Catholic couple say Indiana state government took their trans son away from them because


  • Mary and Jeremy Cox, who are Catholic, were investigated by Indiana officials for refusing to affirm their child’s transgender identity
  • The couple claimed doing so would conflicted with their religious beliefs, but their child, then 15, was removed by child protection services
  • The removal has been upheld in Indiana’s court of appeals and the couple is asking the Supreme Court to hear their case

An Indiana couple have appealed to the Supreme Court after their child was removed by child protection services when the parents declined to use their chosen name and pronouns. 

Mary and Jeremy Cox, who are Catholic, were investigated by Indiana officials for refusing to affirm their child’s transgender identity because they claimed it conflicted with their Christian beliefs. 

‘This is what every parent is afraid of,’ Mary and Jeremy Cox said ahead of their high profile legal battle. 

Upon completing the state investigation, Indiana Department of Child Services reportedly determined the allegations of abuse against Mary and Jeremy were unsubstantiated.

However, the state still argued the disagreement over gender identity was distressing to the child. In 2021, their child was taken and put in another home when they were around 15 years old.

Mary and Jeremy Cox, who are catholic, were investigated by Indiana officials for refusing to affirm their child's transgender identity

Mary and Jeremy Cox, who are catholic, were investigated by Indiana officials for refusing to affirm their child’s transgender identity

The removal has been upheld in Indiana's court of appeals and will now move to the Supreme Court

The removal has been upheld in Indiana’s court of appeals and will now move to the Supreme Court

‘Keeping a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs—even when the state admits there was no abuse or neglect—is wrong and it’s against the law,’ attorney Lord Windham representing the Coxes told Fox News.

‘The Court should take this case and make clear that other states can’t take children away because of ideological disagreements.’ 

Adding: ”If this can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere.’  

The couple’s son reportedly told them he identified as a girl in 2019.

The Coxes refused to refer to the child with their preferred name and pronouns, citing their religious beliefs in immutable sex.

The DCS received allegations that the child’s physical and mental condition was endangered by her parents who were not referring to her by her preferred pronouns. Reports of alleged verbal and emotional abuse over the teen’s gender identity were filed. They are allegations the Coxes deny.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office argued the conflict over the child’s gender identity was not why the state took her away from her parents. 

‘Rather, petitioners’ child was removed because the child had a severe eating disorder that petitioners had not been able to effectively address for two years, that jeopardized the child’s brain and bone health,’ the attorney general’s office argued.  

In 2021, Indiana officials investigated the couple and placed the child in a ‘gender affirming’ home. 

The Coxes took their case to trial court, where the decision to remove the child and restrict visitation rights was upheld. 

Indiana's Child Protection Service, overseen by Eric Miller, enforced the removal of the child from their parents

Indiana’s Child Protection Service, overseen by Eric Miller, enforced the removal of the child from their parents 

The Court of Appeals also upheld the removal. The case could now head to the Supreme Court.

‘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 Indiana Department of Child Services, led by Eric Miller, said the department ‘does not comment on ongoing litigation.’ 



Read More

Leave a comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More