“God’s timing.” That’s how Cynthia and Rob Robbins describe the adoption of their foster daughter in April. That same month, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families asked the Robbinses to sign a “foster parent agreement” for the first time since they began taking in kids in 2019.
The agreement required that foster parents “support, respect, and affirm the foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.” The Robbinses, who are Christian, told me they couldn’t sign an agreement that conflicts with their religious beliefs regarding sexuality. Their foster license was revoked in August.
The Robbinses aren’t alone: The nonprofit Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom is representing two other couples suing Massachusetts for conditioning foster licenses on “Christians’ willingness to renounce their beliefs.” In 2023, the Burke family sued the state for denying them a license because they would “not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA.”
Massachusetts was regularly prioritizing ideology over maximizing the number of loving homes for vulnerable children. But this month, the state suddenly changed its policy.
On Dec. 12, DCF filed an emergency regulation that immediately altered the state’s language from requiring families to support and respect “a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity” to a “child’s individual identity and needs.” I reviewed an email that the state sent to ADF with the updated language. When I asked DCF for comment, a spokesperson told me the department will consider a family’s ability to support LGBTQ youth when placing children, not when licensing foster families. The spokesperson said this change means that religious couples are eligible to apply — or reapply — to serve as foster parents regardless of their beliefs.
That’s a pragmatic move by Massachusetts as it faces two lawsuits and increasing scrutiny from the Trump administration. It’s also the humane thing to do. As of October, according to DCF, 1,129 out of a total of 6,094 foster kids in Massachusetts were living in “congregate care,” which includes group homes. The state has a damning record of abuse in its system.
Significant questions remain about the sincerity of the state’s policy change, starting with the wording. Supporting a child’s “individual identity and needs” is broad enough to be coopted by ideology, especially in a state that has already made its viewpoint on gender issues clear.
In November, the state filed a memorandum in the Burke case arguing that “DCF’s LGBTQ+ Requirements are narrowly tailored to achieve DCF’s compelling government interest” and that “no less restrictive alternative” is available.
Massachusetts has taken a good first step. Other states with similarly restrictive requirements should follow its lead. In Vermont, two couples lost their licenses to foster because they didn’t agree with the state’s guidance on affirming gender and sexuality. Oregon tried to prevent Jessica Bates, who wanted to adopt a pair of siblings, from getting her certification for adoption for the same reason, until the courts intervened.
Rejecting foster parents because they won’t hypothetically affirm a child’s gender doesn’t just undermine the First Amendment — it puts ideology before the well-being of children. Not every foster home is the proper fit for each child in the system. That’s why states consider a foster parent’s preferences on categories such as age and medical needs.
“We have been called twice on very medically complex children that I just felt we really didn’t have the resources and the knowledge” to care for, Cynthia Robbins told me. “They do take these things into consideration.” A bit of flexibility in how children and parents are matched could be the difference between a traumatized kid sleeping in a bed or at a state office.
The courts seem to agree. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted a preliminary injunction to Bates, the foster mother in Oregon, and allowed her to start the adoption process in July. The state’s “general conception of the child’s best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights,” the court declared.
The federal Administration for Children and Families sent letters in September to Massachusetts and Oregon criticizing policies that turn away parents “solely because they cannot, in good conscience, commit to affirming a hypothetical child’s gender identity.”
In subsequent weeks, ACF sent letters to the District of Columbia and 10 other states, including Vermont, to inquire whether their policies discouraged families of faith from fostering. Vermont replied that it is reviewing its policies, according to a copy of the letter I obtained from ACF.
For a White House that likes to use culture wars to punish elite institutions and political adversaries, the Trump administration’s request to the states has been targeted and pragmatic: Don’t discriminate against religious families that could offer loving homes to needy kids.
“I’ve never talked to a state child welfare leader who said, ‘You know, my biggest problem is I have too many foster homes,’” ACF Assistant Secretary Alex Adams told me. In November, the administration issued an executive order to increase resources for foster children that included a section about facilitating partnerships with “Americans of faith.” That isn’t just a dig at states like Massachusetts; it’s a smart way to engage with segments of the population that are far likelier to foster.
Adams said that “all options are on the table” for applying pressure to states with discriminatory policies, noting that the federal government provides more than 40 percent of all child welfare funding.
So far, that pressure campaign is working. But the real test will be whether Massachusetts relicenses families like the Robbinses. In the months between adopting their foster daughter and having their licenses revoked, the couple’s desire to help vulnerable children never wavered. They asked for an exemption from the requirement to affirm a child’s gender identity but were denied.
Progressive states might think that forcing gender ideology on every foster family helps kids in need, but in reality, it only narrows their chances of finding stability in a loving home.
The post On faith and foster care, one state does the right thing appeared first on Washington Post.
