Transgender teen’s father jailed in B.C.
Justice blasts dad for flouting court orders in fighting medical plan
VANCOUVER—To his supporters, he is a “hero” for having taken a public stand against his transgender child’s decision to pursue gender-affirming treatment, even if that stand meant breaching court orders.
On Friday, the one-time crusader sat in a B.C. courtroom, slumped forward in red-coloured jail attire, his head bowed down, as a judge lashed him for “blatantly, wilfully and repeatedly” defying publication bans and said a “strong denunciatory sentence” was required.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen ordered the father, who had pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of court earlier in the week, to a sixmonth jail term — far exceeding what the Crown had recommended — and to make a $30,000 charitable donation.
“No member of the public can decide when, in what circumstances and which court orders to follow,” Tammen said. “Unless and until successfully appealed, court orders must be obeyed. They are part of the legal fabric of society and, thus, the law. Without the ability to enforce court orders, and if citizens were free to disregard them at will, there would not be democracy but anarchy.”
The sentence brings to an end a case that started in 2018 as a messy family dispute, when the father tried unsuccessfully to block a decision by his then-14year-old child — who was assigned female at birth but identifies as male and has the support of his mother — to pursue testosterone hormone treatment, and then veered into a quasi-criminal one, when the father refused to obey court orders limiting what he could say publicly about his child’s case.
The B.C. Infants Act says mature minors can consent to their own medical treatments and the B.C. Appeal Court affirmed the ability of “AB,” as the child has been known in these court proceedings, to do just that in a January 2020 decision.
Even so, the father continued to wage a public campaign — in interviews with multiple Canadian and U.S. outlets and in posts on various social media platforms — maintaining that his child was too young to be making those decisions and insisting that parental consent was needed.
In the process of doing so, he repeatedly violated court orders intended to ensure that the identity of the teen and other key parties would be protected.
One of the most “egregious” breaches, the judge said, was the release of court documents to a U.S.-based website that included the child’s proposed medical treatment plan, an informed consent form containing the child’s personal information and names of the child’s health-care providers.
A video had also circulated online containing the child’s image and other identifying information. In one interview, according to the judge, the father said it was “important to break the gag order.”
“I do not accept (the father’s) intention was otherwise than to attempt to undermine the authority of the courts and overall administration of justice,” Tammen said. “Moreover, I expressly reject (the father’s) sworn assertion … that he had no desire to share information that would harm (the child).”
During a two-day sentencing hearing this week, the judge repeatedly pressed the defence for an explanation as to why the father continually, and knowingly, violated those court orders.
At one point, a supporter of the father, Jenn Smith, an activist who opposes teaching kids about sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) at schools, took the stand and offered a theory: The father had essentially been “emasculated” by the various court decisions that prevented him from doing what he thought he needed to do to protect his child.
As a result, the father turned to outsiders for help — some of whom, Smith said, ended up being “bombastic” personalities that included hardcore religious zealots and professional grifters interested in nothing more than chasing after things that cause outrage and clicks on their websites.
“When I met (the father) in December 2018, he was a different person than he is now,” Smith said.
Taking one more turn on the stand after the judge hinted he would be imposing a heftier sentence than the 45 days in jail and 18 months probation the Crown had recommended, the father said his time in pretrial custody had allowed him time to reflect and to come to the realization that maybe he had been a “pawn” and that he had been “played.”
He said he may have gotten swept up in a circle of friends who convinced him to join the cause to “save children.”
“I’ve never once gone after my child for the choice she made wanting to be a male,” he told the court.
“I only tried to prevent her from making a medical choice she might regret later.”
Asked if he planned to continue his campaign, the father said he didn’t think there was anything more left for him to do.
“I pass the torch on.” Tammen said Friday he considered a sentence in the range of six to nine months imprisonment but ultimately opted for the low end, citing the 11thhour expression of remorse from the father, belated efforts to purge the internet of the offending materials — although some of it remains online — and the “eloquent” plea made on his behalf by Smith.
He gave the father credit for time he had served in pretrial custody, meaning he would have to serve an additional 134 days.
Noting that the father’s crowdfunding website, which had also contained materials in breach of the court orders, had raised more than $50,000, the judge also instructed the father to donate $30,000 to a children’s charity within six months of his release from jail.
The teenager at the centre of this dispute never appeared in court. But he did submit a victim-impact statement, which read in part: “Over and over, private stuff about me was published online because of my dad. I have lost my faith that the courts can protect me. That makes me feel really vulnerable.”
The father told the court earlier in the week that he’d enjoyed a “special bond” with his child but hadn’t seen his child in the past year and a half.
“I’ve obviously got a lot of work to do to fix that relationship.”