Forced Transgender Boy Quickly Returns To Normal After Removal From Mother's Care

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Quote

 

Forced Transgender Boy Quickly Returns To Normal After Removal From Mother’s Care
by Donna Rachel Edmunds | 22 Oct 2016

 

A seven-year-old boy has been removed from his mother’s care by the high court, after he was found to be suffering “significant emotional harm” due to his mother raising him as a girl.

The judge in the case slammed social services who had simply accepted that the boy should be treated as a girl.

The High Court judge hearing the case, Mr Justice Hayden, told the court that he believed the mother had been “absolutely convinced” that the boy “perceived himself as a girl” and was therefore determined to treat him as a girl, according to reports.

However, the boy, who cannot be named and is now living with his father, has naturally reverted to having masculine interests since leaving the care of his mother, the court heard.

Family court proceedings began about three years ago after the father raised a complaint that he was not allowed access to his son. A lower-ranking judge authorised a “wide ranging” inquiry forcing local authority social services staff to begin investigations.

Justice Hayden said “flares of concern” for the boy’s wellbeing had been raised by a “whole raft of multi-disciplinary agencies”, and that he couldn’t understand why social services had “disregarded so summarily” those concerns.

 

Read further,
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/22/boy-treated-as-a-girl-by-his-mother-suffered-significant-emotional-harm-court-hears/

[jnelsoninjax]

Very interesting. I am very curious how/why the mother would force her son to become her daughter, and what could possibly be going on in her head, obviously she has some serious mental defects that make her want to force the opposite sex on the child, they child here is 7 years old, I hardly think that he is of the age that he can say (with certainty) that he wanted to be a girl or he felt that he should've been a girl. I am not trying to start a war here either, just expressing what I perceive and will gladly allow someone else to tell me otherwise! 

 

4 hours ago, J. X. Maxwell said:

Family court proceedings began about three years ago after the father raised a complaint that he was not allowed access to his son. A lower-ranking judge authorised a “wide ranging” inquiry forcing local authority social services staff to begin investigations.

Justice Hayden said “flares of concern” for the boy’s wellbeing had been raised by a “whole raft of multi-disciplinary agencies”, and that he couldn’t understand why social services had “disregarded so summarily” those concerns.

I am always glad to here about cases that involve the Dad and that the father's concerns were taken seriously enough. My wife grew up in a split home and wanted to live with her Dad, but at the time (~1980's) the attorney told her Dad he was better off throwing his money off a bridge then ever hoping to get custody of his kids. 

[abecedarian paradoxious]

Good for the boy!
Sometimes courts can do the right thing.

 

1 hour ago, jnelsoninjax said:

I am always glad to here about cases that involve the Dad and that the father's concerns were taken seriously enough. My wife grew up in a split home and wanted to live with her Dad, but at the time (~1980's) the attorney told her Dad he was better off throwing his money off a bridge then ever hoping to get custody of his kids. 

Yeah, Cali is that way. My ex and I divorced just after our daughter turned 1. Ex received physical custody and we had shared legal custody, and both were ordered by the court, and agreed, to not remove our daughter from the state without written notification and acceptance of the other, and I was to pay child support. By the time our daughter turned 4, the ex had remarried; by 8, they moved to Utah. This was in the '90s, by the way.
Neither Family Services nor the Court would do a thing about it other than double my support amount.

[jnelsoninjax]

Just now, mister babadook said:

Neither Family Services nor the Court would do a thing about it other than double my support amount.

Wow, that was mighty generous of them. What was there excuse for doubling your support?

[abecedarian paradoxious]

1 hour ago, jnelsoninjax said:

Wow, that was mighty generous of them. What was there excuse for doubling your support?

To be honest, I'm not sure. No reason ever given other than they refactored cost of living changes, and I received no reason at all for why she was allowed to leave the state with my daughter, in violation of the court order. I actually didn't even know where she was for nearly 6 years- the ex's family who live local wouldn't tell me.

 

When they established my support, my wages were $10.00, support was $203 per month. That was bearable since I worked full time, managed a small restaurant, lived near work and had a roommate. When support increased, my wages were $12.75 and support went to $512; I commuted about 100 miles round trip daily to Los Angeles for work and had my own place with my then significant other (now wife) living with me. My ex had remarried by then and had a bun in the oven with her other.

 

Constant attempts petitioning for review resulted in one set of papers sent to me requesting enumeration of my costs of living and wages. All totaled- rent, utilities, and support, I was losing about $230 a month, not including the cost of fuel to commute, car insurance and such. Fortunately, my SO was working so we got by, but still... we had a 1 BR apartment, which I would have had by then anyhow, and the commute. I returned the papers and never heard anything back.

 

Best I can ascertain from my various bits of research is that as the bleeding hearts of the 60's and early 70's came of age and became the establishment they so much resented, and in the process the focus changed from 'family' centric to 'mother' centric, and the father was the outlier- from moderate to extreme. And this is California so we know the shifts in politics have been towards the liberal end since the 80's.

 

But, we're way off topic, and I don't want to detract from the OP... to which I will say again, sometimes the courts can get it right. It's just unfortunate they don't always do so.
My daughter, now 26, is ambivalent towards me because of the long gap where I couldn't find her, and she thinks I gave up. Had the court got 'this one' right, maybe I wouldn't be estranged from her.