A Catholic couple in Indiana is seeking relief from the Supreme Court after their son was removed from their home due to their refusal to use cross-sex pronouns for him. The parents, Mary and Jeremy Cox, are represented by Becket Law and aim to implore the Supreme Court to prevent states from infringing on parental rights in the name of gender ideology. Becket Law filed a reply brief on February 15, 2024, urging the Justices to overturn the Indiana court rulings and safeguard the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.
The Coxes faced scrutiny from Indiana in 2021, with authorities contending that the parents did not “affirm” their son’s false belief that he identified as female. Consequently, the state removed the child from their care, placing him in a home where individuals used incorrect pronouns. Moreover, the parents were restricted from discussing topics related to God or human sexuality during visits. The courts sanctioned the state’s removal of the child from his parents based on this disagreement over the understanding of biological sex.
In 2019, the Coxes’ son expressed identifying as trans, prompting his parents to seek mental health assistance for both the gender identity issue and an underlying eating disorder. However, the mental health system, biased toward gender transition, played a role in the state’s intervention. The state alleged that the Coxes failed to use the child’s “preferred pronouns” and subsequently separated him from his parents. Indiana permitted only limited visitation, forbidding the Coxes from imparting their religious beliefs to their son, leading to a deterioration of his eating disorder outside his family’s care.
Mary and Jeremy Cox lamented the situation, stating, “This is what every parent is afraid of. 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.” Despite Indiana dropping allegations against the Coxes post-investigation, the child remained separated from his parents. Indiana argued that the disagreement over gender identity exacerbated the eating disorder, a claim contested by the Coxes given the concurrent nature of both issues.
Becket’s Lori Windham criticized the actions, emphasizing the infringement on parental rights based on religious beliefs and the potential for such cases to recur if the Supreme Court does not intervene.
