Summary of Wednesday’s opinion in H.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families by the Florida Court of Appeal (Judge Edward Artau, joined by Chief Judge Mark Klingensmith):
In this case, the father, a Christian minister and youth pastor, lawfully opposes gender transition for his minor child based on moral and religious beliefs. He raised concerns about receiving a fair hearing due to remarks from the trial judge suggesting bias against his beliefs.
Upon review, the court agreed with the father’s concerns and granted his petition for a writ of prohibition. The father’s fear of bias from the trial judge was deemed reasonable and well-grounded.
The court emphasized the importance of parental rights in directing a child’s upbringing, which are deeply rooted in common law and protected by legislation such as section 1014.04(1) of the Florida Statutes. The father has the right to rely on his moral and religious beliefs in guiding his child’s upbringing.
Additionally, the father has the lawful right to refuse gender transition treatment for his child before adulthood, in accordance with Florida law. The trial judge’s pre-hearing remarks were seen as unfavorable towards the father’s beliefs and parenting rights, indicating a bias in favor of the child’s gender transition.
Furthermore, the trial judge’s interaction with the child raised concerns about impartiality, as the judge discussed potential outcomes without considering the father’s rights. Overall, the court recognized and upheld the father’s rights to direct his child’s upbringing based on his moral and religious convictions.
The trial judge’s comments suggested that she had already made up her mind about the father’s fitness as a custodial parent based on his moral and religious beliefs, even before hearing his motion. This preconceived notion could lead an impartial observer to believe that the judge would not rule in the father’s favor, regardless of the legal arguments presented. The trial judge’s actions were appropriate and did not show bias against the father’s moral or religious beliefs. The judge did not suggest that the father needed to change his beliefs to be a suitable custodial parent. Despite the majority’s interpretation, the judge’s comments were not hostile towards the father or his rights to raise the child according to his beliefs. The judge did not indicate how she would rule on the case, as per the ruling in Brown v. Pate. It is not accurate to say that the judge had already made up her mind about the case and was in favor of the child’s gender transition. Antony P. Ryan and Richard G. Bartmon are representing the father in this matter.
Source link
