The terrifying saga facing Jeff Younger is a cautionary tale about how the U.S. court system is weaponized against parents who do not go along with the transgender cult. For years, Younger and his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, have fought over custody of their children, with the highlight of their fight being about one of their sons, who she believes is transgender.
Georgulas moved their children, including their 11-year-old son, to California against the wishes of their father. The move was protected after Younger lost his petition in the Texas Supreme Court to force her to return the children to Texas.
The Texas Supreme Court denied his petition, claiming that Younger misinterpreted SB 107 and that the current Texas court order preventing Georgulas from giving their son these medical treatments would be honored in California.
{snip}
“I concur in the Court’s denial of the petition because Father is already in possession of a court order prohibiting Mother from doing precisely what he fears she will do with his son. In October 2021, the district court—with Mother’s full agreement, and indeed at her request—ordered that: neither parent may treat a child with hormonal suppression therapy, puberty blockers, and/or transgender reassignment surgery (if any) without the consent of the parents or court order,” the Court stated.
Proponents of the law claim SB 107 makes California a “refuge for trans kids and their families.” Law experts have long warned that these bills strip parental rights away from concerned parents, preventing any opposition to these medical treatments. This means that for Younger and his family, it will allow the mother to start harmful medical treatments on his child without his permission.
Despite the Texas order supposedly preventing this from happening, Younger’s family has an upcoming pro forma hearing on April 25 that will ultimately decide whether Georgulas will be allowed to start their son down a path that will eventually turn him into a medical patient for the rest of his life.
{snip}
“A further concern … is that adolescent sex hormone surges may trigger the opening of a critical period for experience-dependent rewiring of neural circuits underlying executive function (i.e. maturation of the part of the brain concerned with planning, decision making and judgement). If this is the case, brain maturation may be temporarily or permanently disrupted by the use of puberty blockers, which could have a significant impact on the young person’s ability to make complex risk-laden decisions, as well as having possible longer-term neuropsychological consequences,” the report found.
The research shows that male children put on puberty blockers from an early age suffer from “inadequate penile growth,” and both male and female minor patients suffer from compromised bone density and growth issues.
“Puberty suppression was never intended to continue for extended periods, so the complex circumstances in which young people may remain on puberty blockers into adulthood is of concern,” the report stated.
Georgulas promised Texas courts that she was not intent on sending their son to a gender clinic to receive irreversible treatments for his supposed gender dysphoria, but if that were the case, why would she be in a California court attempting to allow it to happen?
{snip}
SB 107 proponents swore this wouldn’t happen when their bill was signed into law, yet here it is occurring in broad daylight. The Younger case is the realization of what these transgender cultists ultimately wanted. They demonized concerned parents, calling them right-wing conspiracy theorists. The slippery slope is not only real but worse; it’s more like an uncontrollable water slide.
* Original Article:
https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/15/rooke-transgender-california-texas-younger/
