The implications of this for all Christians parents—indeed all parents who would like to raise their children with religious values—is frightening.
As the parents’ attorney says:
"There are two major issues in this case: One is about the fact that the child is taken away just because of the parents' religious beliefs on sexuality. And the other is what a parent can speak to their child about in the confines of their own home," she said.
Honestly, what is going on with the Supreme Court. I have always thought of it as the last stand of hope and reason. I sometimes wonder how unbiased the Supreme Court really is and exactly how much pressure they get from behind the scenes and by whom.
After the vax mandates were upheld based on a case over a hundred years old, I looked up where the decision led. It is sort of a maxim that bad decisions will lead to more bad decisions and this one didn't fail. The case was used to uphold the sterilization of a poor white woman who had been born of a poor white woman. Buck v. Bell would later be cited by defendants in the Nuremberg trial. SCOTUS gave us the 'separate but equal doctrine' which created hell for black Americans for decades. They also upheld the internment of Japanese in the US even though security experts had stated they posed no risk. (Japanese in Hawaii were not interned as they were too valuable to the economy.) So, SCOTUS doesn't get it right a lot of times. This is why we need to recognize our rights come from our a creator and not the government.
Before the lockdown, I never thought of such things. Looking back, I was a shallow middle-aged woman thinking I had a grasp on history. Ironically the lockdowns were the key to unlocking my mind and revisiting legal history.
So true! If we could go back to how we were before COVID would we want to? Everyone who has experienced this type of awakening says absolutely not. COVID opened so many eyes. It is the reason I started doing all this research and writing. The hardship has been worth it for the light it has shined on the truth.
The truth is no matter what the SCOTUS says, this government will do as it pleases anyway. So whether SCOTUS rules favorably or not, in any case, the UniParty/Deep State/liberals (or whatever you chose to call it), will simply ignore the ruling. SCOTUS no longer is the rule of law, and just reinforces the ludicrous disregard for the Constitution.
This is truly terrifying. The implications are immense. And the pain and heartbreak that these parents are surely suffering is immeasurable. I can't overstate how much I feel that I'm living in the dark ages, or many better said, the new dark ages.
Heartbreaking. The politicians who advocate for this or turn a blind eye (the Supreme Court) are despicable. Whatever happens in the future, I firmly believe it won’t be from the political sphere whence cometh our help.
I think you're right. It's the final straw, showing that we are truly on our own. There are very few, and every day it seems like there are less, brave souls in positions of power. The pressure on these people to conform must be beyond what we can imagine. There are few left with true courage.
I’m sure there are things going on behind the scenes that would blow our minds. But meanwhile, the gap between rules for thee but not for me continues to widen. Pretty sure no matter what, no one would have removed a child or grandchild from a Supreme Court justices’s home.
“I would have despaired unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD In the land of the living. Wait for the Lord; Be strong and let your heart take courage; Yes, wait for the Lord.”
God grant us all that level of courage and strength.
I'm so thankful I don't have school-age children now. It was bad enough when my kids were in school. Although I worry about my grandkids. Thankfully, they are in good schools.
How old is the kid? Has his brain developed fully to make him feel like a woman? Religion takes a back seat to this one. The SCOTUS should never have ruled on this.
Yes, the comments are shocking. I've read about this case, and what the parents are accused of. The courts dropped the case of abuse against the parents. It's frightening. So many cases of abuse where children should be taken away and they are not. For people to say it isn't about "trans" rights but about the parents not getting the child psychological help for an eating disorder, is so missing the point.
I’m sure there are details we will never be privy too. May the Lord watch over this child and guide and direct their path.
What is concerning on a very macro level is that once The State inserts itself into the life of a family, the precedent is then set that it has the “right” to do so. And that ratchet only goes in one direction. The State will then always seek to expand under what conditions it is justified in interfering into areas where it should have no jurisdiction. This has been happening for a long time and will get worse.
"I sometimes wonder how unbiased the Supreme Court really is and exactly how much pressure they get from behind the scenes and by whom."
I kind of decided years ago that they're no more or less biased than any other political appointees these days-which is essentially what they are. Although I think the second part of your question depends on which justice we are talking about. For example, at least some of the people who influence Clarence Thomas have been revealed under the last couple years, yet there's still no requirement that he recuse himself from cases involving companies owned by the man who purchased Thomas'mother's home, for example...I have no doubt that at the very least the majority of the Court is getting similar "favors from friends."
Somehow, I never was terribly convinced about Trump's selections for SCOTUS. They were on the same highly questionable level as most of his other government appointees proved to be totally sub par.
Of course, Biden's SCOTUS warrior, Katanji Brown, didn't even know what a woman is, or was refusing to say. So I'm not the least bit surprised at anything this leftist dominated court does at this point.
As far as I know the majority of the Scotus judges are right-wing "catholics" and either members of, or closely associated with the very right-wing "catholic" outfit Opus Dei - so too with Ginni Thomas and the now deceased Scalia.
The three Scotus judges appointed during the Trump regime were all recommended by the right-wing outfit the Federalist society, the president of which (Leonard Leo) is also closely associated with Opus Dei too.
Furthermore most/all of the Federal & District court judges appointed during the Trump regime were approved/recommended by the Leo/Federalist nexus too. Most/all of these judges are right-wing Christians too. Some of them are grossly unqualified.
Furthermore they all have life-time tenure. Many of them are quite young (even in their forties).
With rare exceptions judgements made in these lower courts have wide-ranging ramifications.
All of which means that in very real terms the US court system will be highly biased towards so called conservative values for at least a generation
The quote sounds like "attorney talk". Last stand of hope and reason? Hardly.
I don't mean here to address this case or implications of the decision, but to mention something I observed about the court itself relating to the question "what's going on with the Supreme Court".
A good many years ago I had the pleasure of meeting and spending time with one of the Supreme Court justices -- I won't say which one or when -- at the courthouse and elsewhere in DC, through a personal connection. I was amazed by this justice's dedication to the work. Blown away, really. We talked extensively about the law.
Come 2020-21 it was as if this justice became a different person, casting aside personal principles and clinging instead to the acceptable narrative. I don't know what happened, but it superficially resembled what happened with probably the majority of the other people in my life at that time. I don't think the others in my life were pressured so much as they knew nothing about psyops and they caved in to this one, in fear, as intended.
I can't imagine this justice being that naive. I suspect there was pressure, extreme pressure, but I don't know and I am not going to inquire. What I do know is that this world and its "systems" are deeply corrupt, almost unimaginably so, and that nothing of it, when examined deeply, is revealed to be what it appears to be.
Our hope lies not in this world but in the otherworldly, in God and his promises, grace, and mercy.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I often pray that the decent people who are in the belly of the beast will find courage and grace to do what is right. I know that’s not easy for any of us, when push comes to shove. We don’t want to be praying like the Pharisee “I’m glad I’m not like these others”, but rather “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.”
That said, I also believe that there are many in power who have given themselves fully over to evil. Vessels of wrath.
"Supreme Court" is now kinda like a Taco Bell Taco Supreme faux /inauthentic taco---a fast food-as-justice woke joke--the only thing real is the "lettuce" (i.e. the greenbacks they're takin' in!). Ketanji Brown Jackson is leadin' the way this week sayin' the 1st Amendment "Hamstrings" our gummint (take about insanity!) So jus' like Taco Supreme which is the least supreme thing a human might eat--it seems like SCOTUS that once seemed like they're the "real item" ain't at all. Gotta lotta "beefs" with this TURRIBLE decision ya've shared here--an' with all these dubious judges spoutin nonsense (Jackson, Sotomaye, etc--full-out uninformed about the consty-2-shun--an' unable to define whut a woman is, say whut? Wull they've abandoned the Bar exam in quite a few states now so--good nooz, ya don't need ta even pass it to be a LawYer) Just as the "Supreme" beef is gmo soy-sludge, the "cheeze" is fake, an' I'm sorry ta say our judges are ersatz an' drive thru... Sorry it's come ta this--I hope things turn around for that poor fambly... truth is, a "trans child" is no more real than frakenmeat... it's all a turrible invention
Your exciting headline grabs people’s attention but it actually showed your bias and revealed you didn’t research the actual case opinion. That is a hallmark of MSM reporting, quite evident in the link you also shared. I suggest subscribers, that value truth, do their own research before believing anything that anyone puts before them as truth.
