A
trial court properly took jurisdiction over a mother’s three children after she
allegedly coerced one of them into a gender role with which the child did not
identify, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, finding that the mother’s
actions constituted “abuse.”
“[W]e
conclude that forcing a child to act as a gender the child does not identify
with – whatever gender that is, and whatever gender the parent is attempting to
coerce – is certainly the kind of mistreatment by a parent that could cause
deep and lasting harm to a child,” the Court of Appeals wrote in In re Churchill/Belinski, Minors (Docket
No. 337790, unpublished per curiam opinion, issued 3/15/18).
Accordingly,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the Clare County Circuit Court’s order taking
jurisdiction over the children and transferring custody of the children to their
respective fathers. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s order granting
the mother parenting time and directing her to participate in psychological therapy “with a provider of her
choice.”
However, in its opinion, the Court of Appeals expressed
some concern about the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS)
reasons for pursuing the petition in the first place. “While
we have some reservations about [DHHS’s] motives, we reluctantly are required
to affirm,” the Court stated.
Trial
Court Takes Jurisdiction
The case primarily involved one of the mother’s children
being allegedly coerced into a gender role that the child “had previously
expressed some interest in but ultimately did not want.”
After the trial court took jurisdiction over the
children, the mother appealed. She argued that even if the assertions in the
DHHS petition were true, it was insufficient to take jurisdiction over her
children.
The mother also asserted that, if the trial court’s
decision was affirmed, it would set a dangerous precedent for
parents who are trying to care for their gender nonconforming children based on
the most recent professional standards because it would categorize the best
practices as abuse.
Meanwhile, DHHS maintained that the evidence in
the case was “overwhelming.”
‘No Other Option’
‘No Other Option’
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals disagreed
with the mother – and also disagreed with DHHS in several respects.
“The evidence was nothing even remotely of the
sort,” the Court of Appeals said, referring to DHHS’s claim of “overwhelming”
evidence. According to the Court, it was affirming the trial court’s decision “only because the applicable standards of review
or mandatory inferences we are required to draw in petitioner’s
favor leave us with no other option.”
Notably,
the Youth
Law Center filed an amicus brief in the matter, arguing it
was a case of a child “being taken away from a loving and concerned parent
strictly for being transgendered.”
But
according to the Court of Appeals, the allegations were “exactly the opposite”
– the child was not transgender and the
mother “was harming the child by forcing a gender identity onto the child
rather than permitting one.”
The
Court of Appeals further emphasized that its decision was based on a finding
that the law “absolutely cannot countenance, and absolutely deems abusive,
forcing a particular gender on a child against the child’s wishes, no matter in
which way the gender is forced. In other words, it would constitute abuse to
force a child who is transgender to conform to any particular gender identity,
as well.”
According
to the Court of Appeals, forcing a child to act as a gender the child does not
identify with is the kind of mistreatment that could cause long-term harm to a
child. In this case, the Court pointed out the child was reportedly not
transgender and the mother was allegedly coercing him into a female role
against his wishes.
“Such
treatment constitutes abuse, and it is therefore a sufficient basis for taking
jurisdiction,” the Court of Appeals wrote. “Our conclusion would be identical
if [the child] was transgender and respondent was coercing him into a male role
against his wishes.”
Based on the seriousness of the allegations, the
Court of Appeals said the trial court correctly declined to dismiss the DHHS petition
and properly denied the mother’s motion for a directed verdict. The Court further
held that the jury verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence.
“Ultimately,
despite our concerns, the law precludes this Court from acting as a thirteenth
juror, and because it favors resolution of issues on their merits, it
constrains us to conclude that the matter was properly submitted to the jury
and properly disposed of by the trial court thereafter,” the Court of Appeals
concluded.
Labels: adjudication, child abuse, Child Protective Services, Custody and Parenting Time, family law, Gender Identity, MCL 712A.2(5), MI Department of Health and Human Services, neglect, Transgender Children
