A Catholic couple in Indiana is calling on the state to hold their child accountable after refusing to allow their child to use his chosen name and pronouns. However, state officials said in a counterpetition that the child’s eating disorder worsened after she left home and was placed in a “gender-affirming” facility, even though her parental custody He claims to have been removed from the program.
Mary and Jeremy Cox appeal to the Supreme Court In this case, MC and JC v. Indiana Department of Children Services., After they were reportedly investigated by Indiana authorities for refusing to call their son using pronouns or a name that did not match his biological sex.
In 2019, Mary and Jeremy’s son said she identifies as female, in line with the Catholic religious belief that God created humans with an unchanging gender, either male or female. I didn’t believe in calling Mary and Jeremy by their pronouns. The name does not match his biology.
The Coxes also believed their son suffered from an underlying mental illness, including an eating disorder, and sought treatment for both. But in 2021, Indiana authorities removed Cox from custody as they launched an investigation after reports they discovered the couple had not referred to their child by Cox’s preferred gender identity. , and placed her in a “gender-affirming” facility.
The state claimed the Coxes worsened the child’s eating disorder, even though the condition worsened after they were removed from their home and placed in an alternative “gender-affirming” home.
Beckett is arguing on behalf of the Coxes that no parent should ever have to endure what Mary and Jeremy were forced to go through. (Alexander Paul/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Beckett, also known as the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom, is pursuing the case on behalf of the Coxes. He claims that he gave permission not to do so. Because of their religious beliefs. Notably, the state dropped the abuse allegations against Mary and Jeremy after completing its investigation, Beckett said, but maintained that the disagreement over gender identity was still painful for the children.
Indiana Department of Children Services filed an objection simple The lawsuit, released by Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office, states that “the eating disorder and self-isolation were related to domestic discord.” [the] “The child’s transgender identity,” but he was not removed from his parents’ custody because of his parents’ views on gender identity.
Florida transgender activist collapses on stage over rule banning changing gender on driver’s license
“Although the child’s eating disorder was associated with a conflict between the parents over the child’s gender identity, the court emphasized that conflict ‘is not grounds for removing the child from the home,'” the brief states. There is. “Rather, excision was necessary to ‘solve’ the child’s severe anorexia.”
“Eating disorders are partially spurred by children being self-isolated from their parents, and the behavior is likely to recur when children are returned to their parents’ homes.” .
said Lori Windham, Beckett’s vice president and senior advisor. fox news digital “It’s disappointing to see Indiana’s leaders on the Supreme Court making excuses for the ideological actions of lower-level officials.”
“Children’s Services removed Mary and Jeremy Cox’s child because they refused to use his preferred name and pronouns,” Windham said. “DCS insisted that Mary and Jeremy’s son must be at home where they could confirm his new identity.”[ac]Accepted who she is. ”
Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
“Now they want to blame it on an eating disorder that was made worse by the state taking him away and putting him in a transition-affirming facility,” she added. “This is exactly what this case is about: state authorities removing children from their able-bodied parents because of ideological disputes over gender identity.”
After initially declining Fox News Digital’s request for comment, the Indiana Department of Children’s Services said it “does not comment on ongoing litigation,” before issuing a statement saying the agency’s investigation into a child’s best interests “is a It is a comprehensive evaluation.” Children’s physical and mental health and environment. ”
“DCS does not and will not litigate based solely on a parent’s choice not to affirm their child’s gender identity,” the statement said.
“The child was removed because she was suffering from a severe eating disorder,” the brief said. [parents] Problems that endanger children’s brain and bone health, are “fueled in part” by behavior that “is likely to recur” at home, and cannot be addressed “without mandatory court intervention.” for two years, and was unable to deal with it effectively. She also revealed that the Coxes’ children are now legal adults.
Attorney General Rokita’s office told FOX News Digital that the law requires them to protect state institutions, and that the attorney general routinely fights “transparency,” which is what this lawsuit is all about. It became clear that it was not.
“We will always protect parental rights and religious freedom,” Rokita said. “Neither we nor the Indiana courts believe that a state can remove a child because of a parent’s religious beliefs, views on gender identity, or anything like that. Our office “I am fulfilling my statutory duty to defend this state institution and uphold my oath,” he swore upon taking office. ”
ACLU sues children’s hospital to block transgender adult surgery
“As the record shows, this state’s authorities acted not on the basis of pronoun use, but on the basis of the child’s extreme eating disorder,” he added. “The Governor of Indiana sets DCS policy and hires those employees. I am very sympathetic to parents, and everyone who follows my work as Attorney General knows that I am the greatest advocate of parental rights. I know I’m an advocate and advocate.”
When the case was first heard in trial court, Indiana authorities argued that the child “should be at home with her.” [ac]He limited the Coxes’ visitation to once a week and prohibited them from discussing their religious views on human sexuality and gender identity. Even though the court found the Coxes to be suitable parents, it upheld the removal of their children. later supported by the Court of Appeals.
A brief filed by Indiana state authorities alleges that the state granted custody of the child to the Indiana Department of Children’s Services because of her eating disorder. (Mark Kerrison/Photo via Getty Images)
State officials argued in briefs that an Indiana court awarded custody of the child to the state because of the eating disorder and the fact that the Coxes “needed” the order to protect the child’s health. He insisted that there was “no objection” to the certification. The state also notes that courts have not completely restricted discussion of a child’s gender identity, only prohibiting discussion of such topics during unsupervised visitation, and that courts have He also claims that he encouraged “discussion during therapy.”
Researchers say “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” exists, but some theories deny it.
“Mary and Jeremy support the child with his mental health issues and wanted him back home so they could provide that,” Ms Windham said. “And they knew, in their best good parental judgment, to do the best they could at home while he received treatment. Instead, he remained in state custody. There his eating disorder worsened, and as Mary testified, “he has no reason” to be outside of our home. ”
Mary and Jeremy told Fox News Digital that what happened to them is what every parent fears.
“We loved our son and wanted to care for him, but the state of Indiana robbed us of that opportunity by removing him from our home and prohibiting us from talking to him about his gender,” they said. Told. “We hope that a judge will take up our case and protect other parents from having to endure a nightmare like ours.”
Indiana’s 3rd Congressional Representative, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), said states would be eligible to receive federal funds if their child’s gender identity does not match their own and if they discriminate against parents who object to that affirmation. A bill has been submitted to Congress to deprive the government of biological sex. He told Fox News Digital that the Supreme Court should take up the case, but Congress doesn’t have to wait.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“When I heard about this outrage in my home state, I introduced the Guard Act to prohibit punishment of parents who identify with their biological sex,” he said. “It deserves a floor vote.”
