State Rep. Bryan Slaton (R-Mineola) filed House Resolution (HR) 238 this week and issued a statement saying Brown’s actions in the Younger case constituted “child abuse.”
“By her rulings and decision in this case, Judge Brown put radical gender ideology and its effect on children above her duty to uphold the Constitution,” Slaton said. “She made these decisions, despite knowing full-well that a child would be subjected to further gender modification surgeries, procedures, therapies and counseling – actions that all reasonable people know to be barbaric and abusive.
In the Younger case, which has gained national notoriety, Brown awarded custody of a minor child, whose father Jeff Younger says identifies as his son “James” in his custody, to his mother, Anne Georgulas, who says the child identifies as a girl named “Luna” in her custody.
The battle has gone on for years and concluded with Brown ruling Georgulas has the exclusive right to consent to James’ medical procedures except for hormone suppression therapy, puberty blockers, or transgender reassignment surgery. However, Georgulas moved herself and her children to California, where a recently enacted “transgender sanctuary” law would likely keep her from facing consequences if she defied the Texas court order.
This saga along with others has prompted the issue of prohibiting medical child gender modification to the forefront of conservative priorities this session. It was recently listed as a priority issue for Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.
But an outright ban isn’t the only way Slaton is combating the issue. Citing an opinion letter by Attorney General Ken Paxton that determined sex reassignment surgery on a child constitutes child abuse under current Texas law, the Mineola Republican says he is seeking the judge’s ouster because her actions of awarding custody to Georgulas would expose the child to illegal practices.
The Texas Constitution invests the House of Representatives with the power to impeach state officials, including district judges, and allows said officials to be fully removed and prohibited from holding public office upon conviction by a trial in the Senate.
Slaton’s resolution invokes a constitutional caveat to this process, which requires state officers facing impeachment to be suspended from their duties during the pendency of the proceedings.
“All officers against whom articles of impeachment may be preferred shall be suspended from the exercise of the duties of their office, during the pendency of such impeachment,” reads the suspension clause, which also allows the governor to then appoint someone to temporarily fulfill the duties of the suspended official.
Brown, a Democrat, was recently reelected to another four-year term in November after facing two challengers in an unusual electoral circumstance.
After failing to file for reelection in the March primary as a Democrat, Brown filed for reelection as a write-in candidate and ultimately faced two other write-in challengers for the district court.
The Texan reached out to Brown’s office for comment regarding the impeachment charges and inquired about whether she will suspend her duties. As of publication, her office has not responded.
###
Disclosure: Unlike almost every other media outlet, The Texan is not beholden to any special interests, does not apply for any type of state or federal funding, and relies exclusively on its readers for financial support. If you’d like to become one of the people we’re financially accountable to, click here to subscribe.
Matt Stringer
Matt Stringer is a reporter for The Texan who writes about all things government, politics, and public policy. He graduated from Odessa College with an Associate Degree in Paralegal Studies and a Bachelor’s Degree in Management and Leadership. In his free time, you will find him in the great outdoors, usually in the Davis Mountains and Big Bend region of Southwest Texas.
