Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Texas Supreme Court Won’t Order James Younger Returned From California

Texas Supreme Court Won’t Order James Younger Returned From California

Father Jeff Younger says his son “now subject to being chemically castrated in California,” but Texas judges say that’s not true: “Father misreads California’s new law.”

I think it’s fitting that Legal Insurrection’s and my last post of 2022 concerns transgender disputes. There already is a lot of litigation, including the 11th Circuit decision discussed yesterday which Upholds Florida High School “Separating School Bathrooms Based on Biological Sex”.

There will be a lot more litigation, and in many ways things will come to a head on very private and personal issues, such as bathrooms, showers, sports, and life-altering and irreversible pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children. Cases have been moving through the system.

One of those cases that has received a lot of attention is the case of Jeff Younger, the father who lost Texas trial court custody proceedings for custody of his minor son James, who he alleged was at risk of gender pharmaceutical or surgical reassignment by his mother. We only covered the case briefly back in 2018, Texas Mom Says 6 Year Old Boy is Transgender, Dad Disagrees and Could Lose Custody.

The trial court awarded full custody to the mother, with prohibitions against unilateral action as to reassigment:

A Texas judge has granted full custody of eight-year-old James Younger to his mother, who has fought publicly to transition her son into a girl against the father’s wishes.

Judge Mary Brown granted full custody to Anne Georgulas in an order on Tuesday, awarding the mother exclusive control over James’s primary residence, counseling, medications, education and extracurricular activities. It allows Georgulas to withhold information from Jeff Younger, James’s father, “regarding the children’s extracurricular activities, school functions, school enrollment, counseling, and medical care.”

However, while Georgulas has the exclusive right to consent to James’s medical procedures, the order notes that that power does not extend to hormone-suppression therapy, puberty blockers, or transgender reassignment surgery.

The video below talks about a joint custody initial decision by the judge, but that appears to have been changed after the father’s failure to pay child support, when the mother was given sole custody.

I don’t know enough about the details of the evidence to opine on it, except that I’ve seen a lot of chatter, particularly on Twitter, about a recent attempt by the father to get the Texas Supreme Court to issue a mandate that the son be returned from California. The father, fearing a California law coming into effect January 1 could make it impossible to stop the medication/surgery, sought emergency relief.

The Supreme Court of Texas will take up the custody case of James Younger, the North Texas child whose mother, Anne Georgulas, insists he identifies as a girl named Luna.

The child’s father, Jeff Younger, objects to that contention, and the parents have fought it out in court for years.

The state’s highest civil court agreed to consider Younger’s December 16 petition for review this week, coming on the heels of Georgulas taking James and his brother Jude to California. The impetus of Younger’s urgency is a California law going into effect at the beginning of 2023.

California Senate Bill 107 will “prohibit the enforcement of an order based on another state’s law authorizing a child to be removed from their parent or guardian based on that parent or guardian allowing their child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care.”

Younger’s asked the Texas Supreme Court to order Georgulas to return the children to the state.

The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition in an order released December 30, 2022:

There was an opinion concurring in the denial which explains a lot about why the petition was denied, and also explains many of the details as to why the California law in question does not trump or negate the Texas court order prohibiting unilateral reassignment medication or surgery.  While it’s not an opinion of the full court, it likely reflects why relief was denied.

Here are relevant excerpts from the Concurring Opinion:

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 reassingment surgery (if any) without the consent of the parents or court order.

This agreed order is binding on both parents and enforceable by contempt, no matter where they reside. The effect of the order is that neither parent has the legal authority to consent unilaterally to gender-transition therapy for their son, whether that therapy takes place in California, Texas, or elsewhere. As long as this order is in effect, Mother’s parental rights do not include the right to obtain gender-transition therapy for her son. That is just as much the case in California as it is in Texas. Mother freely acknowledges that she is bound by this order in both Texas and California…

The Concurring Opinion then explains that the new California law does not apply to an out-of-state court order:

Father believes that California’s enactment of Senate Bill 107, which goes into effect on January 1, 2023, will enable Mother to evade the Texas court order prohibiting her from unilaterally consenting to gender-transition therapy. Father misreads California’s new law. 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….

