Christian Haven for Sex Trafficking Victims Sues to Receive Federal Funding

Gracehaven, a Christian organization that cares for young survivors of sex trafficking, filed suit this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging the county's refusal to contract with it to receive federal Title IV-E funding for foster care services.  The complaint (full text) in Gracehaven, Inc. v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, (SD OH, filed 12/9/2024), says in part:

12.  Because Gracehaven is a Christian ministry that requires all employees to share and live out its religious beliefs, it told Montgomery County that it was not waiving or surrendering its right to employ only those who share its faith by signing the contract, and that it would sign the contract “as is.”  

13. The County responded that it would no longer “move forward with the renewal” of the contract with Gracehaven because of the ministry’s religiously based employment practices.  ...

15. But Defendants’ position conflicts with federal law, which expressly allows religious organizations to prefer members of their own faith as employees. 

18. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established—indeed, has held three times in the past seven years—that the government “violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”

The complaint also alleges that the county's action violates its freedom of expressive association and its religious freedom rights under the Ohio Constitution. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Denial of Foster Care Licensure Subject to Strict Scrutiny

In Burke v. Walsh, (D MA, June 5, 2024), a Massachusetts federal district court refused to dismiss free exercise and free speech claims brought against Massachusetts Department of Children and Families personnel in their official capacities. Plaintiffs, a Catholic couple, were denied licