53

A recent PostMilennial article claims:

After the hearing, Hoogland gave an interview to The Federalist saying that people cannot change sex, and that mega-doses of exogenous testosterone would damage his vulnerable, biological female child's health.

Justice Mazari then summarily convicted Hoogland of family violence on the basis that he had declined to use his child's preferred masculine pronouns. Mazari authorized a warrant for Hoogland's arrest in the event that he ever used the correct sex pronouns to refer to his daughter again.

I do not recognize the PostMilennial as a reputable source. However, the website makes some verifiable claims that I would like to make sure are true.

Namely:

  1. Robert was required by the court to refer to his AFAB child as a male.
  2. Robert was jailed for referring to his child as a female.

Gaylaw.net provides a link to the 2019 Protection Order:

a) CD shall be restrained from:

i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

I don't recognize gaylawnet, but seeing as both a left wing source and right wing source quote the same decision, it seems accurate.

As for claim (2), I cannot seem to figure out why he was jailed. It can be as thepostmillennial claims, but some other sources claim that it is simply because he publicly discussed the fact that his child is going through gender transition.

So what is the truth? Was he jailed for referring to his child as a female? Was he jailed for talking about his child's gender transition publicly? Or is it for some other reason?

3
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Oddthinking Mar 19 at 17:02
  • 7
    This is an official British Columbia link to the decision quoting the order bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/02/2019BCSC0254cor1.htm " Attempting to persuade A.B. to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing A.B. by his birth name; referring to A.B. as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act." – DavePhD Mar 19 at 18:14
  • 7
    It is agreed the father violated multiple parts of the court order and you are asking what specific part the judge had in mind when he jailed the father. The jailing was summary as most contempt proceedings are, so the judge almost certainly did not record an opinion. So this question invites speculation on a near unanswerable question: Don't expect anything other than biased answers. – Hasse1987 Mar 20 at 2:07
118

Reliable information about this case is hard to find because there is a publication ban on the family identity and on discussion of the child's gender change. However here is a reliable report which I am fairly certain is the same case. Even reading the parts available without paying:

A B.C. father who has been a vocal critic of his transgender child’s decision to pursue hormone treatment was placed in handcuffs Tuesday and remanded into custody at least until the end of the week after being rebuked by a judge for “persistently and consistently” violating court-ordered publication bans restricting what he can say about the case.

In other words the the father was not remanded in custody for referring to his child as "she", but for continuing to argue the case in media after being ordered not to do so.

Here is another report:

[The father] allegedly repeatedly breached a court order requiring him not to publicly discuss the details of the case, which is currently under a publication ban due to the child’s age. [...] [He] was taken into custody after the BC Supreme Court granted a warrant based on “allegations that CD had committed further breaches of the court order.”

6
  • 10
    Your second hyperlink is broken and should be tnc.news/2021/03/17/… and comes from "True North Canada", which in other areas is sometimes seen as unbalanced, though not necessarily here. The same article says "CD was also ordered by a court to only refer to his child by their chosen male name and use male pronouns both publicly and privately under threat of being charged with “family violence.” Your first link comes from the Toronto Star, a leading Canadian broadsheet newspaper – Henry Mar 19 at 15:50
  • 37
    Sounds like contempt of court to me. Disrespecting a judge or refusing to do something the judge ordered you to do is a great way to tick off said judge, which in turn is a great way to get yourself thrown in the pokey. In a lot of jurisdictions there's no trial necessary, and no maximum sentence. – T.E.D. Mar 19 at 19:20
  • 1
    Both @Henry's link and DJ's link are broken for me. In fact, the whole tnc.news site doesn't work. Just me? Just temporary? – Oddthinking Mar 20 at 2:15
  • 1
    Both links are working for me right now. – Erik Mar 20 at 17:17
  • None of your quotes show that it wasn't for referring to the child as "she" that the father waas remanded in custody. Your first quote claims that hw was remanded into custody after being rebuked by the judge for violating the ban restricting what he can say - and that's the same ban that forbids him to call the child "she". The second report says that the father breached a court order that required him not to publicly discuss the case - and that's the same court order that forbids him to call the child "she". So even if all the father did was call the child "she" (which I'm not claiming) ... – sgf yesterday
38

Yes.

Once you dig through the censorship issues and publication bans, the actual court order says this:

  1. It is declared under the Family Law Act that:

(a) AB is exclusively entitled to consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria and to take any necessary legal proceedings in relation to such medical treatment;

(b) Pursuant to para. 201(2)(b), AB is permitted to bring this application under the Family Law Act and to bring or defend any further or future proceedings concerning his gender identity; and

(c) Attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing AB by his birth name; referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act.

Publicly available at

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation: A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 604 Date: 20190415 Docket: E190334 Registry: Vancouver

Between:

A.B. Claimant

C.D. and E.F.

[…] Is CD likely to commit acts of family violence against AB?

