Defending a Father’s Right to Protect His Son from Medical Mutilation

Washington, DC - October 21, 2026 

On October 19, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of Petitioner Edward Allyn Hudacko in Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (26-180), urging the court to grant certiorari and enforce the father’s fundamental parental right to veto any cross-sex hormone implant surgery, as provided for by his trial court child custody order. The father’s court-ordered veto power was knowingly ignored by the defendant Respondents. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged the validity of the father’s fundamental parental right, but refused to enforce it. 

When Ted Hudacko divorced his wife, a California family court left him with one remaining parental right: “any gender identity related surgery” on his minor son could not be performed without his written consent or further court order. Despite knowing of that order and of Hudacko’s explicit refusal to consent, state medical officials (aided by other state actors) performed a cross-sex hormone-dispensing implant procedure (Supprelin) on his son. The procedure was billed as surgery and is described as surgical by the manufacturer. Hudacko only found out about the procedure after receiving an insurance bill for more than $200,000 labeled “surgery.”

The lower courts threw out his claims, holding that it was not “clearly established” that the implant counted as surgery under the custody order and that the conduct was not sufficiently “outrageous.” In upholding the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit granted the UCSF defendants qualified immunity, a legal protection against civil damages. The Ninth Circuit used a broader test for qualified immunity not followed by a majority of the Circuit courts, concluding that Hudacko’s asserted right was not clearly established under the circumstances and that the implant could reasonably be interpreted as hormone therapy under the custody order. This was despite the fact that subcutaneous implants are commonly viewed and billed as minor surgical procedures performed under local anesthesia. 

America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that this was an outrageous violation of fundamental parental rights. The overwhelming weight of research shows that so-called “gender-affirming” interventions such as cross-sex hormone implants are very likely to cause lifelong harm. Desistance data confirm that the vast majority of children naturally outgrow gender confusion if allowed to progress through puberty. Ignoring biological reality and permanently “affirming” a temporary condition is bad medicine and bad public policy.

Our brief emphasizes that these harms—permanent sterility, loss of sexual function, and lifelong medical dependency—are orders of magnitude more severe than the school policies the Supreme Court recently enjoined in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Respondents’ disregard of parental authority also conflicts with HHS guidance, presidential executive orders protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation, and multiple state laws.

“Children belong to their parents, not the state,” said Dr. Gold. “This father went to court, secured an order protecting his right to withhold consent to surgery, and told the doctors no. They proceeded anyway, according to his petition. A physician’s first duty is to do no harm. No child is born in the wrong body, and no medical ideology gives doctors the authority to disregard a parent’s rights. We are asking the Supreme Court to hear this case and defend parents trying to protect their children.” 

“A father should not need another lawsuit with identical facts to enforce a court order protecting his right to say no to extremely damaging surgery with lifelong consequences including likely sterilization on his minor child, who lacks the capacity to understand or consent to such surgery,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “The Ninth Circuit acknowledged his parental right, then shielded the defendants from accountability for allegedly violating it. The father’s petition artfully points out the fallacies in the lower court opinions. We are asking the Supreme Court to take this case because constitutional rights mean little if courts refuse to enforce them.” 

This filing continues AFLDS’ work defending children and parental rights, including our amici curiae briefs in United States v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Mirabelli v. Bonta, and our documentary What Is A Doctor? 

###

About AFLDS

We are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future. Visit AFLDS.org

Media Contact Lisa Alexander, Executive Director | [email protected]