This is a link to the Court of Appeals of Indiana legal opinion:
As you will see, when you peruse the case, this had nothing to do with the parents being “Catholic” but did have everything to do with the physical and mental health of the 16 yr old, which the parents didn’t dispute, but also didn’t seek help for said child. The case opinion took a whole 10 minutes to read.
While I also want courts to honor and protect parents rights, especially their religious rights, I realize that parents can’t or won’t do it, hence the need for intervention.
That you frame this an infringement of religious rights is disingenuous. But I suppose it grabs a lot of attention. For me, it shall make me question anything you write about and it should be a warning to others, as well.
As an aside, your indictment and derogatory comments of the Supreme Court are presumptuous, if in fact, you didn’t even read the Appeals Court opinion, instead relying on a lawyer’s opinion piece to a newspaper.
I've read it, thank you. The abuse case against the parents was also dropped. I can't see inside the home of these parents however I can see the implications of this case for many other parents. Perhaps if the Supreme Court had taken on the case they could have gotten to the bottom of it.
I write indepth essays, but this isn't one of them. I put this case here as a way to start a discussion. I appreciate you adding your perspective.
I am heartened to hear that you read the full complaint. I am wondering if that was just the complaint from the parents'attorneys or if it included the full juvenile court file as well? (I thought juvenile court cases generally were not publicly available but perhaps that's wrong?) I also have seen in other cases, though I'm not sure any were from Indiana, that just because the abuse portion of the civic case, or a criminal abuse investigation, is removed does not necessarily mean it wasn't occuring. It may just mean it hasn't occurred in a period of time. It does seem that press coverage of any type of juvenile court issue is pretty one-sided because the state is prohibited by privacy restrictions from explaining their full case, the full situation, specific investigation findings, and so on to the public. And for good reason: this child is a teen and shouldn't have this follow him the rest of his life, for the entire world to see.
I do have some concerns about this case and another out of Montana that have received significant press coverage lately. The issues are important though certainly not new-parents have had children removed from their custody for refusing Western medical treatment for all manner of conditions for decades. I do worry that because the gender issue is so "hot" right now, the very few actual cases I've seen publicly discussed might be wrongly narrowed down to just that issue. For example, these parents may well have a legitimate religious or ethical objection to gender transitions AND have expressed or enforced it in ways that are detrimental to the child no matter what they are used to enforce. For example, if there was an incident where a parent beat a child for dressing as the opposite sex, that case involves more than just the gender issue. The case out of Montana was reported to be about nothing more than gender, yet both Gov Greg Gianfort (he of reporter body-slam fame; hardly a leftist or even a moderate Republican) and his Lt Gov fully investigated the claims as reported in the press and, while they couldn't give any specifics, they said that state law-which in Montana doesn't allow child transition without parental consent-had been fully followed and they would not be intervening. Given that a case of the "deep state" stealing a child from Loving religious parents because they didn't want the child to transition would seem to be a political boon to Republicans in Montana in an election year, my reading between the lines suggests that there is more to the story than the father and stepmother are telling the press.
Not to mention that, since the case is a few years old and the boy was a teen when it started, presumably he is at least 16-ish years old? CPS cases involving older teens who do not want to return to their parents are always fraught when the parents want them back. If the teen threatens violence to themselves or the families, it makes it quite difficult to return them. If they have run away repeatedly, or are credible threatening to do so, that also complicates things. The state can often be left in a bit of a no-win situation. Their mandate by law, as well as that of the family Court, is to always prioritize the child's best interest, when that conflicts with the rights or interests of the parents.
It is interesting to me that despite online rumors of kids being taken left and right from their gender critical parents in blue states, I've seen only two actual reports of such in the press and one more in blogs. I can certainly understand why many parents in this situation would not wish to publicize their story, but I'd also think that there would be a few more wanting to talk about it if it really was so widespread a problem, and if they didn't know that there was more to the story that they didn't want revealed. But that's just speculation. Time will tell on this issue. But as I said above, the issue of what the state thinks is best for the child vs the parents' beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, is centuries old and I doubt it's going away any time soon. I suspect it will assume different shapes as different issues become political lightning rods and as the politics of the electorate, the Courts and the State(s) change.
The “bottom of it” has already been dredged. The Supreme Court has shown, by its refusal of the case, just that. It’s not a religious issue, as is shown in the opinion. But again, sensationalism sells, so carry on…
Well perhaps if you had experienced "experts" trying to force you to medicate your child or change their gender or whatever and were accused of abusing them when your opinion differed from said experts you might not consider it "sensationalism". This is a discussion and I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion. Having started a creative writing program for incarcerated youth in Los Angeles that is still helping kids today and having worked with youth in rehab facilities, I have seen too many instances of children being taken over by the system to their determinant. Doesn't mean there aren't abusive parents who need their children taken away from them. The sad thing is many times those are the ones who are ignored. If your child is "trans" a parent must agree or they are abusive.
Discussions of society and its populaces failures to “raise up a child in the way it should go” are a great discussion as to how we got to this point in the first place. When a society allows others to “teach” their children, they create their own harvest. That some go astray, even with a loving, moral upbringing, is not surprising. How many religious families actually protect their children from the harmful influences of society? It would seem, not many, as most partake in the ease of government education, lusts of entertainment, technological babysitting and access to strangers influence unimpeded, for sake of convenience. Add to that, their own religious institutions embracing of the moral degradation of society. Your correct, we can only go by this courts in-depth ruling because we can’t know what goes on inside people’s homes, we just have the official testimony. Your headline should have been “What are the effects of religion embracing the moral degradation of society, instead of repudiating these sins, calling them what they are”. Religion is not inclusionary, it’s a choice. Jesus said when we follow Him, we would be persecuted because we didn’t follow the world’s ways. But let’s be sure someone’s persecution is truly because they were following Jesus and not the world. Most Catholic and Protestant denominations have colluded with satan in allowing these sins into the church, against the Word of God. Therefore, their persecution is not religious and is actually of their own doing, not because of Jesus’s Word.
I agree with you. I didn't intend this to be about religion. It's more about the implications of the state taking over the lives of children, thus the headline.
I am not Catholic and don't belong to a religion but I respect everyone's right to worship as they wish. My father, Dave Hunt (if you have read my writing then you know that I sometimes write about him) believed in the Bible, not religion. And absolutely agree that true followers of Jesus will be persecuted. If you haven't read my essay No Greater Love than This, I think you would appreciate it. https://open.substack.com/pub/khmezek/p/no-greater-love-than-this
The implications of this for all Christians parents—indeed all parents who would like to raise their children with religious values—is frightening.
Backtrack it any way you like..I stand by my observations of your “reporting” and will re-emphasize that we are experiencing the symptoms of the evils of religion’s leaders (mainly Catholic and Protestant) and their man made philosophies and traditions against the Word of God: following the world, instead of leading the people according to the Word, they say they uphold. That’s not persecution, that’s apostasy.
Not sure what was so uncalled for in the words of mine that you quote. Not backtracking at all. People should be free to worship how they wish. This was not "reporting" nor was it reporting. it was a question. If you think the Supreme Court isn't influenced when it comes to trans issues then you are naive. Powerful forces are at work and this is a topic they will not take on. End of my comment here. Thank you.
After the vax mandates were upheld based on a case over a hundred years old, I looked up where the decision led. It is sort of a maxim that bad decisions will lead to more bad decisions and this one didn't fail. The case was used to uphold the sterilization of a poor white woman who had been born of a poor white woman. Buck v. Bell would later be cited by defendants in the Nuremberg trial. SCOTUS gave us the 'separate but equal doctrine' which created hell for black Americans for decades. They also upheld the internment of Japanese in the US even though security experts had stated they posed no risk. (Japanese in Hawaii were not interned as they were too valuable to the economy.) So, SCOTUS doesn't get it right a lot of times. This is why we need to recognize our rights come from our a creator and not the government.
Excellent history they you have mentioned here. And so true we can always remember that there is a higher authority and it is not of this earth.
Before the lockdown, I never thought of such things. Looking back, I was a shallow middle-aged woman thinking I had a grasp on history. Ironically the lockdowns were the key to unlocking my mind and revisiting legal history.
So true! If we could go back to how we were before COVID would we want to? Everyone who has experienced this type of awakening says absolutely not. COVID opened so many eyes. It is the reason I started doing all this research and writing. The hardship has been worth it for the light it has shined on the truth.
The truth is no matter what the SCOTUS says, this government will do as it pleases anyway. So whether SCOTUS rules favorably or not, in any case, the UniParty/Deep State/liberals (or whatever you chose to call it), will simply ignore the ruling. SCOTUS no longer is the rule of law, and just reinforces the ludicrous disregard for the Constitution.
Yes, I agree. I think that's becoming very apparent.
All I can think to say is "buckle up," for Christians, the ride is going to a lot more bumpy. God warned us this would happen in the last days.
This is truly terrifying. The implications are immense. And the pain and heartbreak that these parents are surely suffering is immeasurable. I can't overstate how much I feel that I'm living in the dark ages, or many better said, the new dark ages.
Yep, the New Dark Ages.
Heartbreaking. The politicians who advocate for this or turn a blind eye (the Supreme Court) are despicable. Whatever happens in the future, I firmly believe it won’t be from the political sphere whence cometh our help.
I think you're right. It's the final straw, showing that we are truly on our own. There are very few, and every day it seems like there are less, brave souls in positions of power. The pressure on these people to conform must be beyond what we can imagine. There are few left with true courage.
I’m sure there are things going on behind the scenes that would blow our minds. But meanwhile, the gap between rules for thee but not for me continues to widen. Pretty sure no matter what, no one would have removed a child or grandchild from a Supreme Court justices’s home.
“I would have despaired unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD In the land of the living. Wait for the Lord; Be strong and let your heart take courage; Yes, wait for the Lord.”
God grant us all that level of courage and strength.
You are so right.
I'm so thankful I don't have school-age children now. It was bad enough when my kids were in school. Although I worry about my grandkids. Thankfully, they are in good schools.
Thank you for this much-needed reminder, Nana. 🙏✝️
How old is the kid? Has his brain developed fully to make him feel like a woman? Religion takes a back seat to this one. The SCOTUS should never have ruled on this.
and to add: there are some very interesting comments on that story written on the Christian Post
It is rather shocking.
Yes, the comments are shocking. I've read about this case, and what the parents are accused of. The courts dropped the case of abuse against the parents. It's frightening. So many cases of abuse where children should be taken away and they are not. For people to say it isn't about "trans" rights but about the parents not getting the child psychological help for an eating disorder, is so missing the point.
I’m sure there are details we will never be privy too. May the Lord watch over this child and guide and direct their path.
What is concerning on a very macro level is that once The State inserts itself into the life of a family, the precedent is then set that it has the “right” to do so. And that ratchet only goes in one direction. The State will then always seek to expand under what conditions it is justified in interfering into areas where it should have no jurisdiction. This has been happening for a long time and will get worse.
You are 1000% correct! The legal precedent has been set and will be weaponized against anyone they choose!
agree. This is pretty sickening.
There is so so much abusive behavior against children, and adults.... but
the supreme court is no supreme over family concerns like this.
"I sometimes wonder how unbiased the Supreme Court really is and exactly how much pressure they get from behind the scenes and by whom."
I kind of decided years ago that they're no more or less biased than any other political appointees these days-which is essentially what they are. Although I think the second part of your question depends on which justice we are talking about. For example, at least some of the people who influence Clarence Thomas have been revealed under the last couple years, yet there's still no requirement that he recuse himself from cases involving companies owned by the man who purchased Thomas'mother's home, for example...I have no doubt that at the very least the majority of the Court is getting similar "favors from friends."
No doubt. And they are beholden to their "friends".
But of course!
It must become possible to de-select judges by popular vote.
And what makes you think they wouldn’t cheat at that, too?
the second amendment
While I’m a huge proponent of 2A, and will definitely stand my ground, the 2A hasn’t stopped cheating to my knowledge! At least so far!
Somehow, I never was terribly convinced about Trump's selections for SCOTUS. They were on the same highly questionable level as most of his other government appointees proved to be totally sub par.
Of course, Biden's SCOTUS warrior, Katanji Brown, didn't even know what a woman is, or was refusing to say. So I'm not the least bit surprised at anything this leftist dominated court does at this point.
As far as I know the majority of the Scotus judges are right-wing "catholics" and either members of, or closely associated with the very right-wing "catholic" outfit Opus Dei - so too with Ginni Thomas and the now deceased Scalia.
The three Scotus judges appointed during the Trump regime were all recommended by the right-wing outfit the Federalist society, the president of which (Leonard Leo) is also closely associated with Opus Dei too.
Furthermore most/all of the Federal & District court judges appointed during the Trump regime were approved/recommended by the Leo/Federalist nexus too. Most/all of these judges are right-wing Christians too. Some of them are grossly unqualified.
Furthermore they all have life-time tenure. Many of them are quite young (even in their forties).
With rare exceptions judgements made in these lower courts have wide-ranging ramifications.
All of which means that in very real terms the US court system will be highly biased towards so called conservative values for at least a generation
The quote sounds like "attorney talk". Last stand of hope and reason? Hardly.
I don't mean here to address this case or implications of the decision, but to mention something I observed about the court itself relating to the question "what's going on with the Supreme Court".
A good many years ago I had the pleasure of meeting and spending time with one of the Supreme Court justices -- I won't say which one or when -- at the courthouse and elsewhere in DC, through a personal connection. I was amazed by this justice's dedication to the work. Blown away, really. We talked extensively about the law.
Come 2020-21 it was as if this justice became a different person, casting aside personal principles and clinging instead to the acceptable narrative. I don't know what happened, but it superficially resembled what happened with probably the majority of the other people in my life at that time. I don't think the others in my life were pressured so much as they knew nothing about psyops and they caved in to this one, in fear, as intended.
I can't imagine this justice being that naive. I suspect there was pressure, extreme pressure, but I don't know and I am not going to inquire. What I do know is that this world and its "systems" are deeply corrupt, almost unimaginably so, and that nothing of it, when examined deeply, is revealed to be what it appears to be.
Our hope lies not in this world but in the otherworldly, in God and his promises, grace, and mercy.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I often pray that the decent people who are in the belly of the beast will find courage and grace to do what is right. I know that’s not easy for any of us, when push comes to shove. We don’t want to be praying like the Pharisee “I’m glad I’m not like these others”, but rather “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.”
That said, I also believe that there are many in power who have given themselves fully over to evil. Vessels of wrath.
The democrat party comes to mind.
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
JoinADF.com/Truth
Pillar #1: Christians are called to live out their faith publicly in speech, action, and worship.
Pillar#2: Life is a gift of God, and He doesn’t make mistakes.
Pillar#3: Parents have the authority and responsibility to direct the upbringing of their children.
So the FAMILY —not the state or school—is the Basis of Society, and parents have the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to care for their children.
Maybe darker and more dystopian than the original dark ages.
