Save James
Save James
Embedded Files
- Texas Court Ruling from 2019
The Court finds that James did not initiate the conversation about having his name changed.
The Court finds that James’ first choice of name, when asked by his Mother, was Starfire, but the Mother dissuaded James from this name.
The Court finds that the Father did not participate in the name change of James.
The Court finds that both boys of tender years just want to live the life of a child.
The Court finds Dr. Albritton stated I deeply understand Dr. Georgulas’s desire to proceed with what is a commonly accepted course, I also felt like this was a situation with a lot of fluidity and by that, what I mean is this is not of standard research project. The question is does the research apply to these children.
The Court finds Dr. Albritton stated I concur with Mr. Younger I'm not sure 100 percent of the time he [James] shows performance for female activities. He likes to wrestle. He likes to run around the creek with swords and archery. I've had some children who were driven just solely towards ballet and solely towards sparkle ponies So I think there’s some fluidity in terms of whether or not [James] meets those criteria 100 percent of the time.
The Court finds Dr. Albritton DSM-5 Definition of Gender Dysphoria – Must have a marked incongruence between ones expressed gender and assigned gender for at least 6 months as manifested in 6 criteria and (B) The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, school, or other important areas of functioning. The child displays at least 6 of (A) but does not express condition (B). The Children did not appear distressed. Neither child is afraid of their father.
The Court finds Dr. Albritton stated when the boys were brought by their Mother for a joint interview, James presented wearing high heels and a dress and he was a little overdressed. Your typical girl might be wearing leggings and sandals, but he seemed to be pretty dramatic in his dress, and I experienced the same thing when I went to the house.
The Court finds Dr. Albritton stated that Mom might have over corrected transgender and by taking to buying him a [transgender] flag, she might have been immersing him in that particular mindset and that it would not be necessarily a good thing for it to be pushed or encouraged.
The Court finds that James’ first grade teacher described him as the happiest kid in the class.
The Court finds that James’ first grade teacher stated that James came to school with makeup on a couple of times.
- Order in Suit Affecting the Parent Child Relationship (contains sensitive information, excerpts only)
IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that Petitioner ANNE GEORGULAS and Respondent JEFFREY DAMON YOUNGER are appointed joint managing conservators of the following children: JAMES DAMON YOUNGER and JUDE DANIEL YOUNGER.
The Court finds it is in the children's best interest that their father JEFFREY DAMON YOUNGER attend family counseling with the children with the goal of equal (50/50) possession and access.
- Supreme Court Allows James to Be Relocated to California
Father believes that California’s enactment of Senate Bill 107, which goes into effect on January 1, 2023, will enable Mother to evade the Texas court order prohibiting her from unilaterally consenting to gender-transition therapy. Father misreads California’s new law.
Described by its lead author as a “trans refuge” bill designed in part to respond to “executive and legislative action in Texas,”1 the bill certainly casts a wide net in pursuit of its objectives. The bill contains several provisions barring enforcement in California of “a law of another state” or “another state’s law” that prohibits “gender-affirming health care.” Thus, SB 107—both as advertised and as written—is California’s response to other states’ legislative enactments or administrative rules outlawing gender-transition therapy. While SB 107’s position on other states’ laws is clear, I see no provision in the bill that would alter the enforceability, in California, of a Texas court order requiring divorced parents to agree before subjecting their child to gender-transition therapy.
Mother has repeatedly asserted in court that the Texas order is desirable and in the child’s best interests, which would make it quite difficult for Mother to argue the contrary position to a California court, even if that were her intention. [Yet, Jeff Younger is in a California Court defending his son from just that.]
Concern that any of this will happen would be entirely speculative in any case. In this case, given that Mother has now represented to both this Court and the district court that she has no intention of trying to make it happen, it is not merely speculative but potentially prohibited by principles of estoppel.
- Anne Georgulas Court Filings To Castrate James
On January 31, 2024, I met with Luna [James] to gather relevant information regarding her gender identity and gender journey (a term that it sometimes referred to as the process of one’s gender exploration, gender experience, and navigation towards a fully understanding and expression of one’s gender). This evaluation session took almost 2 hours. [Note: only a two hour meeting with James, and Dr. Conn recommends castration.]
As indicated, this writer met with Luna [James] on January 31, 2024. Luna presented as an 11-year-old female-identifying youth, using she/her pronouns and feminine clothing and hair style. Despite being assigned a male gender at birth, Luna [James] reported experiencing gender incongruence since early childhood and has endorsed a female gender identity since approximately age 5. Per Luna [James], she states, “I can’t remember not being a girl” and that she knew her gender identity as a girl in kindergarten and socially transitioned at that time. She has been socially presenting as female for the past almost 6 years.
When asked about her future goals for herself and her transition, Luna [James] stated, “I don’t want to go through male puberty” and that if she did: “I could be unhappy... I want normal girl development”.
On her own, when asked about her goals, Luna [James] indicated that she is interested in pursuing puberty blockers, bottom surgery and top surgery, estrogen, and perhaps other interventions in the future as an older adolescent or adult to support her in her medical transition and with reducing potential future dysphoria.
Luna [James] has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and her treating physician recommends puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormone treatments.
Father refuses to consent to this treatment for Luna [James].
Mother has requested a modification to the current orders to allow her to get appropriate medical care [castration] for Luna [James] as soon as possible.
