Try reading this dad's gender ideology legal limbo and not feel exhausted

Ask any mom or dad who has had the misfortune of navigating family court proceedings where child custody is an issue, they'll tell you that it’s an emotionally draining experience. 

Yet when gender ideology rules the day and presiding judges are heavily influenced (if not completely beholden) by its nonsensical yet ruthlessly dogmatic claims, it’s a protracted nightmare. 

Few know this better than Bay Area father Ted Hudacko – whose story was profiled in the season 3 bonus episode of CP’s documentary podcast “Generation Indoctrination”.  The challenges faced by parents who dare to question medical decisions that pertain to their gender-confused children are monumental. Receiving justice when criminal violations are committed, as Hudacko’s ordeal illustrates, is a colossal task. 

First, here’s some brief background.

The California dad has filed two legal actions, a federal lawsuit and an effort in the state family court to hold those who facilitated the chemical sterilization of his minor son in criminal contempt. In violation of the court order, which expressly forbade any gender identity-related surgery to be done on his child without his consent, gender clinicians at the University of California-San Francisco, aided and abetted by state court officers, surgically implanted a hormone-blocking device in his son’s arm. His son, who was also started on a course of cross-sex hormones at USCF's Gender Center, is now almost certainly sterile. All of this was done without Hudacko’s permission and he didn't even learn about it until a bill for the surgery totaling nearly $210,000 suddenly appeared on his insurance statement.

Hudacko’s attorney, Tracy Henderson, has said that she rarely receives cases that are not legally complicated. This one, however, is not complex. There is no question that the “no gender identity-related surgery” court order was violated. With blatant disregard for the law, the people they are taking legal action against conspired behind Hudacko's back to proceed with the surgery and committed an act of fraudulent concealment, Henderson explained in the CP docu-podcast episode.

Endless Hassles

What is happening now, given what has been documented about the tremendous influence gender ideology has had in the California judicial system, is that the court officers seem to know that they’re in the wrong and they are, by all appearances, engaged in semantics games and various shady maneuvers and stall tactics.

What follows may be a bit dizzying for non-legal minds, but it’s important to spell out nevertheless. Take notice of all the arduous hoops and hurdles parents such as Hudacko are forced to overcome just to get a case heard and adjudicated before a fair (one hopes) trier of fact.

In the family court criminal contempt proceeding, Hudacko filed complaints against four citees in the case. The presiding judge, Benjamin T. Reyes II, set the hearing for three of them. Inexplicably, and in the face of well-settled law holding that the Supreme Court should exercise Contempt Powers over a non-party when the non-party has actual knowledge of the injunction and acts in concert with the enjoined party to violate it, Judge Reyes denied jurisdiction over the UCSF Gender Center that performed the surgery. 

Reyes cited no legal authority for his refusal to assert jurisdiction, nor did he cite any authority for his decision for “not considering” Hudacko’s subsequent Motion to Set Aside the Order denying jurisdiction. As a result, these issues and the appearance of bias in favor of the citees on the controversial issue of gender identity surgery on minors based on two hearings gave rise to Hudacko filing a Motion to Disqualify Judge Reyes from further hearing the case. However, instead of properly having another judge rule on the Motion to Disqualify, Judge Reyes promptly struck it from the record.

Hudacko then filed for Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Court of Appeals seeking an immediate Stay of the case and to issue an Order compelling the Supervising Judge of the Superior Court to reinstate and substantively rule on Hudacko’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Reyes for cause. 

The Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay for two weeks but denied Hudacko’s petition without prejudice on a technicality. The Court of Appeals then made the unbelievable ruling that Hudacko could not appeal the denial of jurisdiction over UCSF until after the other citees’ contempt hearings happen – moved by Judge Reyes from May to October 2024. By then, a new contempt charge against UCSF will be time-barred.

Speculations surround Reyes’ decision, but the reasons remain undisclosed. Keep in mind though that Reyes is the same judge who has begun court proceedings in Hudacko’s ordeal by announcing his pronouns.

When Henderson moved to disqualify Judge Reyes for bias, the judge initially claimed he hadn’t received proper notice of the intent to disqualify. Hudacko then enlisted a newly registered process server, Joey Brite, to personally serve the judge. Personal service on a judge is rarely attempted in California due to various obstacles but Brite succeeded. After 10 days, Reyes filed a last-minute reply to Hudacko’s motion. The motion to disqualify Reyes was reassigned on April 12 to Judge Don Franchi in nearby San Mateo County to avoid a conflict of interest (since Hudacko’s case is being heard in Contra Costa County) and to date, has still not been ruled upon. 

Lack of Answers

Despite all their legal efforts, neither Hudacko nor his attorney of record have received any answers from the family courts. They struggle to obtain basic information that they are legally entitled to, and three Proofs of Service have appeared on the court registry for April 25th, but neither Hudacko nor his attorney have received them or the associated orders. Henderson also reached out to Judge Reyes’ clerk, but she received no response. 

Hudacko is now paying someone to obtain copies of missing documents from the Superior Court’s Records Department, documents the court is legally bound to provide to him. 

Are you exhausted reading this yet? 

What’s happening in the shadows? And why are parents like Hudacko seemingly stuck in a never-ending legal limbo? It’s anyone’s guess. But this is a mere fraction of the frustration and bureaucratic hassles that parents encounter when they are forced to interface with the family courts, and justice is hindered all the more in light of the entrenchment of gender ideology.   

As journalist and author Abigail Shrier aptly explained in her meticulous investigation in February 2022 that first exposed Hudacko’s plight, gender ideology is a “belief, not backed by any meaningful empirical evidence, that we all have an ineffable gender identity, knowable only to us…has no observable markers, and it is immutable (until the moment we change our minds and reveal ourselves as ‘gender fluid,’ of course)”.

This ideology “is unfalsifiable, and its hold on our legal system is gaining ground,” she added. 

Indeed, as this neo-Gnostic cult dogma tightens its chokehold grip on the law and the courts, parents like Hudacko seeking justice have little if any recourse. If justice ever prevails here, and let's pray it does, it will be a testament to the determination of fathers like him who refused to back down, despite the ideological capture of the legal profession and the hurdles that trans activists have erected in every sphere of the public domain.