Thus, SB 107—both as advertised and as written—is California’s response to other states’ legislative enactments or administrative rules outlawing gender-transition therapy. While SB 107’s position on other states’ laws is clear, I see no provision in the bill that would alter the enforceability, in California, of a Texas court order requiring divorced parents to agree before subjecting their child to gender-transition therapy.

Father reads SB 107’s prohibitions on the enforcement of another state’s “law” against gender-transition therapy as a prohibition on enforcement in California of court orders limiting access to such therapy. It is not. A court order allocating the parental rights of divorced parents based on case-specific judicial findings about the best interests of their children is in no way “a law of another state.” And in the very unlikely event California’s courts interpreted their statute in such an odd way, they would of course run head long into the Full Faith and Credit Clause. U.S. CONST. art. IV § 1….

While SB 107 treads close to territory prohibited by the Full Faith and Credit Clause—and ultimately may be found to transgress it in various ways—nowhere does the bill purport to prevent enforcement in California of out-of-state child-custody orders establishing which parents may consent to gender-transition therapy….

Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), a version of which is the law in both California and Texas, a California court is obligated to respect a Texas court’s custody orders and cannot modify the Texas court’s orders unless the Texas court relinquishes jurisdiction—an action reviewable by mandamus….

Those are the legalities considered by the Texas Supreme Court, but I have a feeling this footnote is a window into both the litigation and the various courts’ rulings, including the prior issue of non-payment of child support:

6 With regard to these children’s best interests, I find it troubling that Father has refused to see either of his children in over a year despite abundant opportunities to do so.

So there you go. The Concurring Opinion is at odds with how Jeff Younger has portrayed the court loss:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Now what happens if she goes ahead and has her son “treated” or treats him herself?

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to alaskabob. | December 31, 2022 at 9:21 pm

    My solution to that world get me banned.

    henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | December 31, 2022 at 9:39 pm

    My tinfoil hat says we will soon hear of an “unfortunate mistake” a la Facebook, Google, and Twitter (old version).

    George_Kaplan in reply to alaskabob. | December 31, 2022 at 10:04 pm

    Deliberate defiance of a court order, and more importantly child abuse.

    Does Texas law apply in California though? Could the mother claim sanctuary in the (latter) state?

      The Texas court order absolutely does apply in California.

        starride in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 10:06 am

        You are assuming that the CA court will enforce the Texas court order. There are quite a lot of examples of states refusing extradition, even for major crimes…

          Milhouse in reply to starride. | January 1, 2023 at 10:29 am

          What has extradition got to do with it? Yes, of course the CA courts will enforce the TX court order. When has any court ever refused such a thing? They have no authority to refuse, and they have never refused, and there is no reason to suppose they ever will refuse. That would be pure speculation without any basis in fact.

          Joe-dallas in reply to starride. | January 2, 2023 at 3:31 pm

          Milhouse – for the most part I agree with your legal analysis. The California courts should respect the Texas divorce decree. That being said, as some one else noted below, It would not surprise me if the ex wife later filed suit in a California family court to modify the divorce decree/child custody agreement. I would hope that the California court would not accept juridisction.

          One inside into Texas Family court – is that the Family court judges have extremely wide latitude in their rulings with very limited appellate relief for error.

          I will also note that it is extremely rare in family court for one parent to obtain sole custody in a Texas family court (at least not in any of the large counties). I would therefore suspect there is a lot of other things happening behind the scenes that is not public information.

          I will also note that the transgender mental illness does not manifest itself until the child reaches puberty. This has apparently been going on since the child was 4 (?) which indicates that the mom has projected her mental health issues onto the child.

          My last comment is that I am not familiar with the judge in this case. But it is possible that the judge is one of those seriously woke judges that believes transgender is a real biological illness that can be cured biologically and the judge believes the husband is an impediment to the childs health – which raises the likelihood that is the reason for granting the ex-wife sole custody.

          Joe-dallas in reply to starride. | January 2, 2023 at 3:48 pm

          I looked up judge mary brown – dallas County family court 301.

          circa 1999, all the judge in dallas county were republican elected judges and then a change in demographics/voting pattern, all the republican judges were swept out and all judges in Dallas county have been democrat judges. There hasnt been a repulican elected to a Dallas county position in 20 years.

