OP-ED: State shouldn’t seize children from parents over differing gender views

The North Carolina House is currently considering SB 442, the Parent’s Protection Act, which would make clear in statute that raising a child in accordance with their biological sex, even if that child objects, is not, by itself, abuse justifying state intervention. This common-sense legislation should not be controversial and should be immediately passed.

The bill responds to a troubling trend across the United States: Parents losing custody of their children because they refused to support gender transition interventions. Courts have removed children from loving homes in Indiana, Ohio, California, and Illinois. This raises profound concerns about parental rights, religious freedom, and the well-being of children who suffer from gender dysphoria.

One of the best-known cases is that of Mary and Jeremy Cox from Indiana. In 2019 their teenage son, who had multiple mental health comorbidities, informed them that he identified as a girl. But the Coxes are devout Catholics who believe that God creates human beings either male or female, and therefore could not affirm an identity that was inconsistent with biology. Wanting to help their son, they sought out mental-health professionals to help him with his underlying mental-health problems.

Then in 2021, an Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) investigation was sparked by a report that the Coxes were not using their son’s preferred pronouns. Later that year DCS removed him from their custody. After an investigation, the state admitted that the parents were fit and not abusive, but said their refusal to affirm the gender transition was still deemed sufficient grounds for removal.

“As a father, I believe one of my main goals is to keep my children safe,” said Jeremy Cox. “And I can’t do that when the state comes into our house and takes our kids because we can’t in good conscience affirm his transgender ideology.”

Similarly, in California, Abigail Martinez lost custody of her daughter, Yaeli, after she declined to support her daughter’s gender transition. Tragically, Yaeli, who had been placed on cross-sex hormones without her mother’s consent, took her own life shortly thereafter. Martinez now advocates for parental rights, urging the Supreme Court to intervene and prevent such tragedies.

This problem has also surfaced in North Carolina. The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services issued a policy directing social workers to assess whether children are at risk of “maltreatment and rejecting behaviors,” including parents refusing to affirm gender identity or sexual orientation. Such policies could pave the way for the state to remove children from homes where parents hold traditional beliefs about gender and sexuality.

And the problem is not just showing up in court. Legislative proposals in California and Colorado, sought to define a refusal to affirm gender transition as abuse and to deem it as grounds for loss of custody. Custody-related legislation passed both chambers in California, but was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023.

Just last week, the Colorado legislation was stripped of its more radical measures, including requiring courts to consider whether a parent is gender affirming when deciding child custody cases and treating “misgendering” (refusing to use new name and pronoun) as discrimination. The provisions were removed due to extreme public backlash after the bill passed in the Colorado House of Representatives. Legislative efforts like these outline the importance of ensuring that the transgender agenda does not become a threat to parents’ rights in North Carolina.

At stake in this issue is the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children according to their values. Parental rights are foundational to American life — they are constitutionally established and deeply rooted in American tradition.

As nationally recognized legal scholar Jonathan Turley put it, “There is no greater natural right than the right to control the upbringing of our children. This right was not granted to us by the grace of the state. It rests with us as human beings. It is part of a panoply of natural rights embraced by the framers − a commitment made nearly 250 years ago in our Declaration of Independence.”

Parental rights were also recently upheld in the North Carolina State Constitution. In March, the NC Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Happel v. Guilford County Board of Education, affirming that parents’ rights are a fundamental constitutional right. Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote in the majority opinion that parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their own children — including giving consent to and making medical decisions for their children. It should send a chill down every parent’s spine that there are those who believe that children should be taken from parents who are simply seeking to raise them according to their values.

Not only does this government overreach infringe on parental rights, but it also puts the health and well-being of children who are struggling with gender dysphoria or other mental health problems at risk. Research shows that 60% of children who socially transition (change their name, pronouns, and/or appearance) go on to pursue medical interventions. And the dangers of medical gender transition interventions for children are becoming more and more clear. Long-term harms of these interventions include sterility, cardiovascular damage, loss of bone density, and negative psychological effects.

Last week the US Department of Health and Human Services released a new report stating there is “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits” of gender transition interventions for treating gender dysphoria in children. More than 25 states, including North Carolina, have enacted bans on gender-affirming treatments for minors, citing the significant risks.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has raised alarms, citing the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the efficacy of surgical interventions for gender dysphoria. And authorities in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom have conducted in-depth reviews, finding that the harms of these interventions are far-reaching and the benefits largely unproven, causing these nations to scale back such treatments.

Furthermore, for many parents, particularly those of faith like the Coxes, gender-affirming treatments conflict with deeply held religious beliefs. Christianity and other religions teach that individuals are divinely created as male or female, and many parents wish to raise their children in accordance with these convictions. Policies that mandate affirmation of gender identity can force parents to choose between their religious beliefs and maintaining custody of their children.

North Carolina has a responsibility to protect its families. Biological and adoptive parents should be able to make decisions for the well-being of their children without fear of the government taking their child away. And they should be able to shield them from the harms of gender ideology.