Indiana parents warn nation after child is removed from home for improper pronoun usage

Bull GreenDog

Well-known member
A Catholic couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

In M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Mary and Jeremy Cox are appealing to the Supreme Court after they were investigated by Indiana officials for refusing to refer to their son using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biological sex.

Becket is pursuing the case on behalf of the Coxes, arguing state courts allowed Indiana to keep the child from living in his parents' home due to their disagreement with the child's gender identity because of their religious beliefs. Notably, upon completing the investigation, the state determined the allegations of abuse against Mary and Jeremy were unsubstantiated, but still argued that the disagreement over gender identity was distressing to their child.

Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, told Fox News Digital that no parent should ever have to endure what Mary and Jeremy have been forced to go through. "Keeping a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs—even when the state admits there was no abuse or neglect—is wrong and it’s against the law," she said. "The Court should take this case and make clear that other states can’t take children away because of ideological disagreements."

In 2019, Mary and Jeremy's son told them that he identified as a girl, but in line with their Catholic religious beliefs that God created human beings with an immutable sex, male or female, they did not believe in referring to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biology. In addition, the Coxes believed their son was struggling with underlying mental health conditions, including an eating disorder, so they sought therapeutic care for both.

But, in 2021, Indiana officials began investigating the Coxes after a report found they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity, removing the teen from their custody and placing him in a "gender-affirming" home. Despite the unsubstantiated claims of abuse, they claimed the Coxes made the child's eating disorder worse even though it worsened after he was removed and placed in a transition-affirming home.

The Indiana Department of Child Services declined a Fox News Digital request for comment, saying, "DCS does not comment on ongoing litigation."

"This is what every parent is afraid of," Mary and Jeremy Cox said in a press release. "We love our son and wanted to care for him, but the state of Indiana robbed us of that opportunity by taking him from our home and banning us from speaking to him about gender."

"We are hopeful that the Justices will take our case and protect other parents from having to endure the nightmare we did," they added.

When the case was first heard in trial court, Indiana officials argued the child "should be in a home where she is accepted for who she is" and restricted the Coxes’ visitation time to a few hours once a week, which barred them from speaking to him about their religious views on human sexuality and gender identity. Even though the court determined the Coxes were fit parents, it upheld the removal of their child which was later upheld by the appeals court.

"If this can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere," Windhamn said. "Tearing a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs, which are shared by millions of Americans, is an outrage to the law, parental rights, and basic human decency. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take this case, how many times will this happen to other families?"
 
 
A Catholic couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

In M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Mary and Jeremy Cox are appealing to the Supreme Court after they were investigated by Indiana officials for refusing to refer to their son using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biological sex.

Becket is pursuing the case on behalf of the Coxes, arguing state courts allowed Indiana to keep the child from living in his parents' home due to their disagreement with the child's gender identity because of their religious beliefs. Notably, upon completing the investigation, the state determined the allegations of abuse against Mary and Jeremy were unsubstantiated, but still argued that the disagreement over gender identity was distressing to their child.

Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, told Fox News Digital that no parent should ever have to endure what Mary and Jeremy have been forced to go through. "Keeping a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs—even when the state admits there was no abuse or neglect—is wrong and it’s against the law," she said. "The Court should take this case and make clear that other states can’t take children away because of ideological disagreements."

In 2019, Mary and Jeremy's son told them that he identified as a girl, but in line with their Catholic religious beliefs that God created human beings with an immutable sex, male or female, they did not believe in referring to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biology. In addition, the Coxes believed their son was struggling with underlying mental health conditions, including an eating disorder, so they sought therapeutic care for both.

But, in 2021, Indiana officials began investigating the Coxes after a report found they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity, removing the teen from their custody and placing him in a "gender-affirming" home. Despite the unsubstantiated claims of abuse, they claimed the Coxes made the child's eating disorder worse even though it worsened after he was removed and placed in a transition-affirming home.

The Indiana Department of Child Services declined a Fox News Digital request for comment, saying, "DCS does not comment on ongoing litigation."

