"The more significant amendment is to emergency jurisdiction, which allows courts to override the other rules if the child is present in the state and has been abandoned or abused. Minnesota’s new law adds another circumstance: “the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care[.]” When this happens, the Minnesota judge is supposed to throw out all other considerations and find it’s her job to hear the case.
So consider the following scenario. A child who is resident in Minnesota runs away from home in Minnesota because her parents will not allow her to get "gender-affirming health care". She hooks up with a glitter family and the ACLU. The ACLU asks a family court judge in Minnesota to take emergency jurisdiction, and order the child to receive "gender-affirming health care", against the wishes of her parents. The judge agrees and so orders, giving custody to the glitter family for as long as "gender-affirming health care" is ongoing.
This law applies only to interstate child custody jurisdiction. If all the parties are in Minnesota, then jurisdiction won't be an issue. The judge would have to rule the parents unfit before taking custody away from them and granting it to the glitter family. Unfit is a very high bar. Minnesota hasn't written gender stuff into its fitness standard. There are probably precedents in Minn about parents withholding medical care, and the parties would litigate whether gender med is life-saving, etc.
If the child were running away from ND to Minn, I think a Minn judge could take emergency jurisdiction under this law. But a few things. First, as discussed in the post, if the parents seek custody in ND then the ND court might issue a conflicting order (eek). Second, even if the Minn judge takes jurisdiction, she can still rule the kid has to go back to ND. And she should do that because the fitness standard governs. That's a paradoxical outcome given the Showdown Law considers ND's lack of PGM an "emergency" ... and so the parties might end up spending a lot of money on appeals to sort it out.
If the kid is 16 or 17 then a Minn court with jurisdiction could also just issue an order emancipating them.
UB, thanks so much for your responses—which for whatever reason Substack didn’t flag for me so I only spotted them today.
Kara Dansky, as you may be aware, had an op-ed published in The Hill on the subject of the MN law. In it, she writes: “So the effect of this law is that Minnesota courts have the power to remove children from their own parents’ custody if the parents (inside or outside of Minnesota) wish to protect their children from harmful hormones or surgeries.” https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4836909-minnesota-trans-refuge-walz-questions/ Do you disagree with that?
It strikes me that it would be quite interesting to listen to a convo between Kara and you about the MN law. I would certainly be interested!
I interpreted the language to mean "unable to receive PGM because of a ban," but I guess it could also mean "unable to receive PGM because the mean mom in the other state said no." This is an especially problematic divergence from the spirit of the UCCJEA, which is about basing jurisdiction rulings on objective facts, not wading into the merits (whether the kid should receive PGM). I'd certainly argue against this interpretation but a plain reading allows it.
Technically, the judge could assert jurisdiction on this ground, but also order the kid back to the other state! Because this is a poorly drafted law.
Not sure about that "inside ... of Minnesota" line. All this law does is let judges assert jurisdiction.
Thanks. I accept your expert opinion, but I will note that nowhere in the law itself does it say that it applies ONLY to interstate jurisdiction. The same is true in California, which was the progenitor state for all this via SB 107:
From the SB 107 Bill Summary: "The bill would authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care."
(a) A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined by Section 16010.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code [definition quoted below].
(b) If there is no previous child custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this part and a child custody proceeding has not been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive, a child custody determination made under this section remains in effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive. If a child custody proceeding has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive, a child custody determination made under this section becomes a final determination, if it so provides and this state becomes the home state of the child.
(b)(3)(A) “Gender affirming health care” means medically necessary health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient, and may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(i) Interventions to suppress the development of endogenous secondary sex characteristics.
(ii) Interventions to align the patient's appearance or physical body with the patient's gender identity.
(iii) Interventions to alleviate symptoms of clinically significant distress resulting from gender dysphoria, as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition.
(B) “Gender affirming mental health care” means mental health care or behavioral health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient, and may include, but is not limited to, developmentally appropriate exploration and integration of identity, reduction of distress, adaptive coping, and strategies to increase family acceptance.
Thank you for another insightful careful explanation of these laws. People seem to focus on their good intentions while dismissing any possible bad outcomes with this state law. I wonder how much Walz really got involved with this versus being persuaded by all the advisors around him, especially the refuge bill’s author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Finke
Thank you to Matt and to Unyeilding Bicycle, I've been waiting for someone to explain the actual consequences of the Walz-signed Minnesota legislation, this was helpful. It sounds like the Minnesota "sanctuary" law maybe goes even further than those enacted in California, Washington, and Oregon? I am especially wondering about my state, Washington. Or is it pretty similar? I was assuming all of these "sanctuary" laws in blue states were based on each other.
The Showdown Laws are different in every state I've looked into (though addressing the same concepts). IIRC California's is extreme when it comes to conflicting with the UCCJEA. I haven't looked at Washington's.
I don’t know anything about him—or if he was instrumental in getting the MN trans sanctuary law passed. I don’t know much about Minnesota either, but I wonder about the role that “Minnesota nice” might play in Democratic/leftist politics. “Be kind” on literal steroids?
"I’m not excusing Walz for signing the Showdown Law. I am trying to rate him in a meaningful way – is he better or worse than the average Democratic politician? The same, I guess. He grandstands, believes opposition to PGM is hateful, and doesn’t heed any advisors who know how laws work. This is the Democratic party in 2024."
How did we reach this state of affairs? It came about as a result of massive, nationwide influence campaigns. Former gay rights organizations such as HRC and GLAAD were captured by gender ideology and proceeded to do what they do best: lobby government and business and mount public relations campaigns aimed at the general public. In the meantime, Queers and Trans folk were operating within the hip, lefty and woo-adjacent subcultures in urban centers throughout the nation and in the process they created the Queer and Trans scene in popular culture and online that is remarkably effective at gaining new converts.
If sex realists are going to roll back the excesses of trans activism such as the credulous Waltz's gender sanctuary law, they will need to fund raise, organize and embark on an activist sex-realist agenda at the local, state and national level. That's a tall order considering that mainstream society has absolutely no tolerance for the slightest criticism of gender identity ideology and its pernicious consequences, much less so-called gender medicine that is everywhere falsely considered lifesaving and the only possible response to gender dysphoria.
We will also need to have a litigation strategy. The targets are so obvious and vulnerable: unproven gender medicine, a Castro consensus within the medical establishment that allows a few gender identity zealots to impose their trans agenda on a membership of phyisicians who have no say in the matter (that's some standard of care!) and, of course, the utter hogwash that is the fiction of informed consent by minors and young adults to aggressive therapeutic interventions that have lasting, life-changing and perhaps unpredictable adverse consequences the patients lack the life experience and knowledge to understand.
Are there any sex realist billionaire angels out there who have the capacity to fund this movement without bringing loony or odious ideologies with them?
I found this to be very helpful and informative. I have no doubt that Walz, like most other lefties (myself excluded) has been fooled by the lies and manipulations of the Gender Rights Activists (GRAs.) Although I think Walz was 100% in the wrong here, it is the only thing he's done that has disapointed me. I would be much more disappointed by a 2nd and everlasting Trump presidency. I think that is the greater danger. I think we should stand by Harris/Walz until just after the election, once they are inaugurated, and then we can tighten the thumbscrews.
This is an extremely helpful and thorough analysis. Even though I am a retired attorney (emphasis on retired), I find the family law area particularly hard to parse. Now, I am wondering about a couple things.
One, for purposes of trying to give a picture of the problems the MN law creates to friends who are totally out of the loop, would it be fair to say, in the event of a custody fight between one parent who wishes to protect the child from medicalization and another who wants to allow medicalization, assuming jurisdiction requirements are met, that MN law allows for an MN court to give the pro-medicalization parent custody?
Also, I remember a couple occasions on which Lisa noted NY laws/proposed laws that confer advantages to pro-medicalization parents/custodians in some instances. Is there anything on the books/in the offing in NY to which your MN analysis would apply?
This MN law is just about jurisdiction, not the merits. Though as I wrote above to MarkS, it would be paradoxical for a judge to assert custody because of gender medicine but then order custody to a non-affirming parent. I don't think MN family law addresses gender medicine on the merits (we usually hear about that -- e.g. in California).
IIRC, NY's sanctuary law actually defers to the UCCJEA (its sponsors exaggerated its reach). I'm not aware of other law in NY that would factor gender medicine into custody disputes on the merits, but I could be missing something.
and a Trump administration would be better? That would end democracy in the U.S. He’s a lying, narcissistic, p-grabber. But, you might be right, Repubs in power would probably lead to arrests for cross-dressing, genital checks in women’s restrooms (but only suspicious looking dyke types) and, well, why not pregnancy farms for wayward women?
"The more significant amendment is to emergency jurisdiction, which allows courts to override the other rules if the child is present in the state and has been abandoned or abused. Minnesota’s new law adds another circumstance: “the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care[.]” When this happens, the Minnesota judge is supposed to throw out all other considerations and find it’s her job to hear the case.
So consider the following scenario. A child who is resident in Minnesota runs away from home in Minnesota because her parents will not allow her to get "gender-affirming health care". She hooks up with a glitter family and the ACLU. The ACLU asks a family court judge in Minnesota to take emergency jurisdiction, and order the child to receive "gender-affirming health care", against the wishes of her parents. The judge agrees and so orders, giving custody to the glitter family for as long as "gender-affirming health care" is ongoing.
Could this happen? It seems to me that it could.
This law applies only to interstate child custody jurisdiction. If all the parties are in Minnesota, then jurisdiction won't be an issue. The judge would have to rule the parents unfit before taking custody away from them and granting it to the glitter family. Unfit is a very high bar. Minnesota hasn't written gender stuff into its fitness standard. There are probably precedents in Minn about parents withholding medical care, and the parties would litigate whether gender med is life-saving, etc.
If the child were running away from ND to Minn, I think a Minn judge could take emergency jurisdiction under this law. But a few things. First, as discussed in the post, if the parents seek custody in ND then the ND court might issue a conflicting order (eek). Second, even if the Minn judge takes jurisdiction, she can still rule the kid has to go back to ND. And she should do that because the fitness standard governs. That's a paradoxical outcome given the Showdown Law considers ND's lack of PGM an "emergency" ... and so the parties might end up spending a lot of money on appeals to sort it out.
If the kid is 16 or 17 then a Minn court with jurisdiction could also just issue an order emancipating them.
UB, thanks so much for your responses—which for whatever reason Substack didn’t flag for me so I only spotted them today.
Kara Dansky, as you may be aware, had an op-ed published in The Hill on the subject of the MN law. In it, she writes: “So the effect of this law is that Minnesota courts have the power to remove children from their own parents’ custody if the parents (inside or outside of Minnesota) wish to protect their children from harmful hormones or surgeries.” https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4836909-minnesota-trans-refuge-walz-questions/ Do you disagree with that?
It strikes me that it would be quite interesting to listen to a convo between Kara and you about the MN law. I would certainly be interested!
I interpreted the language to mean "unable to receive PGM because of a ban," but I guess it could also mean "unable to receive PGM because the mean mom in the other state said no." This is an especially problematic divergence from the spirit of the UCCJEA, which is about basing jurisdiction rulings on objective facts, not wading into the merits (whether the kid should receive PGM). I'd certainly argue against this interpretation but a plain reading allows it.
Technically, the judge could assert jurisdiction on this ground, but also order the kid back to the other state! Because this is a poorly drafted law.
Not sure about that "inside ... of Minnesota" line. All this law does is let judges assert jurisdiction.
Thanks. I accept your expert opinion, but I will note that nowhere in the law itself does it say that it applies ONLY to interstate jurisdiction. The same is true in California, which was the progenitor state for all this via SB 107:
From the SB 107 Bill Summary: "The bill would authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care."
https://pluralpolicy.com/app/legislative-tracking/bill/details/state-ca-20212022-sb107/1035849
Family Code, Section 3424, as amended by SB 107:
(a) A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined by Section 16010.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code [definition quoted below].
(b) If there is no previous child custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this part and a child custody proceeding has not been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive, a child custody determination made under this section remains in effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive. If a child custody proceeding has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive, a child custody determination made under this section becomes a final determination, if it so provides and this state becomes the home state of the child.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=3424.
Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 16010.2:
(b)(3)(A) “Gender affirming health care” means medically necessary health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient, and may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(i) Interventions to suppress the development of endogenous secondary sex characteristics.
(ii) Interventions to align the patient's appearance or physical body with the patient's gender identity.
(iii) Interventions to alleviate symptoms of clinically significant distress resulting from gender dysphoria, as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition.
(B) “Gender affirming mental health care” means mental health care or behavioral health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient, and may include, but is not limited to, developmentally appropriate exploration and integration of identity, reduction of distress, adaptive coping, and strategies to increase family acceptance.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=16010.2&lawCode=WIC
This seems a plausible result to me as well. If UB, you see Mark’s Q and have time to respond, I’d be very interested in your view on this, too.
answered above
Thank you for another insightful careful explanation of these laws. People seem to focus on their good intentions while dismissing any possible bad outcomes with this state law. I wonder how much Walz really got involved with this versus being persuaded by all the advisors around him, especially the refuge bill’s author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Finke
Thank you to Matt and to Unyeilding Bicycle, I've been waiting for someone to explain the actual consequences of the Walz-signed Minnesota legislation, this was helpful. It sounds like the Minnesota "sanctuary" law maybe goes even further than those enacted in California, Washington, and Oregon? I am especially wondering about my state, Washington. Or is it pretty similar? I was assuming all of these "sanctuary" laws in blue states were based on each other.
The Showdown Laws are different in every state I've looked into (though addressing the same concepts). IIRC California's is extreme when it comes to conflicting with the UCCJEA. I haven't looked at Washington's.