"Supreme Court" is now kinda like a Taco Bell Taco Supreme faux /inauthentic taco---a fast food-as-justice woke joke--the only thing real is the "lettuce" (i.e. the greenbacks they're takin' in!). Ketanji Brown Jackson is leadin' the way this week sayin' the 1st Amendment "Hamstrings" our gummint (take about insanity!) So jus' like Taco Supreme which is the least supreme thing a human might eat--it seems like SCOTUS that once seemed like they're the "real item" ain't at all. Gotta lotta "beefs" with this TURRIBLE decision ya've shared here--an' with all these dubious judges spoutin nonsense (Jackson, Sotomaye, etc--full-out uninformed about the consty-2-shun--an' unable to define whut a woman is, say whut? Wull they've abandoned the Bar exam in quite a few states now so--good nooz, ya don't need ta even pass it to be a LawYer) Just as the "Supreme" beef is gmo soy-sludge, the "cheeze" is fake, an' I'm sorry ta say our judges are ersatz an' drive thru... Sorry it's come ta this--I hope things turn around for that poor fambly... truth is, a "trans child" is no more real than frakenmeat... it's all a turrible invention
Your exciting headline grabs people’s attention but it actually showed your bias and revealed you didn’t research the actual case opinion. That is a hallmark of MSM reporting, quite evident in the link you also shared. I suggest subscribers, that value truth, do their own research before believing anything that anyone puts before them as truth.
This is a link to the Court of Appeals of Indiana legal opinion:
https://casetext.com/case/mc-v-ind-dept-of-child-servs-in-re-ac
As you will see, when you peruse the case, this had nothing to do with the parents being “Catholic” but did have everything to do with the physical and mental health of the 16 yr old, which the parents didn’t dispute, but also didn’t seek help for said child. The case opinion took a whole 10 minutes to read.
While I also want courts to honor and protect parents rights, especially their religious rights, I realize that parents can’t or won’t do it, hence the need for intervention.
That you frame this an infringement of religious rights is disingenuous. But I suppose it grabs a lot of attention. For me, it shall make me question anything you write about and it should be a warning to others, as well.
As an aside, your indictment and derogatory comments of the Supreme Court are presumptuous, if in fact, you didn’t even read the Appeals Court opinion, instead relying on a lawyer’s opinion piece to a newspaper.
I've read it, thank you. The abuse case against the parents was also dropped. I can't see inside the home of these parents however I can see the implications of this case for many other parents. Perhaps if the Supreme Court had taken on the case they could have gotten to the bottom of it.
I write indepth essays, but this isn't one of them. I put this case here as a way to start a discussion. I appreciate you adding your perspective.
I am heartened to hear that you read the full complaint. I am wondering if that was just the complaint from the parents'attorneys or if it included the full juvenile court file as well? (I thought juvenile court cases generally were not publicly available but perhaps that's wrong?) I also have seen in other cases, though I'm not sure any were from Indiana, that just because the abuse portion of the civic case, or a criminal abuse investigation, is removed does not necessarily mean it wasn't occuring. It may just mean it hasn't occurred in a period of time. It does seem that press coverage of any type of juvenile court issue is pretty one-sided because the state is prohibited by privacy restrictions from explaining their full case, the full situation, specific investigation findings, and so on to the public. And for good reason: this child is a teen and shouldn't have this follow him the rest of his life, for the entire world to see.
I do have some concerns about this case and another out of Montana that have received significant press coverage lately. The issues are important though certainly not new-parents have had children removed from their custody for refusing Western medical treatment for all manner of conditions for decades. I do worry that because the gender issue is so "hot" right now, the very few actual cases I've seen publicly discussed might be wrongly narrowed down to just that issue. For example, these parents may well have a legitimate religious or ethical objection to gender transitions AND have expressed or enforced it in ways that are detrimental to the child no matter what they are used to enforce. For example, if there was an incident where a parent beat a child for dressing as the opposite sex, that case involves more than just the gender issue. The case out of Montana was reported to be about nothing more than gender, yet both Gov Greg Gianfort (he of reporter body-slam fame; hardly a leftist or even a moderate Republican) and his Lt Gov fully investigated the claims as reported in the press and, while they couldn't give any specifics, they said that state law-which in Montana doesn't allow child transition without parental consent-had been fully followed and they would not be intervening. Given that a case of the "deep state" stealing a child from Loving religious parents because they didn't want the child to transition would seem to be a political boon to Republicans in Montana in an election year, my reading between the lines suggests that there is more to the story than the father and stepmother are telling the press.