In summary, I am requesting that the court grant relief as follows: a. An Order granting Petitioner the exclusive right to consent to all medical, dental, and surgical treatment, forthwith, including but not limited to the right to consent to gender affirming medical care, for the minor child Luna (f/k/a James) Younger.
Our child, Luna [James], is transgender. She was assigned male at birth but has sought to present herself as a girl since she was 3 years old.
Father has been a very vocal, public critic of transgender medicine and has publicly used our child custody case to further his own personal platform.
The current orders allow Father to have supervised visitation, for up to 6 hours, every 1, 3 and 4th weekend of each month, as well as for two hours every Wednesday. However, since the order for supervised visits was put in place, Father has only come to see the children two times: both times in March of 2023. The first visit lasted the scheduled 2 hours. The second visit only lasted 14 minutes of the scheduled 6-hour visit, because father left when the professional supervisor corrected him.
It is undisputed that Father will not consent to this treatment, regardless of medical diagnosis or research.
Since our custodial case began, Father has developed a significant following on social media, and he does many things ot increase his following, primarily by focusing on Luna [James].
Although there has been a gag order in place since 2019 ordering both of us not to talk about the custodial case and the kids until they are 18, father regularly posts about Luna, posts pictures, gives lectures, fundraises, and has even campaigned on the issue of our child's transition. Father claims the the gag order is illegal and refuses to abide by it.
Our custodial case garnered so much public attention, due to Father's non-stop media campaign, that Texas Governor Greg Abbot tweeted that he was having the "Texas Attorney General's Office" and child services "look into" the matter, when the jury initially awarded me sole custody. State Rep. Steve Toth stated that he would propose a bill to "add 'Transitioning of a Minor' as Child Abuse."
- Jeff Younger's Response
I oppose “gender affirming care” and specifically any puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones, medical castration or any gender-related surgeries on my son before the age of 18. I oppose on scientific and medical grounds. It is my understanding that these medical procedures are physically and mentally harmful, and that they have not been shown to have any positive effect psychologically.
I have consulted with many experts in the field of “transgender medicine.” There is no question in my mind that so-called “gender affirming care” is unsafe, ineffective, and highly experimental. For this reason, I strongly believe that the things that my ex-wife, the Petitioner, wants done to him are not in his best interest.
My ex-wife has been trying to do the impossible of turning our son into a girl since he was three years old in Texas. She has been seeking to chemically castrate him since the age of eight in the Texas Courts which has not only failed but has cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have never filed a lawsuit against Petitioner. She has now come to California to try to accomplish this in the California courts. It needs to stop for the sake of my children. They just need the opportunity to live as children and have a normal childhood.
The Texas trial court held me responsible for not following a gag order. However, the gag order imposed by the trial court was so broad as to impose a total ban on me appearing in media: print, online, video, everything. The gag order also banned me from talking about certain political topics relating to transgender laws and ideology. I ran for political office in 2022. Had I followed the gag order, I would have been banned from all media and effectively banned from running for office.
No court has ever found that the now 11-year-old boy, my son, is transgendered girl - and he is not. On the contrary, the 255th District Court in Texas found that James is a male by sex and a boy by gender. The 301st District Court continued with this designation in its orders.
James is a boy. I believe that he is confused in his identity due to the unrelenting interventions of his Mother. Even if he naturally has some degree of gender dysphoria, I believe that what is best for James is to accept him and support him for how he is, and how he naturally develops. I believe that interfering with puberty and interfering with natural development is the worst thing to do to this child.
Ms. Georgulas swore for years to district and appellate courts that (1) she had no intentions of making gender-transition medical interventions, and (2) that gender-transition medical interventions were not in the interests of the boys. She swore under oath to the Supreme Court of Texas, who extensively reviewed the trial records, that she had no intention of making gender-transition medical interventions in her move to California. After a long train of lies from Ms. Georgulas, here I am responding to a motion in a California court to chemically castrate and potentially medically mutilate my son. This is exactly the situation thought so unlikely by Texas Justice Blacklock who naively believed Ms. Georgulas.
I believe that attending supervised visits with my sons is not in their best interests. In fact, I believe that supervised visits with my sons are positively harmful for them, because it sends a message that they need to be afraid of me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have tried to attend them but the counselors tend to do things like keep me and my son in a room for six hours and refuse to let us leave. This is not good for my young 11-year-old son. I will not put him through it.
I do not deserve supervised visitation with my sons. I have complied with the Court’s counseling orders and all lawful orders of the Court. I will be seeking a modification request in this Court.
I have sent my sons gifts and cards. I have no idea if they have received them because Ms. Georgulas refuses to tell me if they have or not.
Dr. Conn refers to James today facing the prospect of undergoing "incorrect puberty", and makes numerous statements touting the benefits of a "gender transition". The term "incorrect puberty" is ludicrous. There is no such thing, and I am troubled by its use by a mental health provider. Puberty is a normal phase of human development. James may want "normal girl development," but James is, and will always be, male. James' mother, Dr. Conn, and others do him no favor by leading him to believe his body and its natural development are "incorrect".
Dr. Conn indicates that "on her own" James "is interested in pursuing puberty blockers, bottom surgery and top surgery, estrogen, and perhaps other interventions". In my opinion, it is unlikely that an 1 1-year-old boy, whether experiencing gender incongruence or not, would be aware of, and become "interested in" these treatments on his own.
ln summary, there is no justification for these invasive medical treatments whatsoever.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse