A warning from a mother and father in Indiana

[Vambram]

Indiana parents warn nation after child is removed from home for improper pronoun usage: ‘Can happen anywhere’

A religous couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for removing their child from their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

www.foxnews.com

What say you all? Did the Indiana Department of Child Services do the right thing, or not?

 

[Brihaha]

Probably. Children have rights too.
These parents may not be qualified to raise a child. The kid might be better for being removed from the home. Yet I have no reason to judge any of this. My advice to people is always "Don't go to Indiana" after being raised there myself haha.

 

[Vambram]

Probably. Children have rights too.
These parents may not be qualified to raise a child. The kid might be better for being removed from the home. Yet I have no reason to judge any of this. My advice to people is always "Don't go to Indiana" after being raised there myself haha.

Therefore, are you suggesting that parents should be required to agree with and to support the so-called "gender affirming care" even when the parents have very legitimate religious beliefs about transgenderism?

 

[Vambram]

Also, the Indiana Department of Child Services did find that those parents did not abuse the child at all. According to what I read, the only thing that they believe that those parents did wrong was to refuse to use that kid's preferred gender and agree that their own child transition into the opposite gender.

 

[Brihaha]

Therefore, are you suggesting that parents should be required to agree with and to support the so-called "gender affirming care" even when the parents have very legitimate religious beliefs about transgenderism?

This sounds like a big family argument to me. Kid won't back down to overbearing parents and the parents are just obstinate enough to lose custody. It is not my purview to judge what every parent should do. My kids are in their 30s now. I've seen how parents "love" their children. I will stay out of it until I see abuse, then I will act. It's how I roll. I have parented plenty of kids in front of their parents to set an example and show my boundaries.

 

[linux.poet]

No. Parents should have control over their own children until they become adults. This is insanity.

 

[RileyG]

No. Parents should have control over their own children until they become adults. This is insanity.

Amen! Stop with the trans nonsense.

 

[MForbes]

I have two adult children. When they were children, if either one of them thought they were transgender, non-binary, or wanted a sex change I would have told them they can do whatever they wanted to do when they were 18 and did not live in our house. I’d still love them, but would not support it.

Parents should have a say in their children’s upbringing, but when they become legal adults, it’s on them.

 

[Brihaha]

Amen! Stop with the trans nonsense.

It's a child, sir. His wellbeing is at issue, not your feelings. No wonder kids in America can't figure out how to properly behave. There is a dearth of proper examples being shown by adults. Good parenting involves compassion, forgiveness, listening, love, mercy and nurturing. We don't know the particulars here, certainly not enough to warrant the exclamation you made. I won't ask if you have kids because I don't want to know.

 

[RileyG]

It's a child, sir. His wellbeing is at issue, not your feelings. No wonder kids in America can't figure out how to properly behave. There is a dearth of proper examples being shown by adults. Good parenting involves compassion, forgiveness, listening, love, mercy and nurturing. We don't know the particulars here, certainly not enough to warrant the exclamation you made. I won't ask if you have kids because I don't want to know.

It is a child. A child that doesn't need to know about the trans agenda. Let children be children! When they are older, let them decide. And no, I do not have children.

 

[RileyG]

Probably. Children have rights too.
These parents may not be qualified to raise a child. The kid might be better for being removed from the home. Yet I have no reason to judge any of this. My advice to people is always "Don't go to Indiana" after being raised there myself haha.

Did you read the article? The parents did nothing wrong.

 

[Gene2memE]

There's WAY more to this than the Fox New article is letting on.

The Child in this case was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, parent-child relationship problem, and gender dysphoria. There was also a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.


DCS investigated and found a Child In Need of Help (CHIN) situation. Specifically CHINS-1 (Child's physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the Parents' neglect) and CHINS-2 (Child's physical or mental health was seriously endangered due to injury by the Parents' acts or omissions).

DCS went to a trial court to get a removal, based on multiple findings that removing the Child from their Parent's home was both necessary to safeguard their welfare and in their best interest. The court held a combined initial and detention hearing, and made a finding that there was probable cause to believe that Child was a CHINS and that Child's detainment was necessary to safeguard Child's health.

The DCS then filed a dispositional motion to add a CHINS-6 classification (Child substantially endangering their own health, in this case anorexia and self-isolation from parents). The parents did not object to this addition, and the trial court granted the motion.

The trial court then subsequently held a hearing following an agreement between the parents and DCS to dismiss the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, unsubstantiate and expunge the record of any reports related to the parents, and proceed under the CHINS-6 statute.

The trial court then found that remaining in the Parents' care would be contrary to Child's welfare, and ordered a partial removal. The Child and Parents were ordered to attend counselling, with the parents barred from mentioning the Child's transgender status during these sessions.

The parents then appealed the removal. But, they did not object to of challenge the CHINS-6 finding (which the removal is based on), so the appellate court ruled their apart of their appeal moot and agreed with the DCS/trial court findings on the CHINS-6 classification and upheld the removal.

The parents are now arguing that removing the child on a CHINS-6 (child endangering their own health [because of parents actions]) violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. Appellate court has already found that the removal was not based on the dismissed CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, and thus doesn't violate either.

 

[Brihaha]

It is a child. A child that doesn't need to know about the trans agenda. Let children be children! When they are older, let them decide. And no, I do not have children.

This child may now get a chance to be a child. And his parents can learn about the transgender issues if they truly love their child. They are people who have love to give and need love themselves. Regardless of your and others' hang-ups. Some of the worst child abuse I've seen has been from "religious" parents who seriously damage their kids. Kids simply cannot be children in an abusive environment, emotional or physical.

Did you read the article? The parents did nothing wrong.

And yes, I read the article. And no, I ain't even close to convinced your synopsis is valid. On my best day as a parent I did something wrong. When I read and learn it is for comprehension, not to confirm any preconceived biases I know I possess. Often, with an open mind, I can mitigate some of my biases after learning something new. Neither of us is in a position to really know if these parents did anything wrong from a foxnews article. Yet I know they did if they are human beings.

 

[RileyG]

There's WAY more to this than the Fox New article is letting on.

The Child in this case was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, parent-child relationship problem, and gender dysphoria. There was also a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.


DCS investigated and found a Child In Need of Help (CHIN) situation. Specifically CHINS-1 (Child's physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the Parents' neglect) and CHINS-2 (Child's physical or mental health was seriously endangered due to injury by the Parents' acts or omissions).

DCS went to a trial court to get a removal, based on multiple findings that removing the Child from their Parent's home was both necessary to safeguard their welfare and in their best interest. The court held a combined initial and detention hearing, and made a finding that there was probable cause to believe that Child was a CHINS and that Child's detainment was necessary to safeguard Child's health.

The DCS then filed a dispositional motion to add a CHINS-6 classification (Child substantially endangering their own health, in this case anorexia and self-isolation from parents). The parents did not object to this addition, and the trial court granted the motion.

The trial court then subsequently held a hearing following an agreement between the parents and DCS to dismiss the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, unsubstantiate and expunge the record of any reports related to the parents, and proceed under the CHINS-6 statute.

The trial court then found that remaining in the Parents' care would be contrary to Child's welfare, and ordered a partial removal. The Child and Parents were ordered to attend counselling, with the parents barred from mentioning the Child's transgender status during these sessions.

The parents then appealed the removal. But, they did not object to of challenge the CHINS-6 finding (which the removal is based on), so the appellate court ruled their apart of their appeal moot and agreed with the DCS/trial court findings on the CHINS-6 classification and upheld the removal.

The parents are now arguing that removing the child on a CHINS-6 (child endangering their own health [because of parents actions]) violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. Appellate court has already found that the removal was not based on the dismissed CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, and thus doesn't violate either.

How old is the child?

 

[RileyG]

This child may now get a chance to be a child. And his parents can learn about the transgender issues if they truly love their child. They are people who have love to give and need love themselves. Regardless of your and others' hang-ups. Some of the worst child abuse I've seen has been from "religious" parents who seriously damage their kids. Kids simply cannot be children in an abusive environment, emotional or physical.

They can be a child without the trans nonsense. Not wanting your child to be transgendered is abusive? I'm so confused. His parents do not accept the trans agenda and believe sex is immutable. Children are impressionable and can be easily manipulated.

Ultimately, they are concerned about their child's SALVATION which is what they will have to answer to God at the end of their life.

 

[Vambram]

There's WAY more to this than the Fox New article is letting on.

The Child in this case was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, parent-child relationship problem, and gender dysphoria. There was also a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.


DCS investigated and found a Child In Need of Help (CHIN) situation. Specifically CHINS-1 (Child's physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the Parents' neglect) and CHINS-2 (Child's physical or mental health was seriously endangered due to injury by the Parents' acts or omissions).

DCS went to a trial court to get a removal, based on multiple findings that removing the Child from their Parent's home was both necessary to safeguard their welfare and in their best interest. The court held a combined initial and detention hearing, and made a finding that there was probable cause to believe that Child was a CHINS and that Child's detainment was necessary to safeguard Child's health.

The DCS then filed a dispositional motion to add a CHINS-6 classification (Child substantially endangering their own health, in this case anorexia and self-isolation from parents). The parents did not object to this addition, and the trial court granted the motion.

The trial court then subsequently held a hearing following an agreement between the parents and DCS to dismiss the CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, unsubstantiate and expunge the record of any reports related to the parents, and proceed under the CHINS-6 statute.

The trial court then found that remaining in the Parents' care would be contrary to Child's welfare, and ordered a partial removal. The Child and Parents were ordered to attend counselling, with the parents barred from mentioning the Child's transgender status during these sessions.

The parents then appealed the removal. But, they did not object to of challenge the CHINS-6 finding (which the removal is based on), so the appellate court ruled their apart of their appeal moot and agreed with the DCS/trial court findings on the CHINS-6 classification and upheld the removal.

The parents are now arguing that removing the child on a CHINS-6 (child endangering their own health [because of parents actions]) violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. Appellate court has already found that the removal was not based on the dismissed CHINS-1 and CHINS-2 allegations, and thus doesn't violate either.

That is good information. Thank you.
Yet, I still very, very firmly believe that this is another example of parents rights and beliefs being forced to submit to the will of the government.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I, for one, am SHOCKED that Fox would leave out a bunch of relevant details and only focus on those most likely to rile up their audience.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Indian is a very red state. This sounds like there's more to the story.

 

[Larniavc]

Indiana parents warn nation after child is removed from home for improper pronoun usage: ‘Can happen anywhere’

A religous couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for removing their child from their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

www.foxnews.com

What say you all? Did the Indiana Department of Child Services do the right thing, or not?

There’s going to be (inevitably) more to this than pronouns.

Smh

 

[Larniavc]

There's WAY more to this than the Fox New article is letting on.

Who could have possibly known? I reckon this is simple another example of bad parents being forced to submit to the law of the land misrepresentated by the right wing media and un-critically (for the umpteenth time) consumed and reposted in outrage.