You won’t believe this!
The mother of a Minnesota son, who was maneuvered by county authorities through a “sex change”, told the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case. She accuses the government of usurping her parental rights when, against her wishes, her officials supplied her child with transgender facilities and narcotics.
On behalf of Anmarie Calgaro, the Thomas More Society requested the High Court on Wednesday, arguing that the due process rights of Calgaro were “trampled on” when St. Louis County and its health care suppliers “ended her parental control over her minor son without a court order of emancipation.”
“It’s a parent’s worst nightmare,” Thomas More Society special counsel Erick Kaardal stated. “Anmarie Calgaro’s child, while a minor, was steered through a life-changing, permanent body altering process, becoming a pawn in someone else’s sociopolitical agenda and being influenced by those who have no legal or moral right to usurp the role of a parent.”
Calgaro sued federal court state authorities and health care providers in 2016 for terminating her parental rights without due process after her minor was offered elective medical facilities for a so-called “gender shift” without her permission or legal emancipation order.
Her suit said the entities of the state decided on their own to emancipate the then-17-year-old kid.
The plaintiffs treated the child of Calgaro as an emancipated minor even though there was no court action to that impact, states the declaration from Thomas More. Before ending her parental rights over her minor child, neither the school district, the county, nor any of the medical organizations named in the lawsuit gave Calgaro notice or hearing.
In May 2017, a district judge rejected Calgaro’s lawsuit, admitting that a court order did not legally emancipate the child, but ruled that Calgaro’s parental rights “remained intact.” The Thomas More Society claims the judge decreed that the county, college, and medical care providers did not infringe constitutionally protected parental rights by de facto emancipating Calgaro’s minor child.
The case was brought to court in July 2017 and the district court decision upheld in March of this year by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Without any grounds, St. Louis County decided that Calgaro’s son was emancipated and could receive public advantages, even though Calgaro was a “fit parent” who objected to their behavior, the Supreme Court’s legal non-profit declaration said.
“Unbelievably, Minnesota statutes authorize a county to deem a minor ‘emancipated’ to receive welfare payments to live on their own and allow medical providers to void parental input if it determines the minor is living apart from the parents and is managing personal financial affairs,” stated Kaardal.
“And the St. Louis County School District in Minnesota has a custom and practice of barring a parent from involvement in the child’s education for more than two years after a child is deemed by the school principal, not by a court order, to be emancipated,” he said. “This is an unacceptable situation for any parent and a serious violation of parental and due process rights.”
Minnesota’s emancipation language is vague, and state law does not present procedural due process privileges for “fit parents,” according to Kaardal, although it does so for those considered unsuitable.
“Why wouldn’t we make this same effort for fit parents?” he asked.
Kaardal said he was particularly worried about the dispute in the legal laws of Minnesota.
“The U.S. Court of Appeals ignored the major disconnect in the District Court decision where the mother’s parental rights are admitted but not honored, and the ridiculous claims that the agencies which have violated Calgaro’s rights did nothing wrong,” he said. “The United States Supreme Court now has the opportunity to untangle this incompatible and untenable scenario; so, nationwide fit parents can keep parenting without governmental interference.”
“Under federal law, the right to parent is considered an unenumerated right, protected from governmental interference by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” stated Kaardal. “The “liberty” of the Due Process Clauses safeguards those substantive rights “so rooted in the traditions and conscience as to be ranked as fundamental.”
The U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes in October.