A Catholic couple in Indiana is asking to the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they allegedly declined to use his chosen name and pronouns. But, in a counter petition, state officials claim the child was removed from his parents’ custody due to an eating disorder despite the fact that it allegedly worsened once he left home and was placed in “gender-affirming” care.
Mary and Jeremy Cox are appealing to the Supreme Court in the case, M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, after they were investigated by Indiana officials for reportedly refusing to refer to their son using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biological sex.
In 2019, Mary and Jeremy’s son told them that he identified as a girl, but in line with their Catholic religious beliefs that God created human beings with an immutable sex, male or female, they did not believe in referring to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biology.
The Coxes also believed their son was struggling with underlying mental health conditions, including an eating disorder, so they sought therapeutic care for both. But, in 2021, Indiana officials began investigating the Coxes after a report found they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity, so they removed him from their custody and placed him in a “gender-affirming” home.
The state claimed the Coxes made the child’s eating disorder worse even though his condition declined after he was removed from their home and placed in the alternative “gender-affirming” home.
Becket, also known as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and which is pursuing the case on behalf of the Coxes, is arguing that state courts allowed Indiana to keep the child from living in his parents’ home due to their disagreement with the child’s gender identity because of their religious beliefs. Notably, upon completing the investigation, the state dropped the allegations of abuse against Mary and Jeremy, but still argued that the disagreement over gender identity was distressing to their child, according to Becket.
The Indiana Department of Child Services filed an opposition brief in the case which was issued by Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office and states that while the “eating disorder and self-isolation were connected to the discord at home regarding [the] Child’s transgender identity,” he was not removed from the parents’ custody because of their views about gender identity.
“Although the child’s eating disorder had a nexus with conflict with the parents over the child’s gender identity, the court stressed that conflict was ‘not a reason to remove a child from a home,’” the brief states. “Rather, removal was necessary for the child’s severe anorexia to ‘get resolved.’”
In addition, the “eating disorder was ‘fueled in part by Child’s self-isolation from the Parents and that behavior was likely to reoccur if Child was placed back in the home with the Parents.’”
Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, told Fox News Digital that “It’s unfortunate to see Indiana’s leaders at the Supreme Court making excuses for the ideological actions of lower-level bureaucrats.”
“The Department of Child Services took away Mary and Jeremy Cox’s child because they refused to use his preferred name and pronouns,” Windham said. “DCS insisted that he had to be in a home that would affirm his new identity, where Mary and Jeremy’s son would be ‘[ac]cepted for who she is.'”
“Now they want to blame an eating disorder that became much worse after the state took him away and placed him in a transition-affirming home,” she added. “This case is exactly what it looks like: State officials removing a child from fit parents because of an ideological dispute over gender identity.”
After initially declining a Fox News Digital request for comment, saying “DCS does not comment on ongoing litigation,” the Indiana Department of Child Services followed up with a statement, explaining the agency’s examination of a child’s best interest is a “holistic evaluation of the child’s physical and mental health and environment.”
“DCS does not – and will not – pursue a case solely on a parent’s choice not to affirm their child’s gender identity,” the statement said.
The brief states the “child was removed because the child had a severe eating disorder that [parents] had not been able to effectively address for two years, that jeopardized the child’s brain and bone health, that was ‘fueled in part’ by behavior ‘likely to reoccur’ at home, and that would not be addressed ‘without coercive court intervention,'” the agency highlighted in its statement. Additionally, they clarified that the Coxes’ child is now a legal adult.
Attorney General Rokita’s office told Fox News Digital that by law, it’s required to defend state agencies, and made it clear that the AG is routinely fighting “transanity,” but that isn’t what this case is about.
“We always protect parental rights and religious liberty,” Rokita said. “Neither we nor the Indiana courts believe that the State can remove a child because of a parent’s religious beliefs, views about gender identity, or anything of the sort. Our office is fulfilling our statutory duty to defend this state agency and to keep an oath I swore when I took office.”
ACLU SUES CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL FOR HALTING ADULT TRANSGENDER SURGERIES
“As the record shows, this state agency acted not on the use of pronouns but because of the child’s extreme eating disorder,” he added. “The Indiana governor sets DCS policy and hires those employees. I am very sympathetic to the parents, and everyone who follows my work as attorney general knows that I am the biggest defender and proponent of parental rights.”
When the case was first heard in trial court, Indiana officials argued the child “should be in a home where she is [ac]cepted for who she is” and restricted the Coxes’ visitation time to a few hours once a week, which barred them from speaking to him about their religious views on human sexuality and gender identity. Even though the court determined the Coxes were fit parents, it upheld the removal of their child, which was later upheld by the appeals court.
In the brief, state officials claim the Indiana trial court authorized the state to take custody of the child due to an eating disorder, claiming the Coxes “had no objection” to factual findings that the order was “necessary” to safeguard their child’s health. The state also claims the court did not limit discussion of the child’s gender identity entirely and only barred discussion of such topics during unsupervised visitations, but encouraged “discussion during court-ordered family ‘therapy.'”
RESEARCHERS ARGUE ‘RAPID ONSET GENDER DYSPHORIA’ DOES EXIST, DESPITE NARRATIVE AGAINST IT
“Mary and Jeremy were providing help for their child’s mental health struggles and wanted him returned to their home so they could provide it,” Windham said. “And they, in their best judgment as fit parents, knew he would do best in their home while receiving treatment. Instead, he remained in state custody, where his eating disorder became worse. As Mary testified: ‘There is no reason for him to be outside of our home.’”
Mary and Jeremy told Fox News Digital that what happened to them is what every parent is afraid of.
“We love our son and wanted to care for him, but the state of Indiana robbed us of that opportunity by taking him from our home and banning us from speaking to him about gender,” they said. “We are hopeful that the Justices will take our case and protect other parents from having to endure the nightmare we did.”
Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., who represents Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District, introduced legislation in Congress that would disqualify a state from receiving federal funds if it discriminated against parents who oppose affirming a child’s gender identity if it is inconsistent with his or her biological sex. He told Fox News Digital that while the Supreme Court should take up this case, Congress doesn’t have to wait.
“When I heard about this outrage in my home state I introduced the GUARD Act to ban punishing parents who recognize biological sex,” he said. “It deserves a floor vote.”
