MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — A Minneapolis mother whose parental rights over her teenage son were expropriated and was consequently in the dark about the provision of hormonal treatments to assist with the teen’s desire to “transition” into a girl has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of her case.
“[T]he medical providers, without notifying Calgaro, found … that parental consent was not required because the child was ‘living separate and apart from parents or legal guardian … and managing personal financial affairs,'” the writ of certiorari, filed on Wednesday, reads. “The medical service provider never considered Calgaro’s rights as a fit parent to be involved in her child’s decision-making.”
“Consequently, the child received gender-transitioning medical care without Calgaro’s input and over Calgaro’s objection.”
As previously reported, the mother in the case, Anmarie Calgaro, announced during a press conference in 2016 that she was troubled to discover that a legal aid group for low income persons had created a notice of emancipation for her then 15-year-old son.
“Last year, without my knowledge or consent, without any court hearings or legal process, without any involvement on my part whatsoever, a legal aid group that gives free services to low income people created a notice of emancipation for my 15-year-old son,” she explained. “Suddenly, my son, without any notice to me, was no longer under my supervision.”
Calgaro said that the document was comprised of false claims and she had not been contacted to verify any of the teen’s assertions.
She explained that her son had asked to stay with his father (Calgaro and her husband are divorced) so he could attend a better school, and Calgaro agreed. However, the emancipation document claimed that Calgaro failed to report her son “as a runaway” over the next six months and “made no attempt to bring him home.” It also asserted that Calgaro had told her son that she “no longer wishes to have contact with him,” which she denies.
The teen soon also left his father’s home and stayed with various friends and family members. He left those homes as well, and now lives on his own.
Calgaro soon learned in the midst of the situation that her son had also been obtaining female hormone treatments — paid for by the government –A- without her consent.
“It was then brought to my knowledge that my son had begun receiving hormone replacement treatments from Park Nicollet health services to transition from male to female with medical assistance paying for this,” she said. “I was not consulted or informed about this in any way. I had no way to give or receive any information about my son.”
Because of the emancipation document, Calgaro was prohibited from receiving any information about the teen, who was consequently treated as an adult by the Department of Human Services and provided with public services, including assistance with food, housing and medical services.
She attempted to obtain medical and educational records from Park Nicollet and her son’s school, but her requests were denied. She consequently sued, contending that her constitutional parental rights were being unlawfully infringed.
In 2017, while a federal judge agreed that the emancipation was not valid, he stated that the non-governmental defendants cannot be held liable for their actions because they did not act under state law. The government agencies sued also could only be held responsible if acting under a specific “policy or custom,” which was absent in the case.
Therefore, because the entities did not act in accordance with any law or established practice, Judge Paul Magnusen concluded that Calgaro did not have a legal claim.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Magnusen’s ruling in March, finding that her “assertion that the County acted based on a policy or custom was insufficient to state a claim.” It also concluded that because Calgaro’s son has now turned 18 and is no longer a minor, there is no longer a case in regard to her rights to make parental decisions or to have access to his medical and school records.
She therefore has now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it rule that what had occurred was unconstitutional.
“There are no U.S. Supreme Court cases on whether parental Due Process Clause rights apply to local governments and medical providers ending parental control over their minor children,” the petition states. “[And] neither Minnesota’s statutes nor common law authorize parents to file court actions to restore their parental rights.”
“It’s a parent’s worst nightmare,” attorney Erick Kaardal with the Thomas More Society said in a statement. “Anmarie Calgaro’s child, while a minor, was steered through a life-changing, permanent body-altering process, becoming a pawn in someone else’s socio-political agenda and being influenced by those who have no legal or moral right to usurp the role of a parent.”
“Unbelievably, Minnesota statutes authorize a county to deem a minor ‘emancipated’ to receive welfare payments to live on their own and allow medical providers to void parental input if it determines the minor is living apart from the parents and is managing his or her own personal financial affairs,” he noted.
“And the St. Louis County School District in Minnesota has a custom and practice of barring a parent for more than two years from involvement in the child’s education after a child is deemed by the school principal, not by a court order, to be emancipated. This is an unacceptable situation for any parent and a serious violation of parental and due process rights.”