Indiana parents lose custody over refusing to turn their son into a girl.
(thepostmillennial.com)
Comments (28)
sorted by:
The stupid piece of shit was actively attempting suicide by refusing to eat durring their extremist meltdowns, and the only thing the parents did wrong was neglect to institutionalize the shithead.
From the sound of it this kid, he's a low functioning autist with numerous other issues who's been going down this rabbit hole for ages. You don't go straight from a normal, well-adjusted kid to a suicidal tranny overnight.
As much as I believe this judge should be [REDACTED], the parents here absolutely allowed this to happen. They probably ignored the signs, thinking he'd grow out of it, and let him continue to send nudes to 40 year old pedophiles on Discord because it wasn't their problem. Well, now it is their problem.
Hopefully as the years go by, more and more parents will realize that active measures must be taken to prevent your kid from being groomed into a death cult.
They probably could have done more, but it's always been very hard for parents to win against the dominant culture, especially when it's being actively pushed from every angle and their hands bound more tightly by the day.
True, they are ultimately responsible, but I also place some responsibility on Progressivism. Thanks to feminism, which pushed mother into the workplace, a family now needs both parents working to survive whereas before only the father needed to. This leaves both the parents with no time to properly raise the kids and make sure shit like this doesn't happen. There's also the fact that Progressives in schools are actively brainwashing children into transgenderism and other forms of mental illness.
don't have to censor yourself as much here however there are some relics that need revised or removerd sideyes the 16 commandments
Saved them the hassle of disowning their son...
A while ago there was mutinous talk on the subject of the state taking away kids, brainwashing and castrating them. Now we're just like "horrible, yeah this is bad, things are bad"
Vote Republican. We're against forced castration of children until age 16!
Allegedly.
I believe that since their complaints are that the state violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights, the parents can take this out of family court and file a federal case. Which is what I would do, as family court tends to justify anything the government wants under the umbrella of "needs of the child".
Any lawyers out to there who can confirm?
Probably not. There was a similar case, Dircks v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., No. 1:21-CV-00451-JMS-MG, 2022 WL 742435 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2022), that involved a couple suing the Indiana Department of Child Services under similar 1st and 14th Amendment violations for CHINS removals. The federal court tossed the § 1983 suit because:
Maybe it'd work if they sued indivdual people involved like social workers or school counselors, but then you'd run into the same qualified immunity problems that comes with suing cops.
Thanks; that's why I put it out there for someone who knows more than me.
Honestly, the whole concept of sovereign and qualified immunity seems convoluted and contradictory to me. In the case cited above the feds said they don't have jurisdiction over a state agency under the 11th Amendment, but I know the feds have gone after police agencies and state election agencies through federal court
Its all a huge mess, because of contradictory rulings based off of different constitutional provisions, and various state or federal laws. For example, states and the federal government have sovereign immunity unless they allow themselves to be sued. The feds have the federal tort claims act for that purpose. In addition, takings can be compensated under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. States are similar. You can sue state agents individually under § 1983 and federal agents under the similar Bivens actions. But that refers to actions in their individual capacity. When you complain of official actions, then qualified and absolute immunity come into play.
The federal suits are probably based off of various parts of the civil rights act of 1964, which is in my opinion, a wildly unconstitutional law. But SCOTUS lacks the balls to throw it out (well maybe Thomas might).
They're generally based off of state law, and vary state by state. Here's Texas's law for example.
Another family destroyed. Another child condemned to an early grave.
It's disturbing how creepily manipulative the appeals court statement is. The "ultimate goal is for family reunification" they say. The court can "understand" the parents views and disagreements between parents and children happen all the time and "is not [usually] a reason to remove a child from the home" but the particular "nexus" (lol) in this case means the child is now a ward of the state. They mention "nexus" twice, and also the word "discord." Did a redditor write this? Do these words have a special anti-parent meaning?
Is it time to rule two yet? I'm so very tired.
Things have very rapidly moved down the pipeline from “promoting troonery to kids in media” to “the state will take away your teenage son, if you are “mean” to them by not following the entire whims of their gender fantasies”…
Scary. And insane…
Just remember guys, follow the law and fight it in the courts later. SURELY everything will turn out just fine!
If it was a daughter turning into a boy, she probably would have won.
I've heard the word "misogynist" thrown around a lot, but Imp is one of the very, very few examples of a bona fide misogynist I've ever seen. His dedication to hating women is actually kind of inspiring. If he can be so dedicated to his craft, then why can't we all?
I mean, the last few cases I saw where the child was female to male, the parents won.