Texas Mom Who Wanted To ‘Transition’ 7-Year-Old Son To Girl Loses Again In Court

On October 21, a jury initially ruled against Mr. Younger, denying his request for sole managing conservatorship. The jury also ruled that the decision making authority for the boys should rest in one person, known as sole managing conservatorship. The jury was not given the ability to specify who the sole managing conservator of the boys should be if it wasn’t Mr. Younger.

The jury’s ruling sparked public outcry, attracting the attention of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, Senator Ted Cruz, and many other political and influential figures.

In a closed hearing on October 24, Judge Kim Cooks issued her ruling granting both parents joint decision-making rights. There were many other provisions to the ruling, which can be found in full here. One notable provision was the alteration of custody to 50/50 custody once approved by a counselor.

On November 5, Dr. Georgulas challenged Judge Cooks’ ruling and had requested the court be forced to conform to the jury’s initial October ruling.

In court today, Judge Mary Brown denied Dr. Georgulas motion to conform to the jury verdict and entered Judge Cooks’ ruling as an official order.

Today, Judge Brown ruled on three motions, a motion to enter Judge Cooks’ order, a motion to conform to the jury ruling, and a motion to disqualify the parental coordinator. Judge Brown was hearing the case as Judge Cooks was recused from the case at the request of Dr. Georgulas.

The motion to enter Judge Cooks’ order was filed by Mr. Younger and his lawyer Mr. Odeneal. This motion requested that Judge Cooks’ ruling be signed and made into a legally binding order.

The motion to conform to the jury’s ruling and the motion to disqualify the parental coordinator were filed by Dr. Georgulas and her lawyer Ms. Janicek. The motion to conform to the jury’s ruling argued that Judge Cooks had no legal right to grant Mr. Younger joint managing conservatorship since the jury had ruled there should be a sole managing conservator and it should not be Mr. Younger. Therefore, the motion argued, “the court contravened the jury’s answers,” something it was “not authorized” to do.

In court today, Dr. Georgulas’ attorney argued that Judge Cooks’ ruling was invalid and unenforceable, requesting that the court return to the prior order. The prior order also maintained Mr. Younger’s minimum possession schedule ensuring the boys didn’t stay with him on any school nights.

She also argued that since the jury ruled in favor of a sole managing conservator for the boys and did not grant Mr. Younger that right, that therefore they implicity granted it to Dr. Georgulas. The amicus attorney pointed out that a jury does not understand the nuances of conservatorship and could have been thinking of granting the sole managing conservatorship to the court, to CPS, or even to the amicus himself.

In the state of Texas a sole managing conservator is responsible for making all decisions relating to a minor, ie, treatment decisions, educational decisions, if they can enlist in the armed forces, etc.

Dr. Georgulas’ attorney also filed the motion requesting that the parenting coordinator appointed in Judge Cooks’ ruling be disqualified. Judge Cooks appointed the amicus attorney, Stacey Dunlop, to be the parenting coordinator, or mediator between Dr. Georgulas and Mr. Younger for serious decisions pertaining to the boys in which they do not agree.

The argument to disqualify the parenting coordinator centered mainly around the concern that he becomes a tie breaker rather than a mediator and would then ultimately be making most of the difficult decisions for the twin boys.

Judge Brown ruled against this motion to disqualify Mr. Dunlop as the parenting coordinator.

Dr. Georgulas’ lawyer told the court she would bring a motion for a new trial. She argued that Judge Cooks’ ruling and now the new order was not authorized based on the jury’s verdict, nor  is it enforceable.

Story cited here.

Share this article:

Facebook

Twitter