Attorneys: Dad opposing 7-year-old’s gender ‘transition’ is ‘unstable’
Update: Judge Kim Cooks has ruled that James' parents will have joint conservatorship over him. Read more by clicking here.
TEXAS, October 16, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Attorneys for the mother trying to force her ex-husband to go along with the gender “transition” she seeks for their seven-year-old son said in court yesterday the case is about parenting, not “gender transitioning.”
PETITION: 7-year-old boy should not be forced to live as a girl! Sign the petition here.
Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician, has been telling her son James he’s a girl since he was three. She and her ex-husband, Jeffery Younger, are in court this week as Georgulas seeks complete control over decision-making ability for James and his twin, Jude.
Georgulas’ attorneys, Jessica Janicek and Laura Hayes, argued that Younger is “insensitive, narcissistic, controlling, [and] unstable,” and that he refuses to follow the court’s orders. Meanwhile, Georgulas is “sensitive” and “empathetic,” and provides her son – whom she enrolled in kindergarten as a girl named “Luna” – a stable, loving environment while following court orders, they claimed.
Additionally, they claimed Younger was committing fraud by using the money raised through the Save James website for his own personal expenses. Ms. Janicek’s opening statements were laden with imagery and emotional pleas to the jury.
Younger’s attorney, Logan Odeneal, asked the jury to clearly review the facts of the case and to consider the actions of both parties. He argued that Younger is seeking a second opinion for his son’s diagnosis of “gender dysphoria.” Georgulas engaged in “doctor shopping” to find a doctor who would say what she wanted to hear, Odeneal said.
He pointed out that Younger is seeking to prevent his seven-year-old son from making a permanent, life-altering decision by undergoing a gender “transition.” He focused the attention of the case on the potential harm a medical “transition” would pose to James, a step he said Georgulas will take if granted sole managing conservatorship.
Finally, the amicus attorney introduced himself. The amicus attorney is a “friend of the court” meant to be a neutral third party who serves the best interests of the children. He reminded the jury that the decision they will make will have a “long-lasting impact on both children’s lives.”
After the opening statements, the witnesses were sworn in. The oath omitted “so help me God.”
The first witness was James’ kindergarten teacher. She testified about an incident at an open house where Younger called the police on Georgulas. Younger argued that she was preventing him from seeing the boys and was thereby violating a custody order. The teacher, who continually referred to James as “Luna,” admitted that although most of “Luna’s” closest friends are girls, he is really friends with everyone.
After James’ kindergarten teacher’s testimony, Dr. Benjamin Albritton, the custody evaluator, testified. Dr. Albritton completed the custody evaluation for James and Jude during Younger and Georgulas’ divorce. Georgulas’ legal team had hired him as an expert witness. Dr. Albritton affirmed most all of the questions asked by Georgulas’ legal team. The harshest statement he made against Georgulas was that he was now worried about her financial stability given what he said was significant harm done to her pediatric practice by the publicity of the case. He did admit that “both parents care deeply for their children” and that this was a “very difficult situation.”
Dr. Albritton discussed James’ “gender dysphoria” diagnosis at length. He stated that James met the criteria for gender dysphoria, but he also stated that there is “some fluidity on whether or not he meets that criteria 100 percent of the time.”
Mr. Odeneal attempted to demonstrate to the jury through his questioning that there is a high probability that James will return to identifying with his biological sex – a 66 percent chance, according to the study Dr. Albritton cited in his custody report. In response to Mr. Odeneal’s questioning about the long-term impacts of transgender “transitioning,” Dr. Albritton stated, “certainly it [the wait and see approach] offers less challenges for him [James]. He has less obstacles if that is the resolution.”
Finally, the amicus attorney questioned Dr. Albritton about statements James made about his genitalia. Dr. Albritton responded that he did not find it shocking that a seven-year-old, “when asked about anatomy, stated he did not want his penis.”
After the trial's beginning, the Save James supporters were in good spirits. They hoped the arguments of the amicus attorney would offset Dr. Albritton’s “biased” testimony.
The trial resumes Wednesday with additional questions for Dr. Albritton.
Follow all LifeSiteNews coverage of the James Younger case here.