Demanding special rights has been a successful strategy of the transgender advocacy movement. From lobbying for federal mandates for the inclusion of biological males on high school and college women’s sports teams to requirements for gender-inclusive restrooms and sports locker rooms, trans-rights have dominated much of the conversation about LGBTQ rights these past few years.
Often missing in these conversations has been the erosion of the civil rights of those with traditional/biblical views on gender and sexuality. In fact, faithful Catholics and others who believe in the immutability of sex and gender, are increasingly losing their rights to employment, to participation in organized sports, and most recently, in California, the ability to be foster parents to California’s most vulnerable children.
SB 407, originally a bill authored by California’s Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco)—a longtime advocate for LGBTQ causes—mandates that foster parents must affirm a child’s chosen gender identity or sexual orientation even if such affirmations are counter to the foster parent’s strongly held religious or moral views. The law passed in 2023—even though concerned foster parents from throughout the state traveled to Sacramento to try and dissuade lawmakers from supporting a bill that would likely be used to purge the foster care system of faithful religious families.
In the early months following the passage of SB 407, foster parents were still allowed to verbally affirm that they would provide a loving home to any child, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.
But a new directive from the Department of Social Services released on November 14, 2024 became a problem for faithful/traditional foster parents, because it required these parents to explicitly proclaim that they supported the idea of a child’s ability to change his or her gender identity. Claiming to be “family-friendly, and child-centered,” the November 14th directive demands that all foster families must “receive training on cultural sensitivity regarding sexual orientation and gender identity expression (SOGIE) and best practices for providing care to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) children.”
In addition to the mandated re-education of potential and current foster families, the November 14 letter, sent to county and state-licensed foster care agencies, stated, “Each resource family must have the capacity, ability, and willingness to safeguard a child’s or non-minor dependent’s personal rights and respect and honor the child’s identities regardless of their own values and beliefs.”
A close reading of this directive demonstrates that the State of California is now forcing speech and behavior in order to allow foster parents to continue to participate in California’s foster care system.
Beyond the affirmation process, there is an intensive Family Evaluation interview process by the State focusing on gender and sexual orientation and “intended to assess the family’s ability, willingness and capacity to provide a safe, accepting and affirming home to prevent additional trauma to any child or non-minor dependent who could be placed with them by asking direct and open-ended questions about their ability and capacity to care for LGBTQ+ children and NMDs [non-minor dependents].”
Because of these new requirements, foster parents have already had their foster family re-certification denied.
According to the California Family Council, a Fresno-based California conservative Christian non-profit organization, families who refuse to sign a document affirming the gender and sexual orientation of children have already lost their ability to continue to be foster families. According to Greg Burt of the California Family Council, one father who contacted his Council, said that he and his wife had provided foster care to lots of young children over the years. But a social worker recently refused to renew their foster care license because they could not promise to sign a document affirming a transgender identity.
While few people outside the foster care system in California even know of the threats to the civil rights of foster care parents by forcing them to affirm the transgender identity and deny the immutability of one’s God-given sex/gender in order to become foster parents, this case has resonance for all Christians and all of those with traditional views of sex/gender.
Kevin Snyder, chief counsel of the conservative Pacific Justice Institute, told a reporter:
California parents may think, ‘This doesn’t concern me—I’m not a foster parent.’ In fact, it does concern you. There is now a very small step for the state to deem any parent as unfit to raise their own children if the family holds a view that contradicts the state’s ideology on gender and sexual orientation. This could result in a visit by Child Protective Services with tragic consequences for the home.
It is likely that there will be legal challenges to the directive mandated by California’s SB 407. There is historical precedent safeguarding Catholics from this kind of abuse. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Fulton v City of Philadelphia that the City of Philadelphia violated a Catholic foster care agency’s First Amendment rights when the City refused to renew the agency’s contract unless it certified same-sex couples as foster parents. Until the Supreme Court ruling, the City of Philadelphia denied contracts to Catholic foster agencies that would not place children in same-sex households.
