Family Matters

Gender Transition or Gender-Affirming Care in Custody Cases

In October 2023, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a decision in R.S.K. v. D.L.K., 375 EDA 2023, 2023 WL 6534182, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2023), weighing in on the gender transition care for a child in a custody matter.

By way of background, Mother (D.L.K) and Father (R.S.K.) were divorced and, as of summer 2021, shared physical and legal custody of two minor children. One of the minor children, K.K., age 13, was born a female but identified as a male. K.K. had been working with physicians and therapists for several years to obtain treatment for gender dysmorphia and to prevent the development of female physical attributes during puberty (i.e. taking puberty-blocking implants and injections). While the parties had initially agreed K.K. would participate in such treatment, two years later, Mother no longer supported it.

In March 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding K.K.’s gender transition care only. The court heard testimony from K.K’s pediatric endocrinologist, primary physician, and therapist, as well as K.K.’s own preference. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered its ruling that K.K. may continue to receive injectable puberty blockers, “but not the medical procedure.” In May 2022, the trial court conducted a custody hearing, which affirmed the current shared physical and legal custody order would remain in effect. Subsequent filings and hearings occurred, which ultimately led to a hearing on January 27, 2023, where the trial court, inter alia, awarded Father sole legal custody related to K.K.’s medical and psychological care. Mother appealed.

The Superior Court found in favor of Father, allowing him to maintain this specific decision-making privilege for K.K. The Superior Court in its decision noted that the trial court based its ruling on information obtained through numerous hearings on the issue, testimony from several medical professionals, and the interview with the 13-year-old child for K.K.’s preference. Moreover, Mother had been appropriately informed by K.K.’s treating physicians regarding K.K.’s medical needs and course of treatment throughout the process.

Thus, under this particular set of facts, the child was allowed to continue with gender transition care treatment over the objection of one parent. The holding in R.S.K. v. D.L.K., while maybe not applicable in all gender transition cases, begins to provide insight as to what information will guide Pennsylvania courts in their decisions. The topics in this case are incredibly timely and ones that will continue to arise more in modern family law cases. The attorneys at Obermayer are experienced in handling sensitive and complex custody matters, set up a consultation today to discuss the future of your family.

The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice, is not a substitute for legal counsel, and should not be relied on as such. For legal advice or answers to specific questions, please contact one of our attorneys.