Skip to main content

Texas’ Attempt to Tear Parents and Trans Youth Apart, One Year Later


One year ago, transgender people and our families reacted in horror as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott directed the state’s family policing agency, the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS), to begin investigating parents with transgender teens. This directive threatened a vulnerable group of young people with being removed from their parent’s custody and put into the state’s overcrowded and deeply problematic foster care system.

The move by Abbott was a stark escalation in the ongoing fight to erase transgender people from public life and prompted outrage from across the state and the country. District attorneys from across Texas said they would refuse to pursue prosecutions against these families, and educators, health care providers, and child welfare experts roundly condemned the directive. DFPS, already facing thousands of resignations, saw another exodus of employees after the announcement.

Taking Greg Abbott to Court

In the year since, the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and Lambda Legal filed two legal challenges against the directive and the investigations. Those challenges sought to protect Texas families and transgender teens by blocking the state from enforcing the governor’s order against them.

The first, Doe v. Abbott, was filed on behalf of an employee at DFPS, her husband, and their transgender teen, as well as a psychologist who provides mental health services and support to transgender youth. The state opened an investigation into Jane Doe and her family almost immediately after the governor issued his directive. Jane was reported and investigated by her own employer and placed on administrative leave as her family feared their child being ripped away from them. On March 11, 2022, a state court found the governor’s directive held no legal weight and blocked the state from investigating our plaintiffs. The Texas Supreme Court later affirmed both points while narrowing the relief to the specific parties in the case.

A second lawsuit was filed in June 2022 on behalf of three additional families with transgender youth and PFLAG National, which provides peer support, education, and advocacy for LGBTQ+ people and their parents, guardians, and allies. A Texas state court granted relief for all three families targeted by DFPS — and expanded that relief to cover PFLAG’s 17 chapters and 600 members statewide in September 2022.

Court orders blocking investigations into PFLAG members are still in effect while these cases continue on appeal with a trial scheduled for the fall.

Texas' War on Transgender Youth

While both cases are ongoing, the state continues to persecute transgender youth and their families under Abbott’s directive. Transgender students are being pulled from classrooms and interrogated about their health care and other personal information. Teachers are stalking social media for evidence a student might be trans and turning their families into DFPS. Many families are even making the difficult and arduous choice to relocate their lives outside of Texas altogether, finding new homes, jobs, and schools for themselves and their loved ones. All of this comes at a time when Texas lawmakers have introduced a record number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills, with the vast majority targeted at transgender youth.

This targeting of supportive parents of transgender youth by an agency meant to protect children shocked many across the country. But in truth, agencies like DFPS already threaten Black, immigrant, Indigenous, and low-income families across the country.

As a joint report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch recently found, conditions of poverty, such as a family’s struggle to pay rent or maintain housing, are often misconstrued by these agencies as neglect and interpreted as evidence of an inability and lack of fitness to parent. This results in over half of Black families becoming the target of a family policing investigation. LGBTQ+ youth are already overrepresented in the nation’s foster care system, where they are more likely to experience abuse and be forced through conversion therapy that attempts to “make” them cisgender and heterosexual.

How to Help

Abbott’s directive represented the expansion of both a political war on transgender youth and the mandate of a family policing system that already endangers families and youth alike. The best way to avoid future attempts to weaponize these agencies for explicitly political purposes is to prevent their abuses altogether, including by fighting for fundamental changes to how states approach child welfare. Our legal advocates will continue our challenge against this directive. At the same time, we urge lawmakers to take immediate measures to strengthen and support families and communities to prevent child maltreatment without subjecting them to surveillance and regulation.

In Texas, the state legislature has introduced a slate of bills attempting to criminalize essential health care for transgender youth and the families and doctors who support them. Texas residents can sign up to take action against these proposed bans and many more bills threatening the fundamental rights of transgender Texans. If you or someone you know needs information and resources for transgender young people in Texas, please visit txtranskids.org to learn more about your rights, how to get legal help, and how to defend yourself against this lawless incursion into your family’s life.

What you can do:
2023 State Legislative action pledge
Sign up now

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...