A Massachusetts couple, Lydia and Heath Marvin, experienced the revocation of their foster care license after they declined to comply with a state policy. The policy in question mandates foster parents to affirm the gender identity and sexual orientation of children in their care. The Marvins, who have fostered eight children since 2020, had their licensure journey halted in April following their refusal to sign the state's required nondiscrimination agreement.
The situation unfolded when the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) enforced a policy designed to protect the rights of children in foster care, especially those identifying as LGBTQ+. The policy includes stipulations that caregivers must respect individuals' gender identity by using requested names and pronouns and prohibits any attempts to persuade children to alter their sexual orientation or gender identity. It also allows for youth to use restrooms, wear clothing, and adopt hairstyles that align with their gender identity.
Lydia Marvin expressed to CBS Boston that while they are willing to love and support any child in their home, adhering to this policy would conflict with their Christian beliefs. The Massachusetts DCF defends the policy as a necessary measure to ensure the well-being of foster youth, referencing research which shows a higher percentage of LGBTQ+ identification among children in foster care compared to their peers outside the system.
A 2019 study from Children's Rights indicated that over 30% of youth in foster care identify as LGBTQ+, a stark contrast to roughly 11% of youth not in the system. This disparity has prompted the implementation of policies tailored to the needs of these children. The Massachusetts policy also advocates for access to "culturally responsive and affirming" healthcare and mental health services, which can include support for legal name and gender changes.
Medical associations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association regard gender-affirming care as evidence-based and medically necessary. These positions have shaped policy decisions at various levels, although the interventions, particularly for minors, are still a point of debate among medical professionals.
The Marvins are not facing this challenge in silence. They are exploring legal avenues in response to the license revocation. Their case is not unique; a group of prospective foster parents represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group, is currently challenging the same DCF policy in court.
