disfavoring disqualification because they wouldn’t like it to happen to themselves, they’re biased.
Balance of probabilities is plenty good enough, IMHO.
Certainly if you think religious dogma rather than medicine should be prioritised when it comes to childrens’ health care, warning judges off is a fantastic idea!
My view accepts as a given that the judge had no legal basis for ruling against the father. You may think the father’s view approach to be illegal, but there is a Florida statute explicitly supporting it. You may not like the statute, but it’s there.
Children can’t be taken away from their parents without a stutory basis. If a statute explicitly permits parents to do something, that has to decide the question, like it or not. Judges just aren’t free to substitute their own personal view that the child’s wishes on this subject should prevail or that parents who disagree aren’t fit, however strongly believed or felt, for the legislature’s explicit decision that the father’s view is not only permissible but controls.
It just doesn’t matter if the legislature is wrong.
The judge’s view isn’t ‘personal’ it’s based on the welfare of the child, the father’s is based on religion.
But what a judge personally thinks is the best interest of the child is completely irrelevant unless there is some legal basis for a judge to become involved.
Being a judge doesn’t give one a license to go roaming about snatching children off playgrounds whenever one thinks the parents are making a wrong call or placing them with some other set of people might be better for the child’s welfare.
Unless a parent is found unfit in accordance with the legal standard, judges simply have no right to intervene. What they personally think is in the best interests of the child simply doesn’t matter.
Florida law here specifically acknowledged the father as having a right to raise the child according to his religious beliefs. The judge’s disagreement with those beliefs simply doesn’t make the father an unfit parent, and doesn’t give the judge any legal right to intervene.
This judge did not just rule incorrectly. She took a child away from a fit father for the purpose of doing a sex change on the child. She is evil.
It seems, based on the opinion, that the appellate judges disagree with the trial judge’s decision to take custody away from the father. I don’t know why the father didn’t appeal that decision; I suspect that the decision was a temporary removal from custody and that Florida law makes those non-appealable. In any case, this put the Appellate Court in a position where it could disqualify the judge but not overrule him. But disqualifying a judge is not a good alternative to overruling the judge’s decision.
This was supposed to be a reply to ReaderY, who explains why the disqualification wasn’t warranted. The strongest reason to expect the trial judge to rule against the father is that he had already done so once. If that’s not a reason for recusal (and it’s not–as I noted above Florida procedure appears to specify that the same judge has to decide the same issue twice), the trial judge’s interactions with the child certainly shouldn’t be. Lee Moore mentions the rule that judges cannot have a financial interest in the outcome of a case, which may be unnecessary when the financial interest is small. But “financial interest in the outcome of a case” is a clear standard that doesn’t actually disqualify that many judges.
As I said above, I’m starting with a premise that the law is on the father’s side. I hadn’t caught above that the judge had previously ruled against the father. This changes my grounds for thinking the decision inappropriate, but I still think it was inappropriate.
The court of appeals was entitled to overrule the judge and return custody to the father. The court of appeals might perhaps have been in a position to issue a writ of mandamus to do so if ordinary appeal was unavailable.
But making an erroneous legal ruling is totally different from having a personal interest in the case of a sort that would disqualify.
I think it’s very wrong for an appelate court to treat an erroneous legal ruling and conduct consistent with that ruling as evidence of personal bias on a judge’s part. Doing so introduces partisanship into the judicial process and oversteps the role of an appelate court.
Boys are boys. Girls are girls. Children should not be chemically castrated.
What’s so hard about this? All of the contorted argument in this thread is unnecessary.