An Ohio Court was recently asked rule on who should make medical decisions for a teenage boy who sought hormone treatment to enable him to transgender.
The parents did not consent and sought the court’s authority to stop the treatment. The child was placed in care of Family Services pending the outcome of the hearing.
The parents argued that given the child’s mental state he was not “even close to being able to make such a life-altering decision”. Medical experts disagreed and submitted that the father’s conduct was harming the child.
The grandparents requested custody and offered to care for the child and were willing to make medical decisions with the child. This proposal was supported by the child’s court appointed guardian.
Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon ruled and CNN reported that:
The grandparents, rather than parents, will be the ones to help make medical decisions for the child going forward. But before any hormone treatment is allowed, the court ordered, the teen should be evaluated by a psychologist who is not affiliated with the current facility where he is receiving treatment, on “the issue of consistency in the child’s gender presentation, and feelings of non-conformity.”
In Ontario, we already have legislation to address this very issue. As we previously reviewed in “Gender Expression” Now Protected for Kids by Law Ontario’s amendments were aimed at:
courts, social workers, and adoption services. It mandates that when providing services or considering the best interests and welfare of a child, these entities must consider “race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”
It also prevents parents from challenging a child’s same-sex orientation, or with identification not with the gender that he or she was born, but rather the opposite one.
This directive gives rise to a corollary assessment as well: Whether a child should be removed from a home where the parents oppose a child’s declaration of his or her homosexuality or choice of “gender”. The principle behind this part of the legislation is that a parent who refuses to recognize a child’s preference in this regard is actually perpetrating abuse; the child’s removal from the home environment and into child protection facilities would prevent further abuse from occurring.
It would appear that Ontario is ahead of the curve by crafting legislation designed to protect the rights of the individual and the best interest of children.
What are your thoughts?