          I just did a quick check with a few friends and none had any experience in her court, so other than being a democrat, I cant comment on her competence or fairness.

        CincyJan in reply to Milhouse. | January 2, 2023 at 11:48 am

        You are very trusting. Laws, court orders, etc. are nothing but ink on paper unless enforced. I wonder what awful consequences will face the State of California if it ignores the Texas court order. Because attorneys are so unpracticed in arguing both sides of a case. They will be at a loss to argue for California law to take precedence in California.

    Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | December 31, 2022 at 11:20 pm

    She’d be in contempt of the court order, and she would be arrested. That’s what would happen. As the court explained, the father’s claim that the new California law will change that is false.

      diver64 in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 7:12 am

      No it’s not. The Texas ruling would only be valid if California agreed to uphold it. If Texas has a speed limit of 70mph and I go into Cali driving that speed although it’s speed limit is 50mph California is not going to agree to let me continue driving that fast because I am not a California resident

        Milhouse in reply to diver64. | January 1, 2023 at 8:34 am

        No, that is not how it works. A court order from Texas is enforceable and will be enforced by the courts in every state. Including California.

        maxmillion in reply to diver64. | January 1, 2023 at 12:49 pm

        This site is full of lawyers, which you appear to not be. You should pay attention.

      Crawford in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 11:28 am

      Her being arrested won’t repair the damage done to the child.

      Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | January 4, 2023 at 1:55 pm

      In a normal place, you would be correct. We are talking Commiefornia and there’s nothing normal there.

      Zumkopf in reply to Milhouse. | January 7, 2023 at 11:29 am

      Milhouse, the flaw in your analysis is that California considers the gender reassignment right it has created to belong to the individual, whether a minor or of age, and is quite clear that the parents have no right to interfere with it. All that need occur is for the boy to say he wishes to be a girl. Whether his mother (or father) coerced him to say so or objects to him saying so is irrelevant. A Texas ruling forbidding the mother from procuring the treatment has no more weight than a California parent objecting to it.

    Antifundamentalist in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2023 at 1:14 am

    Once she becomes a resident of CA, can she go back to a CA court to get the Texas order overturned?

      No, she can’t.

        diver64 in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 7:09 am

        Yes she can. If she is not a resident of a state and has sole custody of a child then when she becomes the resident of another state the previous one loses jurisdiction. Think about what you are saying. One state can not enforce it’s laws in another state.

          Milhouse in reply to diver64. | January 1, 2023 at 8:35 am

          Texas is not enforcing its laws. The court order from Texas is valid throughout the USA.

          Colonel Travis in reply to diver64. | January 1, 2023 at 3:36 pm

          No, she cannot. You need to understand how the full faith and credit clause works. Court judgements do not = legislation but you keep assuming both are handled the same when two states are involved.

          Skyler in reply to diver64. | January 1, 2023 at 5:13 pm

          The Court issuing the order (the Texas Court) retains jurisdiction no matter where the child lives. However, if after final orders are issued (no temp orders) and the child lives in California (or any other state) it’s a simple matter to petition the court to change the jurisdiction to where the child lives, and once petitioned then it is a MANDATORY change of jurisdiction.

          So yes, dad does have a legitimate concern that California law will prevail.

          The terms you are looking for are called modification of “Home State Jurisdiction” under the UCCJEA. It occurs when a child has (presumably lawfully but not always) lived in another state for a period exceeding six months, and is predicated on the idea that a “local” Court should be handling the dispute regarding a child because that Court can compel evidence and testimony from local witnesses. The transfer of the case to the new “Home State Court” is a mandatory action under the UCCJEA. So Mom in this case can petition the California Court to modify the order, the California Court sends notice to the Texas Court, the Texas Court is obliged to “relinquish jurisdiction” and the case is transferred to the California Court.

    Otto Kringelein in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2023 at 11:37 am

    Nothing will happen to stop this crazy lady. She now has sole custody and under the California law full authorization to mutilate James Younger in any manner she sees fit. And there is nothing an out of state parent can do about it.

    Even more horrifically, if I understand the court rulings properly the Father, Jeff Younger, is being forced to finance the mutilation of his son even though he’s now lost any custody of the child.