[20] Family violence can take many forms. Family violence is defined in s.1 of the FLA, but that definition is inclusive and not exclusive. The inclusive definition of “family violence” recognizes that the risk of harm extends beyond the infliction of physical violence: Morgadinho at para. 59. I note that in particular, the definition encompasses psychological abuse in the form of harassment or coercion, and unreasonable restrictions or preventions of a family member’s personal autonomy. In the case of a child, both direct and indirect exposure to such harm may constitute family violence.

[21] This Court has already determined that it is a form of family violence to AB for any of his family members to address him by his birth name, refer to him as a girl or with female pronouns (whether to him directly or to third parties), or to attempt to persuade him to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria. AB says that the evidence establishes that CD has done all of the above, and has continued to do so even after the Court found that these actions were contrary to AB’s best interests and constitute family violence.

[22] In argument, the focus of AB’s concern was CD’s continued willingness to provide interviews to the media and social media outlets in which he identifies AB as female, uses a female name for AB, discusses AB’s personal and medical information in detail, and expresses his opposition to the therapies AB has chosen.

It goes on. Like in this subsequent court process on the same matter.

So, while we here probably should refrain from using any names to identify the persons involved:

We see clearly that this court decision refers to addressing the transitioning person directly or through third parties in the wrong way constitutes punishable "family violence".
It is therefore not true to just assume that this is solely based on the father's public words. Although that probably adds gravitas and makes it much easier to prove that he continues what he was told not to do, privately and publicly. As the court predicted, the father failed to comply to these orders on multiple occasions.

These proceedings are analysed an evaluated in — Pat Shannon: "Trusting Transgender Youth: A Commentary on AB v CD and EF", Candaian Bar Association, 2019 (For the original ruling)

And for the latest arrest:

But what began as a family court dispute has now wound up in criminal charges due to allegations that C.D. is persistent in violating court orders.

The orders instruct him to not make public any information that would identify A.B., or the medical professionals involved, to call A.B. by the child’s preferred name and gender pronoun, and to not share his opinions of the case publicly.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal laid out the court orders C.D. was to abide by in January 2020. Since then, the B.C. Prosecution Service alleges he has failed to do so on multiple occasions.

In June 2020, C.D. gave an interview to a YouTube channel, where he’s alleged to have identified health-care providers, revealed information about A.B.’s mental health, medical status or treatments, and gave out information that could reveal C.D., A.B. and the mother’s identity.

He was charged with contempt of court, and that matter will come before the court in April.

On Tuesday, C.D. was back in court, arrested for allegedly breaching court orders again. The B.C. Prosecution Service told National Post that “the subsequent breach of court order allegations are being treated as aggravating circumstances.”

This is somewhat mitigated by issunig the following:

“This order should not restrict C.D.’s right to express his opinion in his private communications with family, close friends and close advisors, provided none of these individuals is part of or connected with the media or any public forum, and provided C.D. obtain assurances from those with whom he shares information or views that they will not share that information with others,” the court said.

—Tyler Dawson "B.C. father arrested, held in jail for repeatedly violating court orders over child's gender transition therapy He is alleged to have revealed information about his child's mental health, medical status or treatments, and gave information that could reveal the family's identity", National Post, Mar 17, 2021

The complaints raised here in comments and expressed via downvotes seem to require some redundancy and meta-communication. This answer is not evaluating the personal situation and family dynamics of anyone involved in that case. It does not take sides whether anyone is 'right' or 'wrong' in that case. It not even condones whether anything the law says or the court ruled is of any such quality. This answer merely shows what the courts have ruled.

To repeat from the court ruling:

In conclusion, I find that AB is an at-risk family member who is highly vulnerable. I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of AB’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against AB. Finally, I find that CD’s conduct in this regard is persistent and unlikely to cease in the absence of a clear order to restrain it.

Under 'scope of the restraining order for protection'

I begin with conduct that has already been declared by this Court after summary trial to be family violence. This includes attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria, addressing AB by his birth name, and referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns, whether to AB directly or to third parties and publicly.

The protection order is required to be prepared by the Registry. However, I will summarize the substance of the order here:

a) CD shall be restrained from:

i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria;

ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and

iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

So, the issue of 'how to refer to his offspring' is clearly one major part of the current arrest. As the court is quoted: "the subsequent breach of court order allegations are being treated as aggravating circumstances."

'It was not 'solely about talking details to the press'/'violating court gag order'.

The accused CD was found to have violated 'how to refer to/address his offspring, both directly' and indirectly. Like for example by contiuing to repeatedly using the birth name, 'the wrong pronoun', and he was found in violation of 'speaking about the whole topic, publicly'.

Just the continued usage of birth name and prohibited pronoun used were considered "family violence", and formed one significant part of the support for the 'protective restraining order' and the arrest warrant that was issued.

2
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – fredsbend Mar 23 at 14:33
  • 1
    There is already a slew of comments moved to the the chat above. If you comment here with what's already said there, it will be deleted. – fredsbend Mar 25 at 21:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .