Since creating our film Trans Mission: What’s the Rush to Reassign Gender? we have been following cases throughout the country centered around transitioning children. We wanted to bring to your attention one such case happening in our own backyard.

First, on Friday January 28th and then on February 10th, 2022 I witnessed, as a court observer, the grueling repercussions, disruptive nature, and ridiculous accusations that are challenging and destroying our families as a direct result of transgender ideology infiltrating our culture.

Ms. Christine Hudacko and Mr. Ted Hudacko claim to both be fighting to protect their son, Spencer. This hearing was really not about their son, but rather the games played by adults. Specifically, this hearing was to establish a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DRVO) against Ted Hudacko- a concerned father fighting to protect the health of and relationship with his son.

According to Mr. Hudacko, “Christine Hudacko, is pursuing gender transition for Spencer and procured a surgery to implant Supprelin LA, a puberty blocker, on 8/4/2021 in violation of the custody orders and without my knowledge or consent.”  For those that don’t know, Supprelin is used as a puberty blocker for “transgender” youth who want to delay puberty. According to Mr. Hudacko, after he questioned the use of Supprelin on his son, Ms. Hudacko applied for a pretextual and retaliatory Domestic Violence Restraining Order “as a smoke screen for her own violation of the custody order.”

It’s important to note that originally this case was presided over by Hon. Joni T. Hiramoto, but Judge Hiramoto did not disclose that she had a 30-year-old “transgender” male-to-female son that “transitioned” from male to female during the same time period. Therefore, the case was reassigned to Judge Benjamin Reyes. Judge Benjamin Reyes, though, made sure to include his own pronouns prior to starting the hearing that I observed.

On Friday, January 28th, court attendees heard, via Zoom, from Ms. Hudacko as she testified against Mr. Hudacko to try to obtain this restraining order.  As in many hearings, time ran out at the initial hearing. The case resumed, again via Zoom, with cross-examination and witness testimony on February 10th. Frustration was palpable as slow broadbands delayed questioning and proceedings revealed a weak case of he-said vs. she-said over two instances that occurred at a football game last fall. So far, witnesses of the alleged intimidation were unconvincing.

Abigail Shrier has followed the case and her article summarizing the legal battle and the wounds Mr. Hudacko has endured over the last year can be found online. Of course, she, along with many other observers, were present during the Zoom court proceedings.

At one point Ms. Hudacko’s attorney tried to blame the Zoom disconnect on the numerous court observers. Fortunately, the judge didn’t buy it. Unfortunately, due to connectivity issues, the court case was moved to an in-person hearing scheduled for the afternoon of February 25th. We will continue to try and monitor the case and keep you updated!

UPDATE: On February 25, 2022, the parties reached a settlement on the domestic abuse claim, and the DVRO was dropped.