      She does have some hoops to jump through first. See above discussion on mandatory transfer of “Home State Jurisdiction.” It means she needs to file a case to modify in California, then have the Texas case transferred there. It also means that Dad would get a second bite at the apple, because then he could argue under California law for some form of joint custody or another restriction on Mom regarding “gender affirming” treatment.

      The Texas ORDER remains in effect until modified by the Court of Continuing Jurisdiction (the original Court) or until modified by a new Court of Continuing Jurisdiction.

    mailman in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2023 at 2:23 pm

    She doesn’t have to do anything other than what she is doing now, which is grooming the child in preparation for the child when he turns 18 then making the decisions himself to transition by having his cock cut off.

      Skyler in reply to mailman. | January 1, 2023 at 5:17 pm

      We also have to remember that what happens in family law is rarely what a parent will tell you happened. It could be that a kooky judge thinks the dad isn’t properly caring about his son’s condition, or it could be that he’s also accused of abusing the child in some other way, and he doesn’t say that part to the newspapers. In that case, the judge might be having to pick the lesser of two evils.

      Be very careful of a parent’s claims in a family law case.

        mailman in reply to Skyler. | January 2, 2023 at 5:07 am

        I suspect you are closure to the truth than you realise. It wouldn’t surprise me if the judge believed the father wouldn’t care about the child’s transition beliefs (most likely created by the mother and instilled in to the child) as the reason why he wasn’t awarded custody.

I have absolutely no confidence that a California court is going to pay the least amount of attention to a Texas court order. I don’t see any possible way that it could be enforced.

    Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | December 31, 2022 at 11:22 pm

    That is just crazy talk. You have no basis for such a claim. Of course it will be enforced in California, just as it would be in any other state.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 12:10 am

      Eric Holder had no problem ignoring a contempt citation from California.

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | January 1, 2023 at 1:53 am

        Huh? What are you talking about? Holder was cited for contempt by Congress. The DOJ declined to prosecute him for it, and Congress has not enforced its own contempt citations in decades. What has that got to do with contempt of court?

      txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 12:24 am

      Enforced by whom?

        Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | January 1, 2023 at 1:51 am

        By every court in the USA, including CA. There is no precedent for a CA court ever refusing to do so.

          txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 11:39 am

          So…. there’s nothing to stop an activist judge from setting a new precedent in a butcher-friendly state except the fact that it hasn’t (yet) been done?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 2, 2023 at 9:52 am

          So there’s no foundation for speculating that such a thing would ever happen. It’s exactly the same as speculating that extraterrestrials might land and take the kid away to his real home, where he is neither male nor female but some other sex that doesn’t exist in humans.

          Re TXVet2 – See above discussion on UCCJEA mandatory transfer of Court of Continuing Jurisdiction after a new “Home State” is established.

          The ORDER exists and is enforceable by the Texas Court until modified by SOMEBODY. That somebody CAN be a California Court, but Texas has to transfer jurisdiction first. If Mom decides to ignore the Court ORDER, that gives Dad grounds for a Contempt action, and an immediate motion to modify custody. The Texas Court would likely look favorably on such a motion, given Mom’s previously “agreed” stance on the signed ORDER from the Trial Court.

          Fat_Freddys_Cat in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2023 at 4:11 pm

          Rationally you’re correct. But for me, it’s hard not to be suspicious; I still can’t believe that we (as a society) are even having this discussion. If someone had told me this would be an issue back when I was young I would have laughed and suggested the person put down the bong.

          So I pray you’re right but won’t bet the farm on it.

Close The Fed | January 1, 2023 at 12:09 am

Any child that anyone claims is transsexual, that child and his situation should be immediately examined for child abuse.

Transsexuals usually suffered some kind of trauma in childhood. The mother, the babysitter, the neighbors, teachers, older cousins, older relatives, anyone near such a child, is a possible abuser.

I’ve heard Texas may be doing investigations when a child is alleged to be transsexual, and that is the LEAST that should be done to save these children further harm.

I have little sympathy for someone that won’t support his kids. It sounds like the court is effectively preventing unilateral gender crap anyways, so to hell with him.

    mailman in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 1, 2023 at 2:25 pm

    Quite apart from the fact you have no idea what’s going on in the back ground. But other than that well done you being a great example of a low information moron.

