Translate

Sunday, November 20, 2016

MINNESOTA MOTHER SUES AFTER 15 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES HORMONE TREATMENTS FOR GENDER TRANSITION WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT

MINNESOTA MOTHER SUES AFTER 15 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES HORMONE TREATMENTS WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — A mother in Minnesota has filed a federal lawsuit against state and county officials after her teenage son was granted emancipation without her knowledge or consent and was subsequently provided with hormonal treatment to begin a “gender transition” without her approval.
“Last year, without my knowledge or consent, without any court hearings or legal process, without any involvement on my part whatsoever, a legal aid group that gives free services to low income people created a notice of emancipation for my 15-year-old son,” Anmarie Calgaro outlined at a press conference on Wednesday. “Suddenly, my son, without any notice to me, was no longer under my supervision.”
Calgaro was consequently prohibited from receiving any information about her son, who was treated as an adult by the Department of Human Services and provided with public services, including assistance with food, housing and medical services.
“It was then brought to my knowledge that my son had begun receiving hormone replacement treatments from Park Nicollet health services to transition from male to female with medical assistance paying for this,” she said. “I was not consulted or informed about this in any way. I had no way to give or receive any information about my son.”
Calgaro learned that her son was also provided with narcotics as well.
“The news that county agencies and health services providers, the school and other county and state offices were completely bypassing me came as a complete and total shock. Why wasn’t I even notified?” she asked, breaking down in tears.
According to her lawsuit, Calgaro takes issue that the Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Clinic did not investigate any of Calgaro’s son’s claims about his relationship with his mother before issuing the emancipation. Calgaro says that the assertions her son had made, as reflected in a letter drafted by an attorney with the clinic, were false. She has six other children and is divorced.
Calgaro also believes that the emancipation is invalid as it was not issued by a court.
Earlier this year, Calgaro’s son sought to change his name from male to female, but was rejected by a district court, which noted that Minnesota law requires that the request be made by the parent or guardian. It also outlined that “a legal issue exists as to whether the juvenile petitioner herein has a legal basis to assert emancipation.”
“St. Louis County’s determination that [Calgaro’s son] was eligible for government-paid medical services was the cause of why Park Nicollet and Fairview determined that [Calgaro’s son] was emancipated for the purposes of providing medical services,” the legal complaint outlines.
Calgaro is seeking an injunction against further services being provided to her son, and is requesting that the court order the clinic and others to turn over his records for his mother’s review.
She is also requesting a declaratory judgment “that her due process rights under the U.S. Constitution Due Process Clause were violated by defendants because she has no statutory or common law cause of action to challenge in state court the defendants’ determinations of emancipation without a court order which led to the medical, educational and other services being provided and denial of access to medical, educational and other records without parental consent and without a court order.”
“This is an outrageous abuse of power by multiple agencies,” stated Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, which is representing Calgaro in court. “To treat a minor child without either parental consent or a court order of emancipation is a violation of the trust placed upon the human service sector and its governmental oversight agencies. To give a parent no recourse to intervene in this situation is an egregious violation of Constitutional rights.”