"This is what every parent is afraid of," Mary and Jeremy Cox said in a press release. "We love our son and wanted to care for him, but the state of Indiana robbed us of that opportunity by taking him from our home and banning us from speaking to him about gender."

"We are hopeful that the Justices will take our case and protect other parents from having to endure the nightmare we did," they added.

When the case was first heard in trial court, Indiana officials argued the child "should be in a home where she is accepted for who she is" and restricted the Coxes’ visitation time to a few hours once a week, which barred them from speaking to him about their religious views on human sexuality and gender identity. Even though the court determined the Coxes were fit parents, it upheld the removal of their child which was later upheld by the appeals court.


"If this can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere," Windhamn said. "Tearing a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs, which are shared by millions of Americans, is an outrage to the law, parental rights, and basic human decency. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take this case, how many times will this happen to other families?"
Indiana. I guess we’re never more than one generation away from insanity.
 
I’m just gonna say, “Hey MFer!” From now on.

It’s safer.
Unfortunately this is true. You can berate, humiliate and demean your children and call them "MFers", "losers", "good-for-nothing", "worthless piece of shat", etc., but if your child is mentally ill with gender dysphoria, don't you dare call them by their correct biological pronoun. They may be offended ... and removed from your home by a judge.
 
Anyone who votes for Democrats is voting to destroy America. 🤷‍♂️


Many purposely. I’ve said it before that Leftists would rather see the whole thing crumble than be on the lesser side financially and what they “perceive” socially. They seemingly have no perception of what they’re in for, however.
 
Conflating the governor with a judge is just peak idiot but not unexpected

The left is most certainly for the abolition of parental rights in favor of state-run "parenting". They'd rather have the schools in charge so full indoctrination can occur. Though they won't word it as such, it's what they want.
 
Conflating the governor with a judge is just peak idiot but not unexpected

The left is most certainly for the abolition of parental rights in favor of state-run "parenting". They'd rather have the schools in charge so full indoctrination can occur. Though they won't word it as such, it's what they want.
Who's the judge?
 
How is this incident a Democrat thing?
You're right. It could be conservatives doing this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHNAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAA :banana: :banana: :banana::banana::banana:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: y2h
You're right. It could be conservatives doing this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHNAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAA :banana: :banana: :banana::banana::banana:
Presumably, there's a law, policy, protocol that serves as the basis for the child being removed from their parents. How did that come to be? Do you know?
 
Who's the judge?
1708552425086.png
 
BREAKING: The State of Indiana has set this teen up with a professional set of expert counselors, so all is well.



1708552541673.png
 
I doubt SCOTUS will alter some of the mootness rules (the kid is over 18 now) but you never know.

This underscores how important it is to have a good doctor. The parents made a kind gesture by at least referring to the kid as "A" (Ashley? Abigail? I dunno) so they don't seem like zealots. He repaid them by starving himself and tattling to government agencies. Should've hospitalized him and had him force fed while they still could. It's a free country, I guess he can do whatever he wants now.
 
I doubt SCOTUS will alter some of the mootness rules (the kid is over 18 now) but you never know.

This underscores how important it is to have a good doctor. The parents made a kind gesture by at least referring to the kid as "A" (Ashley? Abigail? I dunno) so they don't seem like zealots. He repaid them by starving himself and tattling to government agencies. Should've hospitalized him and had him force fed while they still could. It's a free country, I guess he can do whatever he wants now.

There really isn't one case like this where the person isn't obviously mentally unstable. This gender identity stuff really seems to be something these people latch onto for some reason.
 
There really isn't one case like this where the person isn't obviously mentally unstable. This gender identity stuff really seems to be something these people latch onto for some reason.
I cannot speak to the motivations of the kid. If that's how he's always felt, great, good for him. But that's unknowable. But for many I suspect this is just rebelling. With politics and medicine involved. The latter is by far my greatest concern (don't know if that applies to this case).
 
Top