I am probably not the only one in the room who has been quietly watching the development of this case with a lot of interest...

I read some parts in-depth and skimmed the whole thing...In the state's motion, this line stuck out for me:

"Brown makes the assertion that the State is biased against him because he is a “minor attracted individual,” a class of individuals distinct from the sexually-deviant pedophile. [...] For the State to seek a temporary removal of a minor child after a declaration by the custodial father that he belongs to a national association of pedophiles cannot be construed as an act of egregious bias or harassment; it is, after all, the State’s interest to protect children from sexual exploitation. "

But surely that -is- bias...I feel like they essentially confirmed just what you were complaining?

Please don't give up on this. If the case goes through, they'll have to lay down a precedent and either lawfully acknowledge pedophilia as seperate from proclivity to child abuse, or not.

Thanks for your efforts on this, seriously.