The mother is a Dr I believe she is a pediatrician. She is not to be trusted

He has fought like hell for those kids so I don’t understand why he has not seen them in a year nor paid child support.

Personally, as the Texas Judges always sided with demented mother, I would have taken them on my “w/e and driven away to a place so far way, taken a boat and sailed to a country where they couldn’t be extradited from…

That certainty would have been what I would have done

Hopefully with a little help from his friends

Amd if anyone doesn’t believe that the crazies and Dems give a crap about our laws just look at the boarder.

    This woman is also not the child’s biological mother. They used IV and a donor egg.
    I feel awful for this poor child, the other twin, and the father. Heartbreaking.

    txvet2 in reply to gonzotx. | January 1, 2023 at 11:43 am

    I get an “Amber Alert” at least every week for somebody who’s done exactly that – run with the kids over a parental dispute. The PTB hunt them with more vigor than an ax murderer.

    NbyNW in reply to gonzotx. | January 6, 2023 at 8:51 pm

    I’m going from memory, so I hope I have this completely correct. The child support included thousands of dollars of counseling every month, for the parents separately, the kids together and separately multiple times per week, by woke counselors. He was only allowed supervised visitation of two hours per week, for which he had to pay a court agent for the pick up, two-hour supervision, and return transportation of James and his twin brother. Previously, James dressed as a boy and called himself James at Jeff’s house, but under supervised visitation, he would be dressed as a girl, and father Jeff would be required to call him by the female name Luna his mother and step sisters picked for him.

    It’s no wonder Jeff wouldn’t go along with that.

Here’s to a better new year

By the way, why do you think crazy mom moved to California from Texas to practice?

One guess

Castrating children or chopping off their breasts should be illegal. Full stop,

The “Mother” is going to have this little boys penis cut off, mark my words

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/01/california-becomes-sanctuary-state-for-transgender-kids/

    Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | January 1, 2023 at 10:30 am

    She can’t. That is simply the fact. The father’s claims are wild fantasies and nothing more.

    mailman in reply to gonzotx. | January 1, 2023 at 2:28 pm

    She doesn’t need to do that and be in violation of a court order. All she has to do is continue grooming the kid so when he turns 18 the kid will just go off and happily cut his own cock off without any involvement from his mother.

She can also begin to feed the child a “natural” diet very high in female hormones: flax seeds and soy products; no injections, no chemicals

And, of course, the “mother” will go right ahead with the permanent treatment of he son, after which the father’s remedy will be what? Contempt of court? A fine? Sure, the Court will regret what it has done but that will have no value.

    mailman in reply to Strelnikov. | January 2, 2023 at 5:09 am

    Again, she doesn’t have to do anything other than continuing to groom him for when he turns 18 and happily Troy’s off to the local butchers to cut his cock off of his own free will.

I see the logic in the opinion.

Betting money says she gets the kid hormones anyway.

Why? Scorpion riding the frog….. Don’t EVER confuse a scorpion as an entity that abides by right and wrong. It’s a scorpion- it inflicts evil, chaos and pain on whomever it touches or touches it. That’s it’s nature.

Laws, rules, morals are there to encumber you NOT them.

Dad- be wiser where you stick it next time because this F-trophy is the born spawn of chaos and evil. Spoiler alert- Dad is none the wiser…. I spent a decade championing for Dad’s rights at my state legislature after seeing how family courts were run… long before I was a dad. These guys are so often their own worst enemy and the courts and scorpions eat them for dinner.

Capitalist-Dad | January 3, 2023 at 10:16 am

Many comments here assert that “full faith and credit” prevents the mother from unilaterally mutilating her son in California. This presumes that liberal judges are honest and that the law is therefore predictable. We have over a century of experience proving liberal judges are anything but honest, and outcomes under their interpretation of the vast white space in statutes and constitutions (state and federal) makes the law anything but predictable. Lefties love their “transgender” fetish, and as devotees of outcome-based decisions CA judges will no doubt find some way to give the hideous mother unilateral control plus try to force a decent father to pay for the Mengele-style “procedure”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | January 7, 2023 at 1:50 am

Of course, being a “sanctuary state”, California already regularly ignores other states’ court orders pertaining to illegals.

California really has no interest in the whole concept of “law”.