News

Blue states abound with efforts to encroach on parental rights and to put distance between parents and children. It may, however, be a mistake to presume that residency in a red state with a Republican trifecta and a parental bill of rights in effect could offer any guarantee of relative protection.

The Indiana Department of Child Services had a male minor suffering from both anorexia and gender dysphoria removed from the custody of his loving, traditional Catholic parents in 2021, even though Mary and Jeremy Cox were getting him help.

The Coxes’ refusal to compromise on their deeply held religious convictions and affirm the so-called transgender identity of their 16-year-old son appears to have been a driving factor behind both the DCS’ initial investigation into the family and the state’s subsequent efforts to keep the teen — referred to as A.C. in court documents — out of his familial home.

The parents fought the state every step of the way but had no luck in the trial court or the appellate court.

Seeking to help the Coxes find redress, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and attorney Joshua Hershberger of the Hershberger Law Office petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the parents’ case last year, warning that similar cases were bound to recur “due to developing conflicts between parents and their children concerning gender identity.”

The high court ultimately declined to decide whether the Coxes, a software engineer and a clinical studies manager with a master of science degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, should have lost custody of their son.

That declination could prove consequential, not just for other vulnerable children but for parental rights across the country.

Fallout and revisionism

Media reports following the high court’s declination on March 18 frequently recirculated vulgar remarks attributed to the Coxes that were found to be unsubstantiated.

Mainstream reports also parroted the narrative advanced by the state in its counter-brief and in the public statements attributed to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R), which together went along the lines of: A.C. was sick and not receiving the care he needed while in the custody of his parents. Beneficent agents of the state saw it as their duty to intervene, not because of the parents’ reality-affirming and tradition-informed beliefs but because A.C. would be better served outside of their home and sphere of influence.

Even without mediation by the mainstream press, the state’s position has resonated with some legal scholars.

Following a quick read of the briefs filed with the Supreme Court, law professor Aviva Orenstein, the Karen Lake Buttrey and Donald W. Buttrey Chair at Indiana University Bloomington’s Maurer School of Law, told Blaze News, “Religious beliefs can’t be a protection for abusive behavior, and frankly, what the state alleged — which was not accepted by the other side, so you know, we have to dig deeper — it sounded pretty credible to me: that the parents were being abusive towards this child.”

Court documents and attorneys for the family have painted a different and altogether more convincing picture — one in which the Coxes’ case was a significant battle lost in the ongoing war over parental rights.

“In my view, the state has simply ignored the facts of the case,” Hershberger told Blaze News. “The line has been, ‘It’s about the eating disorder, not about the transgender identity,’ and yet the trial court barred [the parents] from speaking about the entire topic of gender identity. In fact, one of the key reasons in the motion asking for removal was that the parents had not accepted LGBTQ resources on parenting [transgender] children.”

Other parental rights advocates and religious groups are confident this custody battle was from the outset ideologically driven — not least because it’s become increasingly clear in recent months that so-called “gender-affirming care” is largely based, at best, on pseudoscience — calling the whole ordeal a “moral and legal outrage.”

While so far unsuccessful, the Coxes’ saga has also prompted legislative efforts to ensure that something comparable does not recur in the Hoosier State.

Although the past is disputed and the future is uncertain, Mary and Jeremy Cox know now that they must “continue to advocate for state policies and laws that protect parental rights, the free exercise of religion, and free speech” so that “parents of faith can raise their children without fear of state officials knocking on their doors and taking their children.”

Raising the alarm

Bishop Timothy Doherty, who oversees the Dioceses of Lafayette-in-Indiana, refrained from commenting on the case, except to note that he finds it “problematic that much of Catholic teaching is characterized as ‘religious,’ when so many directives are based on reason.”

Dr. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, did not similarly hold back, telling Blaze News, “It is a fundamental principle in Western jurisprudence that children do not belong to the state — they belong to parents. This principle cannot be overridden save for the most egregious of instances.”

“What happened to Mary and Jeremy Cox is a moral and legal outrage,” stressed Donohue.

Donohue suggested that if “Indiana can, in effect, legally kidnap kids,” the outlook appears to be especially bleak in liberal states such as New York and California.

“Not only is this an ominous sign for Catholics, it is a bad omen for people of all faiths,” continued Donohue.

Alvin Lui, the president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, underscored that the risk is shared by all parents out of step with the ideological fads of the day.

“The religious families are the first to be targeted, especially Christian and Catholic families, but this is being extended to any families who do not follow whatever the current Marxist or woke agenda is,” Lui told Blaze News. “Parents must come to the sobering fact that we can no longer depend on anyone else to protect our kids. We have to take a strong stand BEFORE tragedy arrives at our doorstep.”

Lui has campaigned in recent months against proposed legislation in Maine and other states that would serve to separate children from parents if those kids are said to be seeking “gender-affirming care.” He has elsewhere shared parental strategies for protecting kids.

The parental rights advocate added, “The transgender cult and the people funding them do not care about the Constitution. They want it completely abolished because they’re a big part of the cultural revolution to dismantle America.”

Losing a child

A.C. notified his parents in December 2019 that he identified as a girl. He requested to be referred to both by a new name and by pronouns corresponding to his new feminine persona.

Besides an apparent case of gender dysphoria, A.C. also suffered from anorexia — a condition that worsened while he was away at an ostensibly woke residential high school, the Indiana Academy of Science, Mathematics, and Humanities on the Ball State University campus.

As indicated in their September 2023 petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, Mary and Jeremy Cox pursued therapeutic help for their son by February 2020. After ten months of therapeutic care, the parents apparently sought out a new therapist for “substantial assistance with the identity issue or with family dynamics.”

Having monitored A.C.’s weight while he was away at school and observed a worsening trend, the Coxes decided to un-enroll him after the 2020-2021 school year and sign him up for a different school.

After a wellness check with his primary care physician in April 2021, A.C. was apparently referred to a specialist on eating disorders, then underwent a psycho-social assessment. Mary Cox subsequently scheduled a full mental health evaluation for her son on June 3, 2021.

Becket and Hershberger noted in the petition that “in seeking treatment for concerns about A.C.’s weight loss and eating habits, the Parents followed the recommendations of A.C.’s primary care physician. Throughout this period, the Parents engaged in conversations with A.C. concerning their religious beliefs and gender identity and attempted to find middle ground by using the nickname ‘A.'”

Hershberger told Blaze News, “They did everything to try to meet [A.C.] in the middle, trying to understand how to even use the term ‘A.’ They’re also meeting all of his medical, educational and mental health needs. They recognize the problem is his eating habit. They were following their doctor’s recommendation and they had in fact scheduled an appointment with a specialist prior to the state intervening in their home.”

Evidently, someone outside the home figured A.C.’s parents for villains who, despite proactively taking these steps, still refused to affirm the boy’s so-called gender identity.

According to the state’s counter-brief, the DCS started its case against the Coxes in May 2021 after receiving two reports that the parents “were suspected of abusing or neglecting their child, A.C. One report alleged that Mother was using ‘rude and demeaning language’ toward A.C. ‘regarding Child’s transgender identity.'”

“The second report, just ten days later, alleged that parents were ‘verbally and emotionally abusing Child because they do not accept Child’s transgender identity,’ and that ‘the abuse was getting worse,'” claimed the counter-brief.

These allegations — suggestive of a conflation of the parents’ views on gender ideology with abuse from the start — were later dropped, but not until months after they served the purpose of excusing interference on the part of the state.

A DCS family case manager investigated the misleading reports, met with the Coxes, and spoke with an employee at the boy’s school. The department then initiated a proceeding on the basis of the neglect and abuse allegations.

The trial court heard that the boy’s parents were allegedly not getting him treatment and that he had thoughts of self-harm because his “gender identity was ‘not being accepted'” and he had been removed from school, said the counter-brief.

Jeremy Cox told the court in turn that he and his wife had deeply held religious beliefs on gender and had previously sought therapeutic treatment for their son. The parents further noted that their son had other medical problems, largely tying back to his anorexia.

The DCS underscored at the initial detention hearing, “We just feel that at this point in time this child needs to be in a home that’s not going to teach her that trans, like everything about transgender … tell her how she should think and how she should feel. However, she should be in a home where she is excepted [sic] for who she is.”

Hershberger told Blaze News that the DCS “specifically argued that the child should be in a home … that would verbally affirm the child’s transgender identity in contrast to the parents’ religious beliefs.”

The trial court issued an initial order in which it preliminarily concluded there was probable cause to believe that A.C. was a Child In Need of Service and ordered the teen removed from the Coxes’ custody in June 2021. The court allowed the parents to visit their child for a few hours unsupervised once a week “so long as certain topics are not addressed,” namely their views on gender ideology.

Hershberger and Becket summarized the result thusly: “The trial court removed A.C. from fit parents, held that their beliefs and best judgment equaled neglect, shut down meaningful conversation about their core disagreement even in therapy (until the Parents requested clarification), and limited visitation to a few hours one day a week.”

In the months that followed, A.C.’s condition worsened significantly whilst in state custody, such that he reached a weight of just 100 pounds and was allegedly at risk of brain and bone injury. Despite his illness, A.C. did not believe that he needed any treatment.

At a later trial court hearing, all parties agreed to drop the “unsubstantiated” allegations of neglect and abuse against the parents. The court accepted the dismissal in November 2021 as well as the understanding that A.C. posed a danger to himself. The recognition that the Coxes were, after all, fit parents did not, however, reunify their family and enable them to resume caring for their son.

