Vermont Foster Agency Accused of Discriminating Against Christian Families Opposed to ‘Affirming’ Trans Ideology in Children
‘[T]his is a pretty obvious constitutional violation. . . . pretty blatant and pretty obvious,’ one attorney said.
The Vermont Department for Children and Families is facing a two-pronged attack over its alleged discrimination against Christian foster and adoptive parents opposed to transgender ideology. Two groups have accused the department of violating their clients’ rights by denying placements with families unwilling to support the social and medical transition of children.
The Center for American Liberty (CAL) and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) are separately challenging the department’s policy of not placing children with parents who refuse to “affirm” an LGBT identity generally, even if a given child is not LGBT.
CAL and ADF told Legal Insurrection each was aware of the other’s efforts.
“[T]hat just demonstrates how widespread the issue is across Vermont,” ADF attorney Mallory Sleight said.
Affirmation of an LGBT identity can include attending pride events with the children and using a child’s preferred name and pronouns.
CAL and ADF variously allege the department retaliated against their clients, sought to compel speech, or denied them free religious exercise, freedom of association, due process, or equal protection of the law.
CAL demand letter
On May 29, CAL sent the department a demand letter on behalf of its clients, Melinda Antonucci and Casey Mathieu, challenging the department’s allegedly “unlawful and retaliatory actions” because of the couple’s “unwillingness to facilitate certain controversial psychological and medical treatment that a transgender-identifying child might request.”
The refusal stems from Melinda and Casey’s “Christian faith, and their religious beliefs.”
Inspired by their Christian faith, the letter reads, Melinda and Casey applied for and were granted a foster care license.
Melinda and Casey indicated their willingness to adopt any child, including one identifying as “LGBTQ+,” but refused to facilitate transitioning.
A department employee then “asked Melinda and Casey to complete a supplemental training module,” according to the letter.
The module “taught foster parents to affirm a child’s transgender identity and facilitate the provision of medical and psychological treatments intended to aid in the child’s transition if the child requested it,” the letter continues.
Melinda and Casey later fostered an eight-year-old boy on an emergency basis for two weeks but attracted the attention of the department over a parental rights petition.
“The Petition,” which Melinda circulated, “called on the school district to recognize parents’ constitutional right to raise their children and to inform parents prior to assisting their child’s social transition to a new gender identity at school.”
The demand letter alleges the department employee emailed Melinda about her support for the petition and expressed her concern “because all foster homes must ‘affirm’ transgender-identifying children.”
The department employee “did not explain how the Petition—which does not advocate for non-affirmance—was inconsistent with the requirement,” according to the demand letter.
The department employee later asked Melinda and Casey to voluntarily terminate their license, which they refused, or face involuntary termination. The demand letter alleges the licensure termination proceedings have languished without a decision.
“[T]his is a pretty obvious constitutional violation,” CAL attorney Eric Sell told Legal Insurrection.
Sell acknowledged that the department “might have an interest” in protecting a foster child who later identifies as LGBT from the impact of removal due to non-affirmance. Sell, however, noted that “we’re talking about foster placements, which are often temporary, and the department’s own regulations contemplate that there may be issues” requiring removal.
“[T]here’s absolutely no reason why it has to be so inflexible” in the case of Melinda and Casey, Sell said.
Sell also highlighted “an almost identical” case out of Massachusetts, where a court denied qualified immunity to Massachusetts Department of Children & Families employees who allegedly discriminated against Catholic would-be foster parents who would not affirm an LGBT identity.
ADF complaint
On June 4, ADF filed a complaint against the department on behalf of Pastor Brian Wuoti, Kaitlyn Wuoti, Pastor Bryan Gantts, and Rebecca Gantts, families “[i]nspired by their faith . . . to help vulnerable children.”
The complaint accuses the department of denying placements with the Wuoti and Gantts families “solely due to their religiously inspired and widely held belief that girls cannot become boys or vice versa.”
Both families have a long history with the department. Brian and Kaitlyn Wuoti “adopted two precious brothers” and “decided to foster children in 2016,” according to the complaint.
“When the Wuotis tried to renew their license,” the complaint continues, “one case worker called them ‘AMAZING’ and said she ‘probably could not hand pick a more wonderful foster family.'”
However, when the Wuotis shared their Christian views and stated “that they could not say or do anything that went against faith-informed views about human sexuality, Vermont revoked their license anyway.”
“The Gantts share a similar story,” the complaint reads
The department offered to place with Bryan and Rebecca “a baby about to be born to a woman who was homeless and addicted to drugs.”
“But just before Bryan and Rebecca agreed to do so,” they received a department “email explaining that families must accept the State’s orthodoxy about gender fluidity,” according to the complaint.
While Bryan and Rebecca “responded that they would unconditionally love and support any children placed with them,” they indicated that “they would not forsake their religious beliefs that people should value their God-given bodies.”
The complaint accuses “[t]he Department of refus[ing] to let the Gantts take the baby in need and instead revok[ing] their license,” despite their previous “adopt[ion] of five children between them.”
“[O]ur clients will love and support any child, regardless of race, age, gender ability, gender identity, [or] orientation,” Sleight told Legal Insurrection.
“None of those things matter. . . . The problem is the state is saying to have any child placed with you, regardless of their gender identity, you have to agree beforehand to affirm any hypothetical gender identity that comes along in the future.”
Department’s response
The department declined in its June 14 response to “comment in detail on the legal assertions in [the CAL demand letter],” citing the pending ADF ligitation. The department instead advised that its position “on the issues . . . will likely be made clear” in the department’s response to the ADF lawsuit.
The department declined to comment on the specifics in a response emailed to Legal Insurrection.
The department “takes the care and support of youth in our custody seriously, and we work to ensure that youth in foster care are placed in homes that support all aspects of what makes them who they are,” said Nellie Marvel, the department’s communications director.
The department framed the need for affirmation in terms of preventing “negative outcomes” for “LGBTQI+ youth,” including those who do not presently identify as such.
“[I]t is our responsibility to ensure all children and youth will reside in a home with caregivers who are committed to fully embracing and holistically affirming and supporting them.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
hello
at the vermont foster agency we believe in equity and equality and of course diversity
if some genders cant have a pe nis
why should any other gender
we of course believe in a
flat groin society
where no one gender can rise up above another
please donate
Signed: Barbie & Ken Mattel
I grew up in the state as had generations before me when it was a Republic. Proudly Independent the State was destroyed by people from away.
Yet another case of liberals (Massholes) “escaping” the insane economy of their own state, while nurturing the liberal virus inside themselves to infect their new state.
Massholes and Noo Yawkuhz contributed greatly to the destruction of California as well.
Noo Yawkuhz are still leaving. Fifty percent say they plan to leave over the next five years.
No biggie. They will quickly be replaced by non-tax paying illegals.
What will New York do? Cut back? No way! As everyone knows, a commonsense approach to a fiscal crisis is to keep on spending!
Yup
Massholes, CT and NY contributed the most with some from NJ. NH and ME got it, too
This is what that Long March gets us.
Coupled with the big govt devotees on the ‘conservative’ side the chamber of commerce sorts who turn up their noses at culture war issues in favor of spend political capital on reducing capital gains and income tax rates. When they don’t simply turn a blind eye to these sorts of issues where the bureaucracy is running amok as the cost of doing business/making the sausage.
What about Christian agencies that oppose infant sacrifice at black masses?
These creeps are going to make me despise rainbows.
Geesh, you’re not there yet?
Remove their 501 status. Immediately and permanently.
Then tax them for all of their earnings since they set this rule. If a nonprofit violates the constitution, then they should not be exempt from taxes.
Which also includes the donors. Tax their donations.
Disregard last. I read it again and noticed that it was a Vermont Department. I amend my comment and believe the Department should be closed. .