The California Department of Social Services overreach will probably meet a fate similar to that of the City of Philadelphia. But it will take years for legal challenges to reach the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, foster children—some of the most vulnerable children in the country—will be deprived of being sheltered and supported by loving faithful families whose only “crime” is their religious beliefs.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Unfortunately, in the popular media (and consequently in the popular mind), the descriptors faithful, traditional, and conservative are codewords for backward, intolerant and bigoted.
Sadly so, but perhaps the mind preceded the media.
I am shocked and revolted by this bill. It removes constitutional rights of freedom of religion by forcing both speech and action. And the person who suffers is the child also, who misses out on the broader guidance of parents to make decision based on emotion alone. Is there not a better way?
I would move. I would never live in California.
Are there enough people in California who want to provide foster homes for children? Or will this ridiculous mandate mean that children will remain in orphanages (or whatever the politically-correct word is for “places where parentless children live”)?
I do hope that this is being challenged in courts.
I have two relatives in California who have chosen to remain in place for decades. It might go without saying that “we do not see the same thing” in a cultural, philosophical, moral, or religious sense. I can only suppose that they have become so acculturated to the place that they cannot imagine living anywhere else. For me, I can imagine living almost anywhere but there.
#1 The State does NOT own children. Children are a gift from God Who created them – not the State.
#2. Sounds like a case that should be brought before the Supreme Court. The bishops of CA need to sue the State.
We must gear up legal initiatives and demand across the board religious exemptions and the right to live peacefully .Short of a miracle, these efforts will most likely be fruitless considering the prevailing general moral decadence. In light of the failure in this effort we must plan ahead for living underground under the radar.
Under the radar in California perhaps, but the rest of the nation doesn’t entirely resemble CA. Hence the outcome of the last election.
As long as the progressive state enjoys the passive and active support of progressive “Catholicism” from the laity to the Pope the state if freed to justifiably “sin increasingly boldly”. Not only does the progressive catholicism undermine Catholicism it undermines orthodoxy and the pursuit of the virtuous life in all other religious and secular endeavors.
California is quite capable of passing a Test Act where people would have to acknowledge LGBTetc theory as a condition of state employment, after which, private employers and professional groups could do the same.The current Supreme Court would probably overturn such practices but a future one might not. In any even, the test could still be imposed extra-legally with dissenter just not being hired for some reason. . . .
Have you guys considered that:
1. Kids in the system may not disclose that they’re trans, or may not know it when being placed, and
2. Parents who aren’t willing to support a trans kid probably wouldn’t WANT to be parents to a trans kid?
This prevents the state from having to move kids out of homes that don’t want them, and parents from having to deal with/get rid of a kid they think is broken or wrong. If you want a kid, you have to be willing to accept they may see the world differently. Sometimes drastically so.
“Lots of”? Really, CWR? In an article about a serious issue, you embarrass our side and make us sound ignorant and juvenile. Please keep your standards high. If those were the words of the father and you wanted to quote his exact words, then put quotation marks around them. If not, please paraphrase his words using more professional vocabulary, such as “many” or “numerous” – or better still, an actual number, such as “more than fifteen.”
The California wild fires are just the beginning of God’s judgments on this wicked state.
Californians need to pay attention to God’s removing His veil of protection from that state. These liberal policies are get more and more Satanic. Th politicians they put in are either clear diabolically influenced or just ignorant. God Bless America
Has Cardinal McElroy spoken out on this? If not, now is the time.
The article sheds light on a concerning issue regarding California’s policies that seem to be limiting the ability of faithful Catholic families to participate in the foster care system. It raises important questions about the intersection of religious freedom and state regulations, particularly in cases where certain religious beliefs may conflict with foster care agency requirements. The article effectively points out the potential impact this could have on both families and the children in need of care, as Catholic families are known to offer stable and loving homes for foster children.
It would be beneficial to explore further the specific policies or legal rulings that have led to these restrictions, and whether there are opportunities for dialogue or changes within the system to ensure that faith-based families can continue to serve as foster parents while adhering to their beliefs. Additionally, offering insights into how other states are handling similar issues could provide a broader perspective on the situation.
Overall, the article highlights a significant challenge in foster care, encouraging readers to consider the broader implications of policies that affect the ability of faith-based families to contribute to critical social services while upholding their religious convictions.