The Texas Supreme Court denied a Texas father’s petition to bring his 10-year-old son home from California, where he fears the boy’s mother will chemically castrate the child under a new law.
Younger sought help from Texas’ high court in December, seeking temporary emergency custody of James and his twin brother, Jude. He asked the Court to order their return to Texas after he discovered last month that his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, who had temporary custody of their sons, had moved to California.
A law that went into effect Jan. 1 makes California a transgender sanctuary. Younger fears the new California law will override an earlier ruling that said James cannot be medically transitioned without his agreement or a new court order.
But on Dec. 30, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Younger, saying he “misread” the California law.
Sex-Change Sanctuary
Younger told The Epoch Times he plans to continue to fight for his sons, while pushing for change in Texas laws to protect children from sex-change hormones and surgery.“The Supreme Court of Texas put my sons at risk. It was not in the best interest of my children to move into a transgender sanctuary jurisdiction like California,” he said of the ruling.
The high court reasoned that just because Georgulas moved the children to California, it doesn’t mean she would violate an order prohibiting her son’s transition.
“By my reading of SB 107, father’s fears are no more likely to be realized in California under SB 107 than they were before the bill’s enactment,” wrote Blacklock.
However, Blacklock agreed, SB 107 shields people from other states’ laws that would “penalize individuals from obtaining gender-affirming care that is legal in California.”
The California legislation allows for temporary emergency protection of a child in California “because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care” elsewhere.
Also, the legislation prohibits medical providers from releasing information in response to lawsuits in other states that oppose “gender-affirming” care for children.
And it bars California state and local police from arresting or extraditing someone for violating other states’ laws regarding treatment.
Younger said he disagrees with the high court’s reasoning that there’s no difference between a court order and law.
“Court orders are lawful, which means that they’re authorized by the law. That’s why the court was in error making that distinction,” Younger said.
His next step is to transfer the case to Denton County, where he lives, because his ex-wife no longer lives in Dallas County. He also plans to attend the 2023 Texas legislative session to ask lawmakers to ban chemical and surgical sex changes for children in the state.
“I feel like other parents don’t speak out because the judiciary is brutal to you. I feel like I have a duty to other children, as well as to my own,” Younger said.
On Sept. 21, 2022, Dallas District Judge Mary Brown—a Democrat sitting on the Texas 301st District Court bench—ruled that Younger’s ex-wife could move with his sons anywhere in the continental United States.
Brown said her ruling was for the “safety and welfare” of the twins.
The order also said Younger would have to schedule supervised parental visits in the county where the children reside.
Brown ordered the mother not to reveal their future whereabouts to the boys’ father. And the judge allowed her to apply for new passports.
‘This Wouldn’t Happen in Florida’
Texas Attorney Ken Paxton’s office filed an amicus brief Dec. 22 supporting Younger’s case and urging the court to grant Younger’s petition. Texas Values, a conservative nonprofit group that promotes parental rights, did the same.
Paxton issued an opinion in 2022 that said medically transitioning children constituted child abuse under Texas law. Paxton’s office said in the brief that Younger’s request for an emergency injunction was necessary. In his opinion, by making the new law, California had directed its courts to assert jurisdiction over children prohibited from medical intervention to change their biological sex in other states.
“The need for relief, in this case, is particularly acute because the question presented here is both of constitutional significance and likely to recur,” Paxton wrote.
Georgulas’ attorneys responded to the amicus briefs saying the new California law wasn’t in effect when Younger filed his petition. Their client moved to California to “protect her children” and rebuild her pediatric practice, they said.
The mother, who is a pediatrician, had no intentions of seeking temporary emergency jurisdiction in California, the attorneys added.
“Mother freely acknowledges that she is bound by the order in both Texas and California,” the attorneys wrote.
Texas Republicans spoke out against the ruling on social media.
State Rep. Bryan Slaton, R-Royse City, wrote that Texas’ 2021 legislative session failed to pass one of several bills filed by him and others to outlaw the gender transitioning of minors in Texas.
“We had opportunities to stop this & protect children. We failed. I put forth numerous amendments to try to stop this. Many Republicans worked to stop my efforts. What a disgrace. God have mercy on us,” he wrote on Twitter.
Matt Rinaldi, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, called Younger’s situation an “utter failure” of Texas political leaders to protect children.
“This wouldn’t happen in Florida,” he said.
On Dec. 20, Younger received an email confirming that Georgulas was living in Los Angeles County with their twin sons, he said.
He initially filed his emergency stay on Dec. 16, asking that his children remain in Texas. He said he didn’t realize at the time that his former wife and sons had already moved to California.
The next day, Younger went back to court and filed an amended petition asking the high court to order his ex-wife to bring his sons back to Texas.
Florida attorney Jeff Childers, who deals with Constitutional law, said he would tend to agree with the Texas Supreme Court’s reasoning that California can’t ignore a court order just because it’s from another state.
However, the mother may try to get her case moved to California, he told The Epoch Times. A new court order by a California judge could change things.
If the family law case were in California, Childers said, “a court would be looking at a situation where the state says it’s in the best interest of the child to get the trans surgery.”
The Epoch Times could not reach Georgulas for comment. Her attorneys at KoonsFuller did not respond to a request for comment before publication.
