3 Comments

  1. I’m sure tehre is a LOT more to this story and I cannot find anything even inthe link you provided about them being under the protection of a trans activist organization.

    Typically, a LOT has to happen before a Swiss court even entertains the idea that the parents lose their parental rights and the kid is rehomed away from the family.

    For example, when the link you provided speaks of the parents suggesting ‘alternative care’, this can mean a lot of things. It might be an innocent, best attempt of the parents with a different psychologist, or it may be an abusive one, or religious treatment, or anything else.

    That the kid is being rehomed in a group home additionally suggests that a lot moer has happened. The first step would quite always be to have a legal guardian instated who is *not* the parents, and supports the family and the child, and protects the child’s rights, while the kid continues to live with the family if at all possible.

    Now, the following is speculation, but one could imagine that if the parents kept deadnaming the kid and using the pronouns the kid rejected – that could cause a lot of pain. If additionally they sought alternative care from, say, a pastor instead of a psychologist who knows about trans issues – then surely the government child protection agency should at least look into this situation.

    NB: THe organization you linked is a vile one. They do not have the best interest of the child in their focus; they exist to support parents that want to have their kids a certain way. Sorry to say but they are unreliable narrators and a campaigning organization against trans rights.

  2. >I thought Swiss law respected the rights of parents

    Yeah, unless the parents are abusing their child.

  3. A 15-year old is generally considered able to make their own medical decision as it is a strictly personal right. The parents interfered in the exercise of that right and the child had no contact with the parents for a year. The could held that the parents had neglected to fulfil their parental obligations. Nothing particularly shocking.

    Parents don’t have ‘rights’ over their child, they have obligations towards their child and authority to execute those obligations. If they neglect to undertake their obligations, it follows logically that their authority must also be removed.