Not to mention that, since the case is a few years old and the boy was a teen when it started, presumably he is at least 16-ish years old? CPS cases involving older teens who do not want to return to their parents are always fraught when the parents want them back. If the teen threatens violence to themselves or the families, it makes it quite difficult to return them. If they have run away repeatedly, or are credible threatening to do so, that also complicates things. The state can often be left in a bit of a no-win situation. Their mandate by law, as well as that of the family Court, is to always prioritize the child's best interest, when that conflicts with the rights or interests of the parents.
It is interesting to me that despite online rumors of kids being taken left and right from their gender critical parents in blue states, I've seen only two actual reports of such in the press and one more in blogs. I can certainly understand why many parents in this situation would not wish to publicize their story, but I'd also think that there would be a few more wanting to talk about it if it really was so widespread a problem, and if they didn't know that there was more to the story that they didn't want revealed. But that's just speculation. Time will tell on this issue. But as I said above, the issue of what the state thinks is best for the child vs the parents' beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, is centuries old and I doubt it's going away any time soon. I suspect it will assume different shapes as different issues become political lightning rods and as the politics of the electorate, the Courts and the State(s) change.
The “bottom of it” has already been dredged. The Supreme Court has shown, by its refusal of the case, just that. It’s not a religious issue, as is shown in the opinion. But again, sensationalism sells, so carry on…
Well perhaps if you had experienced "experts" trying to force you to medicate your child or change their gender or whatever and were accused of abusing them when your opinion differed from said experts you might not consider it "sensationalism". This is a discussion and I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion. Having started a creative writing program for incarcerated youth in Los Angeles that is still helping kids today and having worked with youth in rehab facilities, I have seen too many instances of children being taken over by the system to their determinant. Doesn't mean there aren't abusive parents who need their children taken away from them. The sad thing is many times those are the ones who are ignored. If your child is "trans" a parent must agree or they are abusive.
Discussions of society and its populaces failures to “raise up a child in the way it should go” are a great discussion as to how we got to this point in the first place. When a society allows others to “teach” their children, they create their own harvest. That some go astray, even with a loving, moral upbringing, is not surprising. How many religious families actually protect their children from the harmful influences of society? It would seem, not many, as most partake in the ease of government education, lusts of entertainment, technological babysitting and access to strangers influence unimpeded, for sake of convenience. Add to that, their own religious institutions embracing of the moral degradation of society. Your correct, we can only go by this courts in-depth ruling because we can’t know what goes on inside people’s homes, we just have the official testimony. Your headline should have been “What are the effects of religion embracing the moral degradation of society, instead of repudiating these sins, calling them what they are”. Religion is not inclusionary, it’s a choice. Jesus said when we follow Him, we would be persecuted because we didn’t follow the world’s ways. But let’s be sure someone’s persecution is truly because they were following Jesus and not the world. Most Catholic and Protestant denominations have colluded with satan in allowing these sins into the church, against the Word of God. Therefore, their persecution is not religious and is actually of their own doing, not because of Jesus’s Word.
I agree with you. I didn't intend this to be about religion. It's more about the implications of the state taking over the lives of children, thus the headline.
I am not Catholic and don't belong to a religion but I respect everyone's right to worship as they wish. My father, Dave Hunt (if you have read my writing then you know that I sometimes write about him) believed in the Bible, not religion. And absolutely agree that true followers of Jesus will be persecuted. If you haven't read my essay No Greater Love than This, I think you would appreciate it. https://open.substack.com/pub/khmezek/p/no-greater-love-than-this
Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate it.
Your words:
The implications of this for all Christians parents—indeed all parents who would like to raise their children with religious values—is frightening.
Backtrack it any way you like..I stand by my observations of your “reporting” and will re-emphasize that we are experiencing the symptoms of the evils of religion’s leaders (mainly Catholic and Protestant) and their man made philosophies and traditions against the Word of God: following the world, instead of leading the people according to the Word, they say they uphold. That’s not persecution, that’s apostasy.
Not sure what was so uncalled for in the words of mine that you quote. Not backtracking at all. People should be free to worship how they wish. This was not "reporting" nor was it reporting. it was a question. If you think the Supreme Court isn't influenced when it comes to trans issues then you are naive. Powerful forces are at work and this is a topic they will not take on. End of my comment here. Thank you.