Ohio Court: Parents Not Required To Support Child’s ‘Transsexual Identity’

An Ohio court ruled that the state’s juvenile court was wrong to suggest that a mother and father were unfit parents because they would not affirm their daughters “transsexual identity.” 

Across the country, child protective service agencies, courts and state legislatures have worked to label non-affirmation of a child’s “gender identity” a sign of “abuse” or “coercive control.” 

Children’s agencies and courts in Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Texas and other states have removed children from parents’ custody because they would not allow damaging transgender medical interventions. Many of those parents are now fighting lengthy, expensive court battles to regain their children.

The court’s ruling is a welcome affirmation of parental rights and a rejection of “transgender” ideology. 

The decision from the Court of Appeals Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio involved a child custody battle as the court decided whether her mother, father, or Clinton County Children Services should have permanent custody over a 14-year-old girl, “Sara.” 

The opinion, from Judge Matthew R. Byrne, joined by Judges Robert A. Hendrickson and Robin N. Piper, explained in a footnote: 

Though not stated explicitly, there is some suggestion in the state’s brief and in the juvenile court’s permanent custody decision that Mother and Father were unfit as parents because they both were initially reluctant to embrace Sara’s announcement that she was transgender and/or using male pronouns. We disagree. 

There is no requirement in Ohio law that parents must unquestioningly accept and support their minor children’s claims of transsexual identity or preferred pronouns.

The ruling pointed to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Mirabelli v. Bonta which upheld parents’ rights to raise their children free from transgender indoctrination and subterfuge from local schools: 

Quite recently, Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, emphasized that “the doctrine of substantive due process has long embraced a parent’s right to raise her child, which includes the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health.”

The Ohio judges went on to explain that her mother and father’s “cautious reaction” to their daughter’s vacillating “gender identity” was not cause for removing Sara from their custody: 

From a best-interest analysis perspective, we see no serious concern presented by Mother’s and Father’s cautious reactions to Sara’s disclosure of her perceived transgender status and preference for male pronouns. 

This lack of concern is particularly bolstered here, where both Karen [Sara’s half-sister] and Sara’s therapist testified that Sara is struggling with gender identity and sexuality, and Karen explained that Sara tended to “change” her sexuality every four to five weeks.” Children who struggle with these issues deserve sober and sensitive guidance, and Ohio law does not require parents unquestioningly to accept whatever their children say about their gender identity or sexuality at that particular moment.

The decision highlights serious problems with transgender ideology: Most children and adolescents who struggle with gender identity will desist and embrace their biological reality. 

Sara’s use of pronouns illustrate the impermanence of her changing, unstable identity, as the court detailed: 

The record indicates that, during the pendency of the children’s services case, Sara repeatedly changed the pronouns that she prefers. We will refer to Sara accurately, as a female.

Activists and their allies, on the other hand, falsely promote transgenderism as stable and permanent. So they’ve worked to remove children from parents who won’t affirm these mostly transient identities. 

In Sara’s case – because of other serious parental and family problems – the court did rule that it was in her best interest to come under the custody of Clinton County Children’s services. 

But the court sensibly ruled that Sara’s parents’ response to her sexual identity confusion was not an issue in their decision. 

The decision, In re. S.B., can be found here. 

Related articles and resources: 

Activist Erin Friday on Protecting Kids and Fighting Gender Ideology

Colorado Bill Would Force Parents to Accept Child’s New ‘Gender Identity’

Erin Friday on Family Courts, ‘Transgender’ Sanctuary States and Fighting to Protect Parental Rights

HHS Tells States Not to Remove Children From Parents Who Affirm Biological Reality

Indiana Family Loses Custody of Son Over Religious Beliefs; Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case

Proposed Executive Order Would Protect Parental Rights

Sixteen States Sue Trump Administration for Protecting Children from ‘Trans’ Procedures 

Supreme Court Affirms Parents’ Rights Over California’s ‘Transgender’ School Policies