They want their child back.
In Indiana, Mary and Jeremy Cox, devout Christians, are seeking the U.S. Supreme Court’s reconsideration after their child, identifying as transgender, was taken from their custody by the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS). The dispute arose when the Coxes resisted using their child’s chosen name and pronouns following the child’s decision to identify as a different gender.
DCS launched an inquiry into the Cox household due to the parents’ reluctance to acknowledge their child’s chosen name and pronouns after the child’s self-identification as a girl. The Indiana Family Institute, supporting the Coxes, stated that the trial court removed the child from their care, citing concerns for the child’s well-being in an unsupportive environment regarding their gender identity.
Despite appeals by the Coxes, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the decision, citing permissible limitations on parental religious teachings under state and federal constitutions. The Indiana Supreme Court declined involvement, prompting the Coxes to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Josh Hershberger, representing IFI, filed the petition, stressing the protection of parental rights, free speech, and religious freedom. In their plea, the Coxes highlighted the importance of preserving parental custody and preventing governmental interference in their deeply held beliefs.
The situation has ignited debates in Indiana, a state grappling with issues surrounding transgender rights and parental autonomy. Allegedly, the disagreement led to their child’s severe eating disorder and withdrawal, influencing the court’s decision to keep the child away from the Coxes’ care, as reported by USA Today.
Despite the Coxes’ efforts, including seeking professional help and enrolling the child in a different school, the court maintained its stance, expressing concerns about the child’s potential regression if returned home.
Critics of the court’s decision raised concerns about the extent of its authority over parental rights, emphasizing the rights of capable parents to raise their children based on their beliefs and judgments.
This case has prompted legislative proposals, like House Bill 1407 in Indiana, aiming to prevent courts from separating transgender-identifying children from parents who decline gender-affirming care, although the bill failed to pass.
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office, representing DCS, has requested more time to respond to the Coxes’ petition. The Supreme Court is anticipated to decide by April whether to consider the case. This legal battle carries significant implications for parental rights, considering the courts only review a minute fraction of cases annually.
According to IFI, safeguarding parental authority aligns with biblical principles, emphasizing parents’ responsibility, not the state’s, in raising children within their beliefs, citing Ephesians 6:4.