Vermont Couple's Foster License Threatened Over Opposition to Transgender Ideology

A Christian couple in Vermont alleges that the state threatened to revoke their foster care license due to their views on transgender ideology and treatments for children in their care. The couple, Melinda Antonucci and Casey Mathieu, say they were subjected to an LGBTQ+ training that discussed medical procedures for trans kids and were interrogated about their stance on gender issues. They claim that DCF officials expressed concerns about their ability to affirm transgender-identifying children and refused to facilitate any medical transitions, leading to the threat of license revocation.

In a chilling turn of events, a Christian couple in Vermont, Melinda Antonucci and Casey Mathieu, have come forward to expose the state's alleged discrimination against their religious beliefs riguardo transgender ideology. The couple, eager to expand their family, embarked on the process of obtaining a foster care license last year. However, their journey took a drastic turn when Antonucci posted a link to a petition advocating for parental rights on Facebook, sparking a series of interactions with the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF).

During a conversation with a DCF worker, Antonucci expressed her support for the petition, which called for the school district to recognize parents' constitutional right to raise their children and inform them should the district assist students in gender transitions. This apparently raised concerns for DCF, as the worker proceeded to interrogate her about her beliefs on trans children, specifically inquiring about her willingness to use preferred names and pronouns. The couple refused to comply with the request, maintaining that such decisions should be made in consultation with parents.

According to the couple's legal team, the Center for American Liberty, the DCF worker conveyed that her support for the petition and her unwillingness to foster a transgender child or discuss they/them pronouns with her son could result in the revocation of their license. This threat was later confirmed in an email sent by DCF, stating that they were unsure how to proceed with the couple's fostering given their inability to predict any foster child's journey with their own identity.

Despite the couple's refusal to voluntarily close their license, DCF has yet to formally revoke it or provide a formal notification of their intentions. However, the couple's lawyers have concluded that DCF has effectively shadow-revoked their license by withholding correspondence about potential foster placements for several weeks.

The Center for American Liberty has vehemently condemned DCF's actions, asserting that they violate the couple's First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They have demanded that DCF cease any plans to revoke the couple's license based on their views and discontinue any discriminatory actions against them. Additionally, they request written confirmation that the couple's license will not be revoked due to their protected speech and religious beliefs and clarification that foster parents are not obligated to adhere to DCF's preferred treatment plans for trans kids.

Mark Trammell, the executive director at the Center for American Liberty, decried DCF's actions, stating that it is difficult to believe they have the best interests of children at heart. Denying children the opportunity to be placed in a loving home because of a couple's sincerely held Christian beliefs is both outrageous and illegal, he emphasized.

Antonucci, who also ran unsuccessfully for a position on the school board, believes the state's actions may be linked to her public stance on issues related to gender ideology. She expresses concern about the growing influence of transgender ideology in schools and society at large, particularly in relation to young children.

The couple's ordeal serves as a stark reminder of the growing intolerance towards dissenting views regarding gender issues. Their case highlights the importance of protecting religious freedom and the rights of parents to make decisions about their children's upbringing. It also raises questions about the extent to which the government can dictate the beliefs and practices of individuals and families.