BMX Bandit said:
Quote:
I caught some heat for it last night but I told y'all this father deserved some of the blame here. A dad should be his seven year old son's hero. It doesn't sound like this dad is hero material. The mom is absolutely a POS but no way this happens to an involved, good dad. Still, a parent should not be able to alter a child's body like this. A parent should not be able to tattoo their child much less turn them into the opposite sex. I bet the mom has a problem with circumcision. It goes back to parents need to teach kids that God made them perfect just the way they are. That they are loved just the way they are. They don't need to change anything because they are already perfect. I still think dads need to teach their boys how to be boys and they need to spend a ton of time with them.
You caught heat because your post was garbage.
The dad is not his hero because the mom has been planting ideas about being a girl and dad being an abuser since the kid was 3 years old.
he has tried to be involved, but court orders are preventing him from "being a good dad"
dads should teach boys to be boys. the mom and courts aren't letting this dad do that.
OK, so I have a question for you, as I know you are a lawyer.
The decision by the jury appears to have been simply on custody of the child, not as to the specifics of the "gender transition" stuff.
In other words, the jury did not make a decision directly as to whether or not the child should continue on the path to "transitioning" but rather on who should have sole custody. The issues regarding all the gender stuff are to be decided by the judge on Thursday.
If (and admittedly this is a big if) the father is a real piece of work himself as has been alleged by at least one poster on this thread, is it not possible that the jury simply ruled that of two bad options, mom was just the least bad? Having a decent amount of experience with family court, I can completely see the mother getting custody based on the father's previous or current bad actions, particularly if the jury was instructed to ignore the gender/medical stuff, and only at who is a better parent since they did not have that part of the case before them.
I suspect that dad's lawyer decided to get a jury trial because he thought a jury in Texas would be sympathetic to someone trying to prevent his son from being "transitioned", and the fact that 11 of the 12 jurors sided with the mom gives me pause. It also makes me think that there is more here to the custody side of this case than the media hype about gender. The dad has to have some serious issues if he lost joint custody to this woman.
I would also hope for a much more "rational" decision from the judge regarding the gender issues.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill