Indiana Seizes Child Because His Parents Did Not Use His She/Her Pronouns

A married couple is asking the Supreme Court to prohibit Indiana from taking their son out of their home after they refused to use his feminine name and she/her pronouns. How could such a bizarre decision by Indiana have happened?

Mary and Jeremy Cox are devout Christians who believe God created mankind as male and female and were shocked when their teenage son left them a note in 2019 telling them that he identified as a girl. They discussed their beliefs with him and they found a middle ground by calling him “A” and not referring to him by using she/her pronouns.

Indiana Steps In

The Cox’s then provided their son with mental health therapeutic care and with appointments with a specialist to help him with his eating disorder.

The state of Indiana investigated Mary and Jeremy in 2021 after receiving a complaint they were not referring to their son with his preferred gender and pronouns at home. The Indiana Department of Child Services then took the teenager from their parental custody and placed him in a "gender-affirming" home!

In 2021 the Cox’s engaged Becket, a firm that defends all religious faiths, and the case of M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services was born.

The Becket site recounts: “At the initial trial court hearing, Indiana officials argued the child “should be in a home where she is accepted for who she is.” The court then restricted Mary and Jeremy’s visitation time to a few hours once a week and issued a gag order that prohibits them from speaking to their son about human sexuality and gender identity.

The Becket site continues: “After completing its investigation, Indiana made an about-face and abandoned all allegations against Mary and Jeremy, admitting that the accusations of abuse and neglect were unsubstantiated. State officials then surprised the parents by pointing to the disagreement over gender as a reason to keep him away from his parents. The state said it contributed to an eating disorder, even though that disorder became worse after he was removed and placed in a transition-affirming home. The court relied on Indiana’s argument to keep the child out of his parents’ custody and kept the gag order in place. The appeals court upheld the removal, ruling the Coxes’ First Amendment rights did not apply to private speech in their home.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)

Two years after Indiana removed their son from their home, and after the appeals court denied the Cox’s right to freedom of speech inside their home, the Cox’s last resort was the Supreme Court of the United States. On February 24^th Becket attorney Joshua Hershberger filed a brief asking SCOTUS to protect the Cox family from Indiana’s interference in raising their children.

After two years of pain the Cox’s are justifiably afraid Indiana will remove their remaining children from their home, and they fear that other American parents might also lose custody of their children because of their beliefs. We all know that the heart of most religions is the parents right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, especially regarding family life and human sexuality.

What will SCOTUS do? Affirm the First Amendment safeguard of freedom of speech also applies in our homes? Ignore the appeal? America’s highest court keeps one eye on constitutional law and the other eye on important events and trends in America, so there is hope the Justices will base their decision on actions by states, results of polls, and the cautionary letter the Attorney General of Kansas sent to his state’s public schools.

Support Canada Free Press

The Coalition of States

A coalition of 17 states is also asking SCOTUS to recognize the rights of parents in a case involving a Maryland school district’s transgender policy. The Attorneys General of Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia have joined in a West Virginia-led brief now before the Court.

In the Maryland case the plaintiffs, like the Cox family, challenge an appeals court decision. Their attorneys dubbed the guidelines of the Montgomery County Board of Education as a “Parental Preclusion Policy” that violates parental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Those school guidelines for transgender-identifying students require addressing them by their self-identified name and includes pronouns, athletics, extracurricular activities, locker rooms, bathrooms, "safe spaces, safe zones, and other safety supports."

Last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit dismissed the case brought by several parents of students in Montgomery County Public Schools disputing that "gender support plan." Besides allowing students to be called by their preferred name and pronouns and to use the restroom of their choice, county schools are prohibited from notifying parents about their transgender support without the student’s consent. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who leads the 17 state coalition, said, "This egregious policy completely sidesteps parents’ rights and severs them from having involvement in their child’s physical, emotional, mental and social well-being." His brief also included “…the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Court is the right of parents to direct the care and custody of their children."

Could SCOTUS sidestep such a challenge to the Constitution? The answer -- we have seen them do it before.

The Pew Research Center Polls

This month the Pew Research Center, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank that studies America’s social issues, released a study based on three polls of thousands of teachers, students and adults. The found most participants in all three groups recognized a need to know about racial inequalities, but large numbers did not see the value of learning about gender identity in a classroom.

Noting the Pew study showed one third of teachers surveyed opposed letting parents of students decline LGBTQ and transgender classroom lessons, Virginia Gentles, director of the Education Freedom Center said, “Alternate paths to becoming a teacher should be opened up to ensure that the teaching workforce reflects broader society rather than the values of the progressive activists that populate colleges of education and teacher preparation programs.” Sheri Few, president of U.S. Parents Involved in Education echoed Gentles comment saying, “Teachers need to focus on teaching children to read, write and do math.” Then Kimberly Fletcher, founder and president of Moms for America, said the Pew report reflects a “growing concern over the influence of ‘gender ideology’ in public schools.”

Will these comments by parents and the Pew poll numbers galvanize SCOTUS into action? We can pray they do – after we join groups that support parental rights in classrooms.

Attorney General Warns Kansas Public Schools

A nationwide investigation by the Parents Defending Education (PDE) organization identified at least six Kansas school districts that have policies to hide a student’s transgender status from the student’s parents. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach then sent a warning letter to the Executive Director of the Kansas Associations of School Boards to remind him that “parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct both the education and upbringing of their children.”

The reactions to the letter by the school boards ranged from agreeing to change policies to evasion and even to outright defiance. The Attorney General then emphasized, “If they are serious about complying with the law, they need to modify their policies," adding, "They should do so as quickly as possible."

PDE Vice President Caroline Moore said, "Parents have become completely demoralized with how their children are being turned against them at the hand of public schools," adding, "Turning up the pressure on these administrators to rescind policies gives parents hope for what’s to come in Kansas and elsewhere, when politicians stop playing the blame game and hold districts accountable for unconstitutional policies.” Similar battle lines have been clearly drawn in other states. A decision by SCOTUS that affirms parental constitutional rights would be the start of holding school boards accountable for their actions.

The question remains: Will the Supreme Court of the United States uphold the Constitutional rights of parents?

VIEW Comments