PanzerAggie06 said:
So basically the woman's lawyers are creating a smokescreen using the husband's past to hide what the primary issue is. That being she wants to begin transitioning a young boy into a young girl. While the husband seems like a real piece of work I have yet to see anything that might suggest he is a poor father. Him being a liar who seemingly created a persona for this woman that was completely inaccurate, while s****y, in no way indicates his parenting skills. Now, he might, in fact, be a crap dad. This still would in no way, shape, or form justify what this woman is attempting to do. Again, this all seems to be little more than a smokescreen.
No, the lying is all from the divorce several years ago (2016 I think), and has nothing to do with what is happening now.
The couple are divorced with 2 kids (both boys) in common. The mother has decided that the oldest is transgender and wants to be a girl. She wants the boy called Luna and referred to as a female in school and in life generally.
The father opposes this and says that the mother has foisted this on the child against his will.
The mother claims the boy wants this and classifies the father's attempts to go against his son wanting to be female as bullying and unsupportive of the child (and hence harmful).
The court is stuck in the middle trying to mediate these two bozos while facing a situation that the law likely has not even foreseen, which means you get a lot of "trying to cut the baby in half" solutions like requiring that the boy's hair be styled in a manner typical to 6 year old boys and girls (which seems vague at best).
Basically, as ugly, stupid and inane as a typical divorce with kids can get, this has the added bonus of an issue that the law is not really set up to handle.
As to why the jury ruled against the father on Monday, I have been unable to find any transcripts or anything that would describe the evidence presented to the court/jury, so I don't know what specifically caused them to rule in the manner they did. Doesn't really matter, however, as the judge basically overturned their ruling today.
Based on what I have read, both of these people are likely unfit to be parents, but for different reasons.
The reality is that there is no law on the books currently that prevent a parent from "transitioning" their child. In a situation with married parents, both parents would be on board with the decision. In a situation with divorced parents that cannot agree on a given course of action, both parents having "rights" regarding the raising of their children and no law in place to guide the court as to what to do, you get this jacked up situation, where the transgender issue becomes just another weapon for the parents to fight each other with. Both parents want the other parent to bend to their will under the guise of "best interest of the child".
“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