Shattered dad loses ALL custody of 16-yr-old trans child because he opposed hormone therapy
A California father lost custody of his transgender-identifying 16-year-old child after proclaiming his objection to hormone therapy. Ted Hudacko, the biological father, declared unconditional love for his child in court before California Superior Court Judge Joni Hiramoto, who repeatedly asked him whether he could affirm the child's self-identity. The youngster, who is biologically male, identifies as feminine and uses the pronouns they/them. Journalist Abigail Shrier reported the horrifying situation in a news piece in the City Journal, referring to the youngster as "Drew" in the report. The investigation began in 2019 but was just recently made public. Hudacko's wife, Christine Underhill-Hudacko, who had been supportive of the child's transition, had initially filed for divorce.
According to the story, the father lost all parental rights as a result of his position, including the ability to visit his kid and the right to refuse any medical treatments that may render the child permanently infertile. According to Shrier, the father was concerned about hormone therapy and asked the judge to "consider research that suggested puberty blockers could impair cognition and diminish bone density." Hormone therapy, according to the father, may render his child sterile for the rest of his life, which would be a huge problem if the child eventually decided to de-transition.
RELATED ARTICLES
Shrier stated, "he wasn't even sure his son had gender dysphoria. He wanted to see his son.” According to the court transcript, the judge inquired, “[D]o you think that being transgender is a sin?” and the father replied, “no, of course, I don’t think it’s a sin.” Then the judge asked, “So you don’t think that it’s a sin. But you probably think that [Drew], if they are truly transgender, you would prefer that [Drew] not be transgender because, in our society, transgender people are the subject of a lot of discrimination. Would you agree with that?”
The father answered, “I agree that transgender people suffer some discrimination and prejudice. I agree with that.” Even though the father admitted that the child "might be" transgender, the judge did not allow him to keep his parental rights. The judge stated, “It sounds to me that you would prefer that [Drew], when all is said and done, is just going through a phase. Is that a fair assessment?” According to Shrier, the father avoided answering the question because he thought the judge was attempting to catch him off guard.
Shrier wrote, “In the three years I’ve spent writing about families with transgender-identifying minors, the story of Ted Hudacko stood out as a case study of how gender ideology has infiltrated family law. It also frames the unintended consequences of medical professionals’ fudging science, rewriting medical definitions, and tolerating shoddy research to placate activists. At each stage, doctors may have thought: Where was the harm? And so, as a consequence, judges now decide the fate of children and their families based on phony, medically unsubstantiated metaphysics, as if it were factual that all adolescents have an immutable, ineffable ‘gender identity,’ knowable only to the adolescents themselves.”
The parent was stunned when he saw a $209,820.34 bill on his insurance account last year. The expense of a puberty-blocking device and cross-sex hormone therapies came to that amount. Meanwhile, the judge has kept quiet about the fact that her own child is transgender and that she actively supports them on social media. It was referred to as a conflict of interest by Shrier. The case, according to the California Policy Council, is a terrible example of "groupthink." The council stated, “the system within our country and state that is meant to protect and establish justice has done the exact opposite. This case should frighten and awaken our entire country. Our own judicial system is under attack by dangerous gender ideology, and if we don’t boldly stand up now, the trend will continue, and parents’ rights will be dependent on their wokeness.”