TBH it shouldn’t matter if he’s a true believer or a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy. As you note UB, the resulting bad law is the same.
Now do a deep dive into (shudder) “Leigh” Finke, the hulking “transwoman” who pushed through this monstrosity!
I might do a deep dive on Minnesota history at some point. If you have any materials on Finke's transition/early inspirations, I'd be curious!
I don’t know anything about him—or if he was instrumental in getting the MN trans sanctuary law passed. I don’t know much about Minnesota either, but I wonder about the role that “Minnesota nice” might play in Democratic/leftist politics. “Be kind” on literal steroids?
Minnesota has been at the vanguard of trans since 1966. It's institutional at this point.
"I’m not excusing Walz for signing the Showdown Law. I am trying to rate him in a meaningful way – is he better or worse than the average Democratic politician? The same, I guess. He grandstands, believes opposition to PGM is hateful, and doesn’t heed any advisors who know how laws work. This is the Democratic party in 2024."
How did we reach this state of affairs? It came about as a result of massive, nationwide influence campaigns. Former gay rights organizations such as HRC and GLAAD were captured by gender ideology and proceeded to do what they do best: lobby government and business and mount public relations campaigns aimed at the general public. In the meantime, Queers and Trans folk were operating within the hip, lefty and woo-adjacent subcultures in urban centers throughout the nation and in the process they created the Queer and Trans scene in popular culture and online that is remarkably effective at gaining new converts.
If sex realists are going to roll back the excesses of trans activism such as the credulous Waltz's gender sanctuary law, they will need to fund raise, organize and embark on an activist sex-realist agenda at the local, state and national level. That's a tall order considering that mainstream society has absolutely no tolerance for the slightest criticism of gender identity ideology and its pernicious consequences, much less so-called gender medicine that is everywhere falsely considered lifesaving and the only possible response to gender dysphoria.
We will also need to have a litigation strategy. The targets are so obvious and vulnerable: unproven gender medicine, a Castro consensus within the medical establishment that allows a few gender identity zealots to impose their trans agenda on a membership of phyisicians who have no say in the matter (that's some standard of care!) and, of course, the utter hogwash that is the fiction of informed consent by minors and young adults to aggressive therapeutic interventions that have lasting, life-changing and perhaps unpredictable adverse consequences the patients lack the life experience and knowledge to understand.
Are there any sex realist billionaire angels out there who have the capacity to fund this movement without bringing loony or odious ideologies with them?
I found this to be very helpful and informative. I have no doubt that Walz, like most other lefties (myself excluded) has been fooled by the lies and manipulations of the Gender Rights Activists (GRAs.) Although I think Walz was 100% in the wrong here, it is the only thing he's done that has disapointed me. I would be much more disappointed by a 2nd and everlasting Trump presidency. I think that is the greater danger. I think we should stand by Harris/Walz until just after the election, once they are inaugurated, and then we can tighten the thumbscrews.
This is an extremely helpful and thorough analysis. Even though I am a retired attorney (emphasis on retired), I find the family law area particularly hard to parse. Now, I am wondering about a couple things.
One, for purposes of trying to give a picture of the problems the MN law creates to friends who are totally out of the loop, would it be fair to say, in the event of a custody fight between one parent who wishes to protect the child from medicalization and another who wants to allow medicalization, assuming jurisdiction requirements are met, that MN law allows for an MN court to give the pro-medicalization parent custody?
Also, I remember a couple occasions on which Lisa noted NY laws/proposed laws that confer advantages to pro-medicalization parents/custodians in some instances. Is there anything on the books/in the offing in NY to which your MN analysis would apply?
This MN law is just about jurisdiction, not the merits. Though as I wrote above to MarkS, it would be paradoxical for a judge to assert custody because of gender medicine but then order custody to a non-affirming parent. I don't think MN family law addresses gender medicine on the merits (we usually hear about that -- e.g. in California).
IIRC, NY's sanctuary law actually defers to the UCCJEA (its sponsors exaggerated its reach). I'm not aware of other law in NY that would factor gender medicine into custody disputes on the merits, but I could be missing something.
I, too, am a retired lawyer. This piece reminded me why I stayed away from family law.
“…is he better or worse than the average democratic politician?”
Ummm, to give this “kindly, old uncle-type” ANY benevolent leeway is tantamount to the most egregious neglect of common sense possible.
and a Trump administration would be better? That would end democracy in the U.S. He’s a lying, narcissistic, p-grabber. But, you might be right, Repubs in power would probably lead to arrests for cross-dressing, genital checks in women’s restrooms (but only suspicious looking dyke types) and, well, why not pregnancy farms for wayward women?