In Colorado, a father is engaged in a legal struggle to prevent the state from facilitating the medical transition of his 14-year-old son. After expressing concerns about the administration of puberty blockers and potential irreversible interventions, the state revoked his parental rights regarding his son’s medical decisions.
The child’s mother, with support from an activist therapist, leveraged Colorado’s “affirmation only” legal framework to advocate for the child’s transition. This approach has led to the initiation of medical procedures that carry risks such as sterilization, reduced brain development, and decreased bone density.
The father emphasized his responsibility to protect his child, stating, “My child is more important to me than whatever the court system may do to me. If my child needs to be saved, it’s my job as a parent to save him, and he needs to be saved right now. He needs to be saved from predation and manipulation. I haven’t slept well in forever because I’m afraid for my child. I also see the adults preying on this child’s innocence. This all falls under the sexualization of children that we are engaging in as a society. That’s absolutely appalling. And I’m not even talking about the medical experiments we’re doing on children.”
After sharing concerns over his sons future, the father was stripped of any rights he had over his son’s medical care and choice to transition as a minor.
The arbitrator for the case made the following statement:
“[The mother] is awarded sole decision making for all decisions concerning [the son’s] treatment for his gender dysphoria, including without limitation, a. which therapist(s) [the son] shall see … b. [the son’s] treatment at the True Center, or another treatment facility or doctor to address [the son’s] desire to transition; c. whether [the son] should socially transition; d. whether [the son] shall take hormone blockers; and d. whether [the son] should take hormones or participate in other treatment.
“[The father] shall not attend any appointments with [the son] and [the mother] dealing with [the son’s] transgender treatment.
“[The father] shall not try to persuade [the son] that he is too young to make a decision or show him movies or videos about transgender issues that support [the father’]s position. In essence, [the father] needs to be emotionally supportive of [the son’s] desire to transition.”
The father shared with the Federalist, “The only option offered by the state or by the courts is affirmation…That’s what the mediator, arbitrator basically forced me into: Either your affirm, or the ex-wife gets full power of medical decision.”
Situations like these are being further exacerbated by detrimental policies being passed in states like Colorado.
A new Colorado bill (HB25-1312) titled, “Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals”, introduced last week, would change the state’s approach to determining custody of a child who is expressing gender dysphoria.
Section two of the new bill states:
“When making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
This case underscores the tension between parental rights and state intervention in matters of children’s medical treatments. Supporters argue the measure protects vulnerable children from emotional abuse and ensures consistency in affirming care. Critics, however, warn that it could further marginalize parents who express concerns about irreversible medical interventions and limit their ability to participate in key decisions regarding their child’s health and well-being.
