fbpx

Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Younger

Government

The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Younger in December. | Image by The Texas Tribune.

The latest round of the longstanding legal battle between Jeff Younger and his ex-wife Anne Georgulas over custody and the right to make medical decisions for their two young children played out before the Texas Supreme Court in late December.

As reported previously by The Dallas Express, the divorced couple has been engaged in a years-long custody battle over their children. While custody battles regularly play out in the Texas court system, central to this case was the fate of one of the children in particular.

Georgulas claims that their child is a transgender girl, referring to the child by the name “Luna” and providing the child with girls’ clothing.

Younger is adamant that the child is not transgender and has refused to participate in what he has referred to as “abuse.” He uses the child’s birth name, James, and dresses the child in boys’ clothing.

In late September 2022, Judge Mary Brown of the 301st Dallas Court ruled that Georgulas could move with the children anywhere in the United States without informing Younger of the location.

The judge also gave the woman the freedom to change her and the children’s legal names and travel internationally without Younger’s consent.

Even though an earlier ruling by Brown expressly prohibited Georgulas from treating the children with “hormonal suppression therapy, puberty blockers, and/or transgender reassignment surgery” without Younger’s consent, the father feared what may happen in another state’s jurisdiction if they moved.

After the ruling was handed down, Younger told The Dallas Express that now his ex-wife “will finally be able to legally castrate my son.”

Georgulas has since moved the children to California. In that state, a new law, SB 107, went into effect on January 1, 2023, that expressly allows for the transitioning of children leaving states such as Texas, where there are more legal obstacles to such medical procedures.

California State Senator Scott Wiener (D), the law’s primary author, touted the legislation in a press release as providing “refuge for trans kids and their families.”

“SB 107 will protect trans kids and their families if they flee to California from Alabama, Texas, Idaho, or any other state criminalizing the parents of trans kids for allowing them to receive gender-affirming care,” Wiener wrote.

“If these parents and their kids come to California, the legislation will help protect them from having their kids taken away from them or from being criminally prosecuted for supporting their trans kids’ access to healthcare,” he concluded.

In light of this new law coming into effect at the beginning of the new year, Younger petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to force the return of Georgulas and their children to Texas.

However, on December 30, the highest civil court in Texas rejected the petition, effectively ending the legal battle.

After his petition was rejected, Younger tweeted, “The Supreme Court of Texas denied my mandamus, effectively terminating my parental rights. My children are now subject to being chemically castrated in California. Texas is an empire of child abuse, led by Texas judges.”

The content of the ruling paints a more complicated picture.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Blacklock, who was joined by Justice Young, admonished Younger for the late filing on the eve of the California law taking effect.

“Three months after the district court authorized the move to California, Father belatedly seeks an emergency order from this Court requiring their return,” Blacklock wrote.

Blacklock went on to say that he concurred with the high court’s denial of Younger’s petition because of the earlier court order prohibiting Georgulas from transitioning their child without Younger’s consent.

“This agreed order is binding on both parents and enforceable by contempt, no matter where they reside,” Blacklock wrote.

The justice went on to say that Georgulas “freely acknowledges that she is bound by this order in both Texas and California,” and she “has flatly denied to this Court that she will seek to evade the district court’s order while she is in California.”

Blacklock then addressed SB 107 and its implications directly, alleging that Younger “misreads California’s new law.”

Blacklock argued that, while the new law is designed to undermine another state’s legislative and regulatory law, the justice sees “no provision in the bill that would alter the enforceability, in California, of a Texas court order.”

If you enjoyed this article, please support us today!

Formed in 2021, we provide fact-based, non-partisan news. The Dallas Express is a non-profit organization funded by charitable support and advertising.

Please join us on the important journey to make Dallas a better place!

We welcome and appreciate comments on The Dallas Express as part of a healthy dialogue. We do ask that you be kind. Kind to each other and to everyone else in your comments. For more information, please refer to our Complete Comment Moderation Policy.

Subscribe to Comments
Notify of
guest

32 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pap
Pap
26 days ago

People are nuts. Playing God with their children’s lives. It wouldn’t surprise me, if years from now, children go back and murder the parents that screwed up their lives or commit suicide in droves. Just wait. Confusing children like this is evil.