At a Dec. 8, 2021, dispositional hearing, the DCS allegedly testified that the disagreement between the Coxes and A.C. over transgenderism remained a barrier to his return home.

The parents appealed the case to the Indiana Court of Appeals, taking issue also with the trial court’s prohibition on their ability to speak forthrightly with their son.

In October 2022, the appellate court ruled that the trial court’s decisions were not in violation of the state and federal constitutions.

“The Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs,” said the appellate court, “but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to the child.”

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that while the Coxes were fit parents, the familial disagreement over the boy’s gender identity was exacerbating his eating disorder.

The Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Pinning high hopes on the high court

Running short on options, the Coxes fought to put their case before the U.S. Supreme Court, presenting the following questions:

Whether a prior restraint barring a religious parent’s speech about the topic of sex and gender with their child while allowing and even requiring speech on the same topic from a different viewpoint violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment; and
Whether a trial court’s order removing a child from fit parents without a particularized finding of neglect or abuse violates their right to the care, custody, and control of their child under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The petition for a writ of certiorari filed on behalf of the Coxes emphasized that their faith “does not prevent them from using nicknames or attempting to work and live with others that hold different beliefs; however, their faith requires them to refrain from speaking in a manner that their faith instructs is immoral, dishonest, or harmful.”

Moreover, the petition indicated that “in addition to the Parents’ religious views, based on scientific evidence and their own experience as parents, M.C. and J.C. believe that using crossgender pronouns or names inconsistent with a child’s biological sex is not in a child’s best interest.”

Becket and Hershberger stressed in the petition that, “Given the facts of this case and the arbitrary and almost absolute power it grants to juvenile courts over custody and parental speech, no parent in Indiana — and especially no parent with a child that struggles with mental health issues — should sleep easy tonight.”

The Heritage Defense Foundation, a Christian advocacy group, evidently agreed, noting in its amicus brief in support of the Coxes that “left unaddressed, the violation at issue will destabilize the bedrock of society and foster anxiety among parents across the country regarding the security of their parental rights.”

“Where the parents have not been determined to be or to have been abusive or neglectful, the state has no jurisdiction to override the decision-making of the parents regarding what is in the best interests of their child. ‘The child is not the mere creature of the State,'” continued the HDF.

“If custody by parents is always subject to the will of the state, even when the parents have committed no wrong, parents become mere servants of the state,” added the HDF. “The state and its bureaucrats become the arbitrary micro-managers of every family, controlling them with the implied threat: ‘Do what the current political administration says or lose your children.'”

Concerning the parents’ last-ditch legal effort, Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, and Hershberger said in a joint statement, “We are confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately protect this basic right and ensure that parents can raise their children consistent with their religious beliefs.”

The Coxes stated, “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.”

“We are hopeful that the justices will take our case and protect other parents from having to endure the nightmare we did,” they added.

The state alternatively argued that the case, which involved no damages claim, was moot now that A.C. had aged out of foster care and no relief could be given; that the temporary speech restriction was lawful; that the appellate court’s holdings did not conflict with the decisions of any other court; and that there was “no prospect that the narrow factual issues here will reoccur.”

Another setback

The Supreme Court ultimately declined to take up the case last month.

The Coxes said in response, “No other loving parents should have to endure what we did. The pain of having our son taken from our home and kept from our care because of our beliefs will stay with us forever.”

The bereaved couple added, “We can’t change the past, but we will continue to fight for a future where parents of faith can raise their children without fear of state officials knocking on their doors and taking their children.”

Hershberger said in a statement to Blaze News that while “SCOTUS denied the Petition of Mary and Jeremy Cox, we did accomplish the goal of placing this fact pattern in front of SCOTUS as a real and growing threat to parental rights, freedom of religion, and free speech.”

“These constitutional principles represent a cause — not just a case — and we will continue to advocate for that cause in law and culture,” added the attorney, who is also a teaching pastor in southeast Indiana.

Joe Davis, a former litigator at Jones Walker LLP who now serves as legal counsel at Becket, emphasized to Blaze News that the case amounted to “every parent’s worst nightmare” and a “shocking and chilling attack on parental rights.” He indicated that absent a ruling from the Supreme Court, those keen to break up families will be furthered emboldened.

Mary Cox confirmed to Blaze News that she and Jeremy Cox have separately sued the DCS and the case workers for “making false statements about family in their initial report and court documents.”

State sympathies

Following the exhaustion of the Coxes’ legal options, the Indiana Attorney General’s Office directed Blaze News to Rokita’s February statement to mainstream publications, where he said, “We always protect parental rights and religious liberty.”

“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,” said Rokita, a Catholic Republican whose office underscored he has made a habit of fighting “transanity.”

“As the record shows, this state agency acted not on the use of pronouns but because of the child’s extreme eating disorder,” said Rokita, who is legally obligated to defend state agencies in court.

While Rokita retroactively disentangled the two concerns, the Department of Child Services clearly acted early on because of pronoun use and the corresponding gender affirmations. The state even noted in its counter-brief that the family case manager had expressed concern to the trial court that A.C. had “thoughts of self-harm because the child’s gender identity was ‘not being accepted.'” Removal was clearly perceived as a way of landing A.C. in an environment where his gender dysphoria would be ideologically buttressed.

“The Indiana governor sets DCS policy and hires those employees,” continued Rokita. “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.”

Mary Cox told Blaze News that “the state ignored the clear and undisputed facts of the case and decided to defend a government agency that forced its ideology on parents rather than defend parental rights.”

Blaze News reached out to the DCS for comment but did receive a response by deadline.

The DCS has, however, previously stated that when evaluating a child’s best interest, it endeavors to make 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,” added the department.

Removal-affirming care

Professor Orenstein of the Maurer School of Law suggested that the state’s case was well argued and dismissed religious conservatives’ alternative framing.

“We’re getting to the point where if you wave the flag of religion, you can do what you want,” said Orenstein, who has served as a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children. “At some point, this cannot be the trump card to everything — that ‘these are my religious beliefs.'”

When asked whether a refusal to affirm a child’s so-called gender identity would qualify under state law as neglect, Orenstein responded, “I don’t think per se.”

“It’s okay for parents not to jump immediately on board,” continued the professor. However, if a child is in danger, and it is “very clear the kid’s behavior is connected to what the parents are doing,” the professor suggested the state has an obligation to intervene.

In the case of such an ideological disagreement with a teenager — particularly a disagreement that has obvious health consequences — Orenstein suggested “you should let the person decide.” Failing to defer to a child on such matters might otherwise register as “an elemental lack of respect for the child’s personhood, but that goes along with conservative religious values in a very patriarchal system. You know, that is, ‘I am the parent and I am in charge.'”

In conversation with Orenstein, Blaze News raised the matter of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s September refusal to ratify Assembly Bill 957, a bill that would have had courts factor in a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity when determining the best interests of a child in a child custody or visitation proceeding. At the time, Newsom expressed concern that such a law could set a precedent that might be weaponized, in turn, against minorities by “other-minded officials.”

When asked whether the Coxes’ case might be used as a template by bad actors or “other-minded officials” against other parents with deeply held convictions, including progressive parents, Orenstein suggested that when it comes to political conservatives, “there’s no low too low. Would this be a talking point? Perhaps. Would it be a good argument? No.”

G. David Caudill, founder and executive director of the LGBT activist organization Equality Indiana, suggested that critics’ concerns about the results of the matter “are exaggerated.”

Having been asked to comment about concerns that child services might be weaponized against families with viewpoints regarded as undesirable to the state, Caudill said, “The use of the word ‘weaponized’ in regards to governmental actions is used by extremists when they dislike the results of that governmental action. The word ‘weaponized’ is a buzzword used to rile up and rally their activist base and voters.”

The final word

Mary Cox torpedoed the insinuation that concerns about the DCS’ weaponization amount to empty rhetoric. She said in a written reply to Blaze News, “DCS testified at the initial hearing: ‘We just feel that at this point in time this child needs to be in a home that’s not going to teach her that trans, like everything about transgender — tell her how she should think and how she should feel.'”

“This is not just a risk. This is a reality,” said Mrs. Cox.

“We are gravely concerned that our case will be used against other Indiana parents,” continued the Christian mother. “Further, as we explained in our petition to SCOTUS, several states have passed laws allowing state agencies to remove or hide children from their parents if the parents do not agree to ‘gender-affirming care.’ And Abigail Martinez, a mother from California that endured a similar case, filed an amicus brief with SCOTUS on our behalf.”

Blaze News previously detailed Martinez’s claims that the government of Los Angels County encouraged her daughter to identify as male, to sign up for sex-change treatments, and to be placed in foster care. The young girl, who was battling depression, ultimately committed suicide.

Mrs. Cox stressed that this is not a problem that only traditional Christians should worry about.

Like Lui and Donohue, she noted that “teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions. For this reason, parents of any religion or no religion at all that hold to a traditional view of gender should be concerned.”

“No other loving parents should have to endure what we did,” said Mrs. Cox.

Mrs. Cox indicated that readers ought to know that “if this can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere. We lost custody of our child because we disagreed with the state about gender, and it could happen to your family as well. We need to work together to ensure that parental rights are protected in law and culture.”

Cox Family Testimonial Videoyoutu.be

Editor’s note: The article originally quoted Hershberger as saying over the phone that the parents “did everything to try to meet [A.C.] in the middle, trying to understand how to even use the term ‘they.'” It has been corrected to reflect that Hershberger said, “trying to understand how to even use the term ‘A.'”