This requires some deep thinking beyond just repeating whatever you believed before you read Ayn Rand. The basic questions here need to be asked and addressed.

Mimi wrote: "I knew a father like him who had two young girls. ... You talk about the betrayal that parents felt when they showed up a softball practice with this clown in a dress and wig. He destroyed his daughters. They were mortified to be seen with him. The older daughter begged me .... "

We moved from the state capital (Lansing) to a farm village of 3000 (Fowlerville) when our daughter was 12. The second year, for Halloween, I dressed up as a pirate and gave out Mardi Gras Doubloons to callers. Our daughter was mortified. "Dad! You can't! This is a small town! Everyone knows who you are!!" Then the light went on: "EVERYONE KNOWS WHO I AM !!! Dad, you can't!"

Basically, it was either Ambrose Bierce or H. L. Mencken, but "horrid" is the young womanese expression for "mildly objectionable."

One of our marriage counselors pointed out that the child will leave the home but that we would be living together for the rest of our lives. Marriage is NOT about the children.

In fact, it may be a collectivist, altruist error in logic to claim that the children deserve all the sacrifices of the parents.

Specifically, when our daughter was about 22 or so, she called up one night to apologize for all the grief. I knew it was coming, because I had read Mark Twain who said that when he was 17 and left home, his father was the dumbest man on Earth, but when he returned 10 years later, he was amazed at how wise his father had become...

Although I was first a freshman in 1967, I completed my BS in 2008 and MA in 2010. In one undergraduate class coincidental circumstances brought me out to a dinner with a girl one-third my age with a rainbow on her backpack. She said, "Sex is what is between your legs. Gender is what is between your ears. Orientation is what goes on between the sheets."

I just don't know that it's very rational to try to avoid or alter nature to this extent and then believe that you can live a 'normal' life without repercussions. Thinking does not seem to have been a highly appreciated attribute in the development of this situation.
Maybe mental health issues should be dealt with as that, instead of altering biology.

Thank you Maphesdus for sharing this, and quite frankly I am embarrassed at the lack of compassion and insight shown by some of the responders.

I am a father myself, and my son is a father, and I can tell you from hard experience that the single most important factor in raising a happy, healthy child (physically, mentally, and spiritually) is understanding, expressed as affinity, reality, and communication -- affinity being what most people call "love".

My own father was, and still is at 83, a hard man -- he had to be to survive the 1930s depression as a kid, support his mom and siblings while his brothers were off fighting Hitler and Japan's Emperor, then raising 5 children while his wife was continually ill and the national economy roller coastered every 5 years.

But one thing my dad always did and still does -- no matter how hard he is on you, you always, ALWAYS know he truly cares and loves you. Do we disagree, of course. But what keeps us together is that underlying love and devotion to each other's survival. It is NOT atruism -- it is each of us making a conscious choice to care for someone who matters to us.

Unless this story was grossly mis-told -- and I am not cynical enough to believe that -- all I see here with these parents is LOVE and CARE for their children.

But what amazes me, and angers me after reading most of the previous responses -- is the complete lack of regard by the respondents for the true affinity and dedication these parents feel for their children, and that some outside entity dared to tear their children away from them.

I've seen enough such cases where local "do gooders" seem to think they have the right to meddle in people's lives, and in this case to the extent that a COURT actually gets involved.

Doesn't any of your see that the underlying issue here is that a COURT, a branch of the local GOVERNMENT, actually reached into someone's home and ripped their children away from them -- and without any previous reports of abuse in any form -- but instead solely on the grounds of their "non main stream" personal sexual/gender preferences?

Like Maphesdus said, "Who's next?"

The whole idea of freedom is FREEDOM.

What it is NOT, is "Freedom is critical and everyone should be free, unless I happen to disagree with what your beliefs are or what actions you are taking."

I disagree with Maphesdus that there should be a law stopping discrimination against transgenders -- (1) because like someone else said, it just creates groups that get unearned privileges like jobs they are not qualified for, and (2) because transgender discrimination is a tiny insignificant issue compared to the unbelievably GLARING issue of, "What in hell is a government (via the court) doing mucking around in people's private lives and dictating how we live???!!!"

If the parents were abusing their children, fine, understood. But unless this story has been totally misrepresented, there was no such abuse here. Yet these poor people -- at the point of a gun -- had the children they've loved and devoted their lives to, torn away from them and forced into the home of cynical, tyrannical, and downright suppressive grandparents.

Doesn't anyone here see that THAT is the real issue in this case???????!!!!!!!!!!

Like Maphesdus said, WHO'S NEXT?

good for the court. does anyone ever think of the child and how confusing and embarrassing it will be for him/her. it's a disgrace how far we have come from what is normal. no wonder kids are such a mess these days

Lot of incomplete and outright misinformation here. CPS doesn't come unless someone complains - even if it is for something completely false and unjustified. Story needs to contain contact with CPS to find out more to be complete. I would also add that having never heard of the source, credibility is also an issue especially when the author did nothing to contact or quote any sources. This entire post could be fiction.

IF this happened, we really need to know CPS' REAL reasoning for doing so before making any judgments. Would it be sufficient to take the children if the only justification was the "father's" gender identification? No. Never. But one should keep in mind that this isn't investigative reporting, it is a BLOG post. It should be taken with a VERY LARGE grain of salt. I echo the calls for links to corroborating stories that give more details. It's pretty easy to bring out the rose-colored glasses in cases like this that inflame personal sensitivities (maph - looking at you).

I knew a father like him who had two young girls. He was active in their lives, their friend’s life, doing things like coaching the girl’s softball team, then one day when the girls were entering middle school he decided he needed to be a woman. He started taking the hormones, wearing high heels, asking everyone to start addressing by his feminine name. You talk about the betrayal that parents felt when they showed up at a softball practice finding this clown in a dress and wig. He destroyed his daughters. They were mortified to be seen with him. The older daughter begged me and my daughter to keep their secret that 'she' was really their dad. This happened when ‘she’ insisted on showing up at Back To School night. They introduced her as their nanny.

I think if you make the choice to have children, then you have a responsibility to put their needs first. If you choose to start off by lying to them, your family-- the world, then later, think you can yell, “SURPRISE”, then you should also expect to be shunned by your community and family. It’s the worst kind of betrayal. Iv’e seen the damage. I know what talking about.

maph, if you read an article like that one of us put up-ie not one fact or shred of evidence , you would be saying this is "unreliable." Please post corroborating facts to back up this "story" cuz why comment if it's not true?

I don't get it...something else must be behind this...homosexual couples can adopt ...in reality how is this any different...the government.. and in this case the grandparents also...is too intrusive...???

She thinks she's a guy... doesn't mean I'm going to call HER "him". Now, that said, I don't think there's any reason the court could have taken away the children for her thining she's a dude and taking a guy's name. There's got to be more to the story than that, and if not, shame on the court.

But SHE (aka "Daniel") is still a woman. I refuse to call her "him".

THIS GUY WAS NEUTERED AND STILL CAUSES PROBLEMS! WAKUP PEOPLE.

The court did the right thing society has become to accepting of aberrant behavior. Since the court is still out on whether sexuality choices of an adult is more influenced by Nature or Nurture children should be raised in as close to a traditional environment as possible in order to promote normal lifestyle. The choices that the child makes later in life should be respected but every opportunity for the child to develop without aberrant influences should be taken.