Father seeks contempt motions following son’s transition surgery

Operating room staff perform a surgery. | Getty Images

A California father has filed motions for contempt against those allegedly involved with subjecting his trans-identified son to a surgical procedure without his consent in violation of a court order.

Ted Hudacko asked that his ex-wife, her attorney, his son’s attorney and the university hospital that performed the procedure on his son be found in contempt of court for violating a court order issued by California Superior Court Judge Joni Hiramoto in 2020, as first reported by The Daily Signal.

Since his son has already undergone the procedure that installed a hormone-blocking implant in his arm, Hudacko described the contempt motions to The Christian Post as “a cleanup action.”

“It’s not going to get my son back,” he said. “It’s not going to restore his health and viability. That ship has sailed.”

“Citees Christine Hudacko; her attorney, Nathaniel Bigger; minor’s counsel, Daniel Harkins; and University of California, San Francisco should each be held in contempt because each knew about, then collectively conspired to willfully disobey what is herein termed the ‘no surgery injunction,’ i.e. Judge Hiramoto’s valid August 26, 2020, court order explicitly prohibiting ‘any gender identity-related surgery’ upon the minor child,” the motion reads in part.

Amid a tense custody battle for his then-minor son Drew (whose name has been changed to protect his identity), California Superior Court Judge Joni Hiramoto removed shared custody from Hudacko in 2020, as journalist Abigail Shrier reported for City-Journal in February 2022.

Hiramoto nevertheless issued an order on Aug. 26, 2020, prohibiting surgical intervention on Hudacko’s son before age 18, stipulating that he “will not be permitted to undergo any gender identity related surgery until they are 18 years of age, absent a written agreement by both parties.”

In October 2021, Hudacko claims he discovered a charge on his insurance for nearly $210,000, which he later learned was for a hormone-blocking implant that had been surgically placed in his son’s arm in August 2021 in violation of the court order. His son had also begun taking cross-sex hormones.

The father maintains that both medical interventions took place without his knowledge or consent.

According to medical records reviewed by CP earlier this year, the Child and Adolescent Gender Center of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, where Hudacko’s son was treated discussed four different types of blockers, also called gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRhA).

While Leuprolide acetate (Lupron) and triptorelin are injections and spironolactone is an oral tablet, the subcutaneous implant (histrelin acetate) requires a surgical procedure. The 16-year-old boy and his mother reportedly decided that he undergo the surgical procedure on Aug. 4, 2021.

According to a Tuesday announcement on his GiveSendGo fundraising page, which is raising funds for legal battles, Hudacko is also filing two more contempt motions against the legal director for UCSF Child and Adolescent Gender Center at the time, as well as the doctor who performed the implant surgery.

Hudacko noted to CP that increasing numbers of parents and detransitioners have been showing up to demonstrations and committee hearings in Sacramento to oppose transgender procedures for minors but face an uphill battle in the liberal state.

“[Republican state Sen. Scott] Wilk, at a committee hearing earlier this year, famously said, ‘Parents, if you love your children, you should leave California.’ I 100% agree with that, certainly based on my own experience,” Hudacko said.

“If I were a parent with young children — say, toddlers who weren’t quite of school age yet — then I would definitely be making plans to leave the state or finding like-minded parents and setting up a homeschooling circle. The private schools aren’t safe, either.”

In September, the California State Assembly approved A.B. 957, a bill that would require courts to weigh in custody disputes whether a parent has affirmed their child’s self-professed gender identity or gender expression, prompting critics to express fear that the state could strip custody from parents who object.

The bill was ultimately vetoed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom.