Child Protective Services Can Now 'Threaten' Parents to Lose Custody Over Refusal to Use Child's Preferred Pronouns

[IwantToRetire]

Examining the legal implications of gender identity in child custody across the US.

A legal battleground is forming across the United States as state legislatures move to codify gender identity affirmation into child custody law, placing parents who use a child's birth name or biological pronouns at risk of losing custody.

The tension sits at a crossroads of parental rights, religious liberty, and child welfare law. Courts and legislatures from Indiana to California and Colorado are either deciding, or have recently decided, whether a parent's rejection of a child's transgender identity can justify state intervention, including the removal of that child from the home.

For many parents, the threat feels not merely theoretical but immediate.

The Indiana Case That Reached the Supreme Court's Door

The most scrutinised case in this debate belongs to Mary and Jeremy Cox of Anderson, Indiana, devout Catholics who refused to use their child's preferred name and pronouns after she came out as transgender in 2019. In 2021, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) received two separate reports alleging the couple had been 'verbally and emotionally abusing' their child because they did not accept her transgender identity.

DCS placed the child, identified in court records only as A.C., outside the home. The agency simultaneously secured a court order restricting the Coxes from discussing gender identity or human sexuality with their child outside of therapy sessions. Although DCS later voluntarily dismissed all abuse and neglect allegations, the child was never returned. Lower courts sided with DCS, citing A.C.'s severe eating disorder, which they found had been 'fuelled partly' by the family conflict.

The Indiana Court of Appeals, in its October 2022 ruling, acknowledged the difficulty of the case but upheld the removal. 'The Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs,' the court wrote, 'but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to Child.'

Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Coxes escalated to the United States Supreme Court, arguing their case raised 'a legal question of nationwide importance: when can the state muzzle parental speech and remove a child from the home of admittedly fit parents?' In March 2024, SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal, leaving the lower court ruling intact, though without commentary.

Article continues with other examples at: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-states-gender-identity-child-custody-laws-1782003

That’s horrific.

And I was hoping the worst harms of the transgender trend might be behind us 😢

'The Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs,' the court wrote, 'but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to Child.'

I cannot disagree with this, to be honest. Whether it's circumcision, homophobia, or otherwise.

This case was a rather complex one. The child in question was 16 at the time of first removal from the home, and more than capable of expressing an opinion as to where they wanted to be and what was going on at home. It is clear that their choices are not compatible with those of their very religious parents. I cannot imagine the environment at home was pleasant, to put it mildly.

I don't believe parents must rush to affirm but neither do I believe that parents can treat their children harshly.

I don't think extreme cases like this are helpful examples to hold up as official precedent and policy. But then this is the IB Times... They're not exactly what I would call rigorous journalism. Not really sure why this has been dragged up and rehashed two years after the case?

The Indiana Court of Appeals, in its October 2022 ruling, acknowledged the difficulty of the case but upheld the removal. 'The Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs,' the court wrote, 'but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to Child.'

Continuing to refer to your own child by the pronouns appropriate to their birth sex seems a lots less harmful than other religion-based actions and attitudes.
Some religious beliefs actually require physical damage to be done to children

I have known people with mental health problems who trace back to being told they are sinners, being forced to rigidly control their emotions and behaviour, or being forced to look at gory imagery of Crucifixion etc.

There are really extreme forms of religion which positively encourage physical punishment, violent exorcisms, etc.

Parents who claim that the Bible permits physical punishment of children will say that it is in the child's best interest: 'spare the rod and spoil the child'.
Many people would consider that wrong, and that nothing can justify physically assaulting a child. But I bet the Indiana Court of Appeal wouldn't dream of removing children from religious parents on that basis, upholding the parents' right to religious freedom, even though that may entail what many would consider physical or emotional harm to their children.

Surely Roman Catholic parents who follow the Vatican's rejection of transgender ideology* are as entitled to include this in their parenting as parents who beat or physically damage their children because of their religious beliefs?

*Therefore, all attempts to obscure reference to the ineliminable sexual difference between man and woman are to be rejected: “We cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore.” Only by acknowledging and accepting this difference in reciprocity can each person fully discover themselves, their dignity, and their identity.
Dichiarazione del Dicastero per la Dottrina della Fede “Dignitas infinita circa la dignità umana”

Thats so fucked up im just lost for words

See, on top of how awful this is, I have an extra layer of ‘how the hell does the USA work?’! It just doesn’t make sense.

It's worth remembering as well that the parents in question in the OP:

• knew their child had an eating disorder for over a year but did not seek medical treatment
• withdrew their child from mental health therapies
• withdrew their child from school with no plans for onward education

In any other circumstances, the above - combined with strictly religious parents and a child who identified as trans - would be an entire pile of safeguarding red flags anywhere in the world, not just the USA. But because the words "trans" and "pronouns" are mentioned, everyone assumes the parents must be oh-so-reasonable and all they did was use correct sex pronouns and the state has massively overreacted.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think parents must affirm, as I've already said. Lack of affirmation however is not a cover nor an excuse for genuinely concerning and abusive behaviour.

Sorry but if I was a betting woman, my money would be on these parents not exactly being parent of the year, to put it bluntly.

There doesn't seem to be very many actual details on the case, they could have with drawn from school/therapy because they thought the school/therapist were causing the problem. Which is a very real possibility.
There are not details on the food disorder, it could be a teenager playing up because they couldn't have their way.

I don't think the details given justifies the state's over reach, it can't have the finally say on how a child should brought up, not with the many known horrific stories from children who are brought up in the 'system'.

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/coa-affirms-removal-of-transgender-teen-from-home-rejects-parents-constitutional-claims

The USA usually gives extreme leniency to religion in parenting. To the point where it’s difficult to prosecute parents who decline medical care for children leading to their deaths.

Indiana is a conservative state that is not trans friendly. I find it hard to believe this was just about pronouns. The Becket Fund is always looking to make new religious freedom case law. As far as they are concerned children do not have rights.

Here’s ah article from local public radio. It got onto DCS’ radar because it turned into an abuse allegation, and it centred on the child developing a severe eating disorder.

https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/interview-after-dcs-took-custody-of-their-trans-child-they-sued-and-lost-now-theyre-asking-the-supreme-court-to-weigh-in

Although this provides more background it seems to be a fine line between having an opinion about gender identity which they are saying to their child this is what we believe.

The child then "develops" an eating disorder in response to not having their parents affirm their personal beliefs.

If someone came on FWR and asked for help (which does still happen) saying

what should I do my child has adopted an identity which is the opposite to their birth sex. We have already discussed this and said we do not believe this is possible to do, and wont pretend by using preferred pronouns.

Now the child is saying they wont eat until we agree to use their preferred pronouns.

What would you do? (question to FWR)

How is it abuse because if anything it is the child using the power of the state to say to your parents I dont have to listen to you.

It just seems a bit of a crude response to a complex situation.

ie a law that says the child must be obeyed.

Would there be a law of any other aspect of growing up that allowed a child to decide what was right and what was wrong. Or is it only that trans identity is important enough that the state intervenes in.

(Not suggesting that the chlld shouldn't have gone into care, but whatever difficulties there were between having parents with strict notions on something which a child doesn't want to adhere to, it should just be that. Not this elevation of a child having rights to impose their set of believes on their parents. Presumably the state has the same concern for children who decide they are same sex attracted and have parents whose religious beliefs mean they dont accept it, but hasn't gone to the bother of writing a set of guidelines on that. If not they this is the state just like everyone else elevating trans to be more special.)

I cannot disagree with this, to be honest. Whether it's circumcision, homophobia, or otherwise.

It's a tough one tbh.

My kneejerk reaction was how dare they remove the child. However, I suspect if the kid had come out as gay and the religious intolerance of their parents was causing them mental health issues then there'd be a lot less sympathy for the parents.

People always say it's not at all similar but I'm not so sure. A trans person feels that their gender identity aligns with that of the opposite sex. A gay feels that their sexual identity aligns with that of the opposite sex. Both are about feelings and there's currently no better scientific explanation for one than the other to the best of my knowledge

Both groups often deliberately present themselves in ways that signify the opposite gender - transwomen dress as women, butch lesbians get manly haircuts and wear dungarees, and gay men often assume an effeminate voice and hang around with women.

Typo. That was meant to be 'a gay person' rather than 'a gay'.

Well what you certainly don't do is:

• avoid medical treatment
• pull them out of counselling (move counsellors, sure, if needed)
• pull them out of school

I think if the parents had actually sought help for the eating disorder at an early stage and not refused to engage with services then it's unlikely this would ever have happened.

They're the parents. Parents have to be the adults and do the right thing. Even if, and it's a big if, your child is "just" not eating as method of control.

Would there be a law of any other aspect of growing up that allowed a child to decide what was right and what was wrong. Or is it only that trans identity is important enough that the state intervenes in.

What law are you referring to? There is no new law from this case.

If the school is actively affirming the child then you absolutely should be removing them from that situation. We know that affirmation is not a neutral act.

And if the counselling available to you adopts the same model then it may also be appropriate to pull the child from that situation (or move counsellor as you suggest. But that’s assuming you can find a counsellor who’s genuinely neutral and will look at the child’s issues holistically).

Medical treatment is another matter, but the parents may have come to the conclusion that the eating issues were an attempt to force / blackmail them into backing down on the ‘transitioning’ rather than something to intervene in medically.

We’ve seen examples of ‘trans’ adults giving advice to younger people about how to bully and blackmail their way into getting the ‘treatment’ they want. I’d probably be sceptical, too, of the 16 year old’s persistence in refusing food, when / if they saw it wasn’t getting them what they wanted.

Eating disorders have the highest fatality rate of any mental illness. I've lived with ED in my family and I really think it's quite dangerous to write it off as 'a teenager playing up because they can't get their own way', especially if it leads the family to refusing to seek help.

Yes I'm a bit shocked at how it's being cast. I suspect if the trans factor wasn't present it wouldn't be happening.

At the end of the day though even if (emphasis "if") it's an attempt at manipulation, the parents still have to act like adults and get help. You can't just refuse to get your child medical help because you've had an argument about pronouns.

I always hesitate to come down on one side or another when I haven't heard all the evidence - this often means having to be in the courtroom to hear all the evidence.

So my post above didn't say the parents were right or wrong, I was commenting on
'The Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs,' the court wrote, 'but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to Child.'

The quote was not about these individual parents' merits or demerits, it was about freedom to exercise religious beliefs vs. child welfare.

My point was that many religious activities could be - and are! - said to cause physical or emotional harm to children, so it is difficult to see how tens of thousands of children are not being removed from their parents in the USA, on that basis.

Nobody is writing it off, but as happens in other instances if a child, and this was a 16 year old, knows that the state will intervene if there is an issue such as refusing food it would be foolish to pretend that a teenager might not use this as part of their armoury against their parents.

We dont know in the instance of the child concerned if they had a history of eating disorders or if it was something that started to happen once the parents took a hard line.

So nobody is writing anything off. The point of the discussion is the instance the article is about.

How do you reconcile parents rights against the rights of a teenager, when if you are the parent you think your teenager has been influenced by a fake theory.

As I said up thread, many many have started threads on FWR asking for help because a child has asserted they are trans.

So what would you do if your child says if you dont affirm my new gender I will stop eating?

How do you reconcile parents rights against the rights of a teenager, when if you are the parent you think your teenager has been influenced by a fake theory.

Parents rights to do what? Teenagers rights to do what?

So what would you do if your child says if you dont affirm my new gender I will stop eating?

Call the doctor? Talk to the school? Get family therapy? Ask social services for help? Do everything you can to actually help your child rather than stop their therapy and isolate them? The same basic things you'd do for any child who stops eating. If your child refuses to engage, you at least have made every effort to help them and have proof of that.

If it’s a question of the school being affirming (far from guaranteed there) then the parents could have placed them into another school. Goodness knows there’s plenty of Christian schools in Indiana that don’t believe in transgenderism. Instead they didn’t enroll them anywhere, which would be a safeguarding red flag in many places.

Who said they didn't?

They may well have done, but in the instance because of the law in that state the child or it advocates could say its irrelevant, because the parents HAVE to accept what the child says.

Have you not read any of the links or posts upthread?

We know they did not seek medical help.

We know that they withdrew their child from counselling, with apparently no onward plans to get a preferred therapist.

We know they withdrew their child from school, again with no onward plans for their education.

We know that they did not approach social services, because the first involvement DCS had was following two separate reports of abuse.

Which Indiana law means that the parents have to accept what the child says, please?