Bret
Bret
26 days ago

Wow. The court ruled that the wife could take a child anywhere and she does not have to inform the father of their whereabouts. And she can now do whatever she wants to this child. This is evil, nothing less.

djea3
djea3
Reply to  Bret
25 days ago

WRONG< the court DID award this father the RIGHT to veto any sex change prior to majority. This was given in Court in TX. The TX Supreme Court made a HUGE mistake here as FULL FAITH AND CREDIT in interstate rulings is required. CA must follow the TX ruling by law.

This needs to go to Federal Court now.

Dick Smith
Dick Smith
Reply to  djea3
19 days ago

Is the state of Texas going to hold California in contempt, along with the mother when the mother does as she pleases? I’d be willing to bet that despite not having any say in where they live or even being able to contact them he’s still having to pay support for them and insure them as well.

Lisa
Lisa
Reply to  djea3
18 days ago

California can change everything the Texas Court said. As soon as she establishes residency in California she can file a Motion to Modify and have the jurisdiction transferred to California.

RonaldB
RonaldB
26 days ago

It will be interesting to see if the mother eventually defies the court order and initiates medical castration of her children. I’m certain that there would be absolutely no legal consequences to her if she remains in California. California has made it clear they will actively counter any legal process in other states to protect children from medical gender changes.

My own feeling is that the best path for the father is to threaten to sue for damages any medical professional or medical facility that participates in gender-changing procedures on his children, and make it very public. These profiteer medical practitioners are not very brave.

Mary
Mary
Reply to  RonaldB
25 days ago

I agree.

Dick Smith
Dick Smith
Reply to  RonaldB
19 days ago

They’re that brave here in Texas because of tort reform.

Zulia
Zulia
26 days ago

Why did judge allow her to take kids anywhere from Texas? Was he obusive? If not, than that judge was wrong. The kids shouldn’t be allowed changing anything in their body until they are at least 21y.o. because they thunk they know what they are doing but they don’t. It’s parents responsibility to keep kids safe, which in this case the mother failed the kids. Sad! I feel sorry for Mr. Young

Dick Smith
Dick Smith
Reply to  Zulia
19 days ago

I think that’s the core of the argument and you’re absolutely correct. Permanent life changes like this shouldn’t be made by the parent. They should support the children until the children are legal adults PLUS are adequately knowledgeable to give their consent.

djea3
djea3
25 days ago

The PROBLEM with the TX court is that DURING THE DIVORCE they gave SPECIFIC right to the Father in the awarding of Custody. That right remains with the Father regardless of jurisdiction BECAUSE the MOTHER had to have obtained permission from TX to revoke that right.

The COURT IS WRONG in this case. Once the court gives a right ALL Courts in ALL states MUST give full FAITH AND CREDIT to the other state’s ruling.

TX Supreme Court missed the entire issue and was insane in its decision.

Moderator
Moderator
25 days ago

This poor little boy… I didn’t read how old the children were, but they will certainly have identity crisis in the future (if not already). No Father figure, and for some reason the Mother has been given the right to move anywhere and change their legal names without informing the Father. There must have been something really bad to spur their divorce and get a ruling like that. Missing quite a bit of details from this story to make any sense at all… Crazy times!

Dick Smith
Dick Smith
Reply to  Moderator
19 days ago

You’d be surprised what sort of crazy rulings some of these spiteful judges make. Blind eye of justice isn’t even close.

Mary
Mary
25 days ago

The child should still have to wait until they are 18 to allow this castration.

Atomic Crimson
Atomic Crimson
25 days ago
Atomic Crimson
Atomic Crimson
25 days ago

Young Trans Children Know Who They AreA new study shows that gender-nonconforming kids who go on to transition already have a strong sense of their true identity—one that differs from their assigned gender.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/young-trans-children-know-who-they-are/580366/

Mike Allen
Mike Allen
Reply to  Atomic Crimson
25 days ago

The nytimes and the Atlantic? I hope you don’t have any children, people like you are the problem. It’s brainwashing and child abuse, leave the kids alone!

Dick Smith
Dick Smith
Reply to  Atomic Crimson
19 days ago

I’m sure the statistics are even less for those killed by the state erroneously for murder…. Unfortunately, even one is too many. Same in this situation…. I wouldn’t exactly consider “Few change their minds” as statistically meaningful to begin with. Just like the death penalty, once you throw the switch, there’s no going back.

Wrath
Wrath
25 days ago

The Texas Court decision is insane.

Katherine
Katherine
25 days ago

It’s not a full castration. This child will be given puberty blockers until they are 18 when they make the decision for surgery. It just allows this child to not have to suffer the painful emotional and physical aspects of puberty in the wrong gender. Changing their name and pronouns and our purchasing appropriate clothing allows them to socially transition. If they choose not to have surgery, they can still stay 9n.apprpriate hormones for the rest of their lives. Get over it you idiots, this is NOT ABUSE, ITS HEALTHCARE!

Last edited 25 days ago by Katherine
Bill Fox
Bill Fox
Reply to  Katherine
24 days ago

Oh, you must be new here. Most of the dullards that agree with the nonsense this online rag publishes can’t spell, barely type a coherent sentence, and usually don’t have a large vocabulary. It totally tracks that they conflate gender reassignment with a castration. C students, at best.

Dick Smith
Dick Smith
Reply to  Katherine
19 days ago

I’m pretty sure you need a refresher course in hormones. There’s a very big reason anabolic steroids are illegal. These hormones are VERY STRONG! They have to be to change gender. We’re not talking PEZ here you idiot! Take an already mixed up and gender confused child and then pump them full of hormones…. That’s some great advice. Then see bad go to worse.
What about the 5’4” kid that identifies as 6’10”? Are you going to be so cruel as discriminate against him, or her, or them, or they?

Bill Fox
Bill Fox
24 days ago

Dallas courts are usually fair to the father. I suspect his relationship with his child is not great if they allowed the mother to move anywhere in the US.

Lisa
Lisa
24 days ago

The thing is they were not considering that after establishing residency in California which it is 6 months in the State of Texas. She will be able to file to have the case transferred to California and they will be able to modify the Texas ruling. I cannot even believe that Judge Brown ruled the way she did. Very disappointed in her.

Bill Fox
Bill Fox
23 days ago

Why does a 56 year old dude have two 7 year old twins? He is also a failed politician. Lastly, he is under a gag order and isn’t supposed to talk about any of this. Hope he gets held in contempt.

Robert Weir
Robert Weir
23 days ago

Any parent who decides to mutilate their children should be deemed a psychopath and should be treated criminally by the justice system and scorned by the general public.

Ronald Reason
Ronald Reason
22 days ago

Judge permitted mom and son to move to California, away from her ex-husband and his deadbeat dad. Deadbeat dad finally wises up, goes to the TX Supreme Court; and they reject his case because he misread the new California law (SB 107), which expressly prohibits his ex-wife from doing ‘things’ to the son without deadbeat dad’s consent.  

Sure, it’s weird, but the rage of the Right who think this echo chamber of misinformation is the whole story is even weirder.

Dick Smith
Dick Smith
Reply to  Ronald Reason
19 days ago

What does the ex-husbands deadbeat dad have to do with it?

Ronald Reason
Ronald Reason
Reply to  Dick Smith
18 days ago

Sorry; the deadbeat dad and ex-husband are the same person; that part of the story won’t be found on DX news.

Lisa
Lisa
Reply to  Ronald Reason
18 days ago

The scary thing is the mother is a pediatrician. I sure wouldn’t want her to be any of my grandkids doctor. The children were born via surrogate if I am not mistaken. The dad is not a deadbeat he was trying to keep his son from being abused by the crackhead mother. No one wanted this to get out to the public. Dallas courts are open for anyone to sit in and watch.

Margaret tisdale
Margaret tisdale
15 days ago

The way they were born is the way they should stay! No parent in their right mind would do such a thing! This would be an abomination against God!

rut
rut
15 days ago

Matt. 27:24