shape of United States filled in with American flag on striped background with words national news

Gender-Confused Teen Permanently Removed From Parents’ Custody

On February 16, a 17-year-old Ohio teenager was permanently removed from her parents’ custody because they did not believe it was in their daughter’s best interest for her to “transition” to a “male” and would not allow her to receive hormone therapy.

The parents were simply parenting based on their strongly held religious belief that God made us male and female, not “transgender,” as well as extensive discussions with medical professionals and their own research. But parenting based on the Bible is suddenly apparently wrong in Ohio.

Hamilton County Juvenile Court Judge Sylvia Hendon granted full custody of the child to her maternal grandparents, who approve of the teen’s wish to transition. The judge is allowing the gender-confused teen to receive hormone therapy at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center subject to an evaluation performed by a psychologist not associated with the hospital.

News Sources:

Get News Stories In Your Inbox Every Week


shape of United States filled in with American flag on striped background with words national news

A Mother’s Unsuccessful Attempt to Regain Parental Rights

Parental rights were denied recently at a Minnesota district court. When Anmarie Calgaro of Minnesota discovered last year that her 15-year-old son’s high school was secretly giving him government-funded female hormones to help him transition to becoming a “female,” Calgaro brought a lawsuit claiming a violation of her parental rights.

But the minor teen managed to file an emancipation form with the help of a homosexual advocacy group with the hopes that he could make his own medical decisions without parental approval. Although the child was not legally emancipated from his parents, Calgaro was still denied the right to review her son’s medical and educational records.

A district judge dismissed Calgaro’s lawsuit, but the Thomas More Society plans to appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on her behalf.

News Source:

NOTE: FACT provides links to external websites for educational purposes only. The inclusion of any links to other websites does not necessarily constitute an endorsement.

Get News Stories In Your Inbox Every Week

British parents of baby Charlie Gard holding up flyers about their son

What Is the Real Principle at Issue With Charlie Gard?

A phone call from a state legislator this week put the Charlie Gard situation in a light that I believe conservatives need to think through before they decry a judge “interfering” with the right of little Charlie’s parents to seek the medical care they think he needs. Like most things today, the situation is more complicated than it may appear.

In case you’ve missed the news, 11-month-old Charlie Gard was born in England with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), a very rare genetic disease. It causes brain damage and a progressive weakening of the muscles.

Charlie’s parents sought his release from the physicians and hospital so that he could be taken to America for experimental treatment. The medical professionals at the British hospital filed a legal proceeding to prevent Charlie from being released from their care because, in their view, the treatment was futile and might extend any suffering he was experiencing.

The judge said that the legal standard required him to determine “the best interest of the child.” Lest you think this is something unique to England, it’s the same legal standard parents in America would face if they and their child were dragged into a court.

Christians, in particular, are upset because a judge and a group of health care professionals are interfering with the parents’ rights to care for their child according to what they think is best. And that leads me to the legislator’s call on Monday.

The legislator wanted to know if I thought our state should ban hormone suppression therapy for minor children confused about their sex, and if other states were looking at doing the same thing. She thought it horrible that parents would embark on a course of treatment that could alter, for life, that child’s sexual/physical appearance and psyche.

Personally, I agree with the legislator, but we need to think through the basis upon which the state would do so.

Will We Be Consistent?

If we are going to hold that the government, through a judge, should not intervene because it would interfere with the rights of Charlie’s parents to seek the treatment they think best for their child, on what basis, then, would it be right for the government, through legislation, to intervene when parents determine the best course of action for helping their sexually confused child is hormone replacement therapy?

When situations such as those involving Charlie Gard arise, each side of the debate over government action or inaction tends to grab hold of a principle that appears to justify its position and inflate it to such a proportion that it leaves no room for the consideration of other important principles. Then we find ourselves backed into a corner.

The Two Competing Principles

In Charlie’s situation, conservatives have a tendency to magnify the God-given rights of parents relative to the nurture and care of their minor children and treat the jurisdiction parents have over their child as if it is absolute. But they would not say that a woman has the right to abort her child simply because it is her child and she is the child’s parent-to-be.

But liberals, because of instances of terrible parental abuse, enlarge the principle that civil government has a God-given duty to protect all its citizens and treat the jurisdiction that civil government has over its citizens as if it is absolute. But they would not say that the civil government can control and second-guess every decision a parent makes lest all those decisions also get second-guessed.

What we need is some standard by which to judge these tough jurisdictional issues between the rights of parents relative to their child and the duties of civil government relative to the protection of all its citizens.

By What Standard Will We Choose Between Them?

So how might I judge between the jurisdictional conflicts in the two situations I mentioned? I would evaluate them by the application of two overarching standards—the sanctity of life and the real biological difference between the sexes, both of which are rooted in the nature of God.

As to the first standard, civil government can and should interfere with a parent’s decision if it would violate life itself. That is the situation with abortion, so I believe the government can interfere for the sake of saving the innocent life. But that is not the situation with Charlie Gard. Treatment in Charlie’s case may save or prolong his life, but even if it does not, civil government has no interest in hastening his death. I believe it should abstain and defer.

As to the second standard, civil government can interfere when the biological distinction between the sexes is being violated. I believe civil government can interfere when a parent’s decision would violate the biological distinction and must abstain if the parent is trying to help the child embrace his or her biological sex. Because hormone suppression therapy is a case of the former, I believe civil government could intervene, but I don’t believe it should intervene, as some states have done, to prohibit a parent from providing professional counseling to a child who is experiencing sexual attractions inconsistent with God’s design in that regard.

These are tough situations; we need to make sure we think through what principles are involved, how they may balance against one another, and what standard we should apply to strike that balance.

The decisions we are facing are getting harder by the day. And they are going to become increasingly hard in a culture that no longer believes that God has set any standards by which those decisions can and should be made.

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

Government Intervention: Whose Children Are They, Anyway?

Whose Children Are They, Anyway? (Dec 14, 2011)

More On This Issue

“… Where there’s not an instance [that] a child is in imminent danger of some kind of physical or sexual or severe psychological abuse that is objectively determined [and] the state subjectively begins to go in and just say Hey, we think that this kid is in long-term danger because he’s eating too much and removing that child from the home—then we are getting to the point where the state is clearly abusing its authority and trampling parental rights and individual 4th Amendment liberties,” says Barber,