Vermont Couple Settles After Foster License Revocation

A couple from Vermont, Melinda Antonucci, 45, and Casey Mathieu, 43, have come to an agreement with the state after their foster care license was taken away. The revocation occurred following their personal concerns about how their transgender child was being treated, which sparked a broader ideological conflict.

The Vermont Department of Children and Families (DCF) required them to undergo LGBTQ+ training related to medical treatments for transgender children while applying for their license. “It seemed like Vermont was turning the foster care licensing process into an ideological screening,” said Josh Dixon, an attorney with the Center for American Liberty, which filed the lawsuit against the DCF.

The DCF’s actions were part of a larger discussion about parental rights. Antonucci remarked that they had become foster parents with the intent to help children in need, and it was frustrating to see their beliefs challenged. “The state seemed to disqualify us because we wouldn’t simply conform to its views,” she stated.

As part of the settlement, their foster care licenses will be reinstated. The state also agreed not to factor in the applicants’ beliefs or required ideological conformity in the foster care process. This means that, moving forward, they can focus on providing loving homes without the pressure of political ideologies influencing their ability to foster.

The couple’s challenges began when Antonucci shared a petition on social media advocating for parental rights in a local school district. This petition aimed to affirm parents’ rights to guide their children and ensure parental notification when schools support a child’s social transition. A DCF official later expressed concern about their stance, noting that foster care environments should “affirm” transgender identities.

Despite these pressures, Antonucci reiterated that they were open to fostering a transgender child but were uncomfortable with participating in medical transitions or enforcing preferred names and pronouns. Over time, this concern led to uncertainty about their licensing status.

The couple had initially received their foster care license in January 2024 and placed one child in emergency care for a brief period. The DCF indicated that if the couple did not willingly resign their licenses, it would pursue a formal revocation. However, the couple chose to contest this action.

The lawsuit claimed that the DCF policy infringed on their freedoms of speech and religion. As for future placements, while DCF will still consider the beliefs of foster parents regarding trans children, it will not revoke licenses solely based on those beliefs, allowing them to care for other children.

Dixon noted that this case might set a precedent as similar issues are being challenged in other states. “We hope more cases progress in a similar direction,” he said, hinting at ongoing legal discussions within foster care policies across various regions.