Court Blocks Mother from Giving 7-Year-Old Son a Sex Change Procedure
Mom's efforts to 'transition' son into a girl blocked by judge who rules boy is 'confused'
A mother has had her attempts to put her seven-year-old son through a sex change procedure, and medically "transition" him into a girl, blocked by a court.
Dr. Anne Georgulas is the mother of James Younger and claims her son is transgender and "identifies" as a girl.
Georgulas originally won her previous court case last October, allowing her to dose her young son with hormones that block puberty, leaving the boy's father, Jeff Younger, who opposed the sex change procedure, with absolutely no say in his son's medical decisions.
On Thursday, that ruling has now been overturned after Dallas, Texas Judge Mary Brown ruled that both parents must have joint conservatorship over their child, meaning all decisions would have to be agreed upon by both parents.
A lawyer for Georgulas has since vowed to challenge the judge's ruling.
Thursday's ruling means James's father would have to agree before his son can undergo transgender treatments to transition to a girl.
In a case that received national attention, a mother and a father battled over custody of their two twin boys, according to LifeSite News.
The father, Jeffery Younger, argued that he needed some say in the medical decision making for the boys as the mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, had enrolled one of the 7-year-old boys in school under the name “Luna” and medical records indicated the mother was pursuing a medical gender “transition” for the boy.
On October 21, a jury initially ruled against Mr. Younger, denying his request for sole managing conservatorship.
The jury also ruled that the decision making authority for the boys should rest in one person, known as sole managing conservatorship.
The jury was not given the ability to specify who the sole managing conservator of the boys should be if it wasn’t Mr. Younger.
In a closed hearing on October 24, Judge Kim Cooks issued her ruling granting both parents joint decision-making rights.
There were many other provisions to the ruling, which can be found in full here. One notable provision was the alteration of custody to 50/50 custody once approved by a counselor.
On November 5, Dr. Georgulas challenged Judge Cooks’ ruling and had requested the court be forced to conform to the jury’s initial October ruling.
In court this week, Judge Mary Brown denied Dr. Georgulas' motion to conform to the jury verdict and entered Judge Cooks’ ruling as an official order.
On Thursday, Judge Brown ruled on three motions, a motion to enter Judge Cooks’ order, a motion to conform to the jury ruling, and a motion to disqualify the parental coordinator.
Judge Brown was hearing the case as Judge Cooks was recused from the case at the request of Dr. Georgulas.
The motion to enter Judge Cooks’ order was filed by Mr. Younger and his lawyer Mr. Odeneal.
This motion requested that Judge Cooks’ ruling be signed and made into a legally binding order.
The motion to conform to the jury’s ruling and the motion to disqualify the parental coordinator were filed by Dr. Georgulas and her lawyer Ms. Janicek.
The motion to conform to the jury’s ruling argued that Judge Cooks had no legal right to grant Mr. Younger joint managing conservatorship since the jury had ruled there should be a sole managing conservator and it should not be Mr. Younger.
Therefore, the motion argued, “the court contravened the jury’s answers,” something it was “not authorized” to do.
In court today, Dr. Georgulas’ attorney argued that Judge Cooks’ ruling was invalid and unenforceable, requesting that the court return to the prior order.
The prior order also maintained Mr. Younger’s minimum possession schedule ensuring the boys didn’t stay with him on any school nights.
She also argued that since the jury ruled in favor of a sole managing conservator for the boys and did not grant Mr. Younger that right, that therefore they implicitly granted it to Dr. Georgulas.
The amicus attorney pointed out that a jury does not understand the nuances of conservatorship and could have been thinking of granting the sole managing conservatorship to the court, to CPS, or even to the amicus himself.
In the state of Texas, a sole managing conservator is responsible for making all decisions relating to a minor, ie, treatment decisions, educational decisions, if they can enlist in the armed forces, etc.
Dr. Georgulas’ attorney also filed the motion requesting that the parenting coordinator appointed in Judge Cooks’ ruling be disqualified.
Judge Cooks appointed the amicus attorney, Stacey Dunlop, to be the parenting coordinator or mediator between Dr. Georgulas and Mr. Younger for serious decisions pertaining to the boys in which they do not agree.
The argument to disqualify the parenting coordinator centered mainly around the concern that he becomes a tiebreaker rather than a mediator and would then ultimately be making most of the difficult decisions for the twin boys.
Judge Brown ruled against this motion to disqualify Mr. Dunlop as the parenting coordinator.
Dr. Georgulas’ lawyer told the court she would bring a motion for a new trial.
She argued that Judge Cooks’ ruling and now the new order was not authorized based on the jury’s verdict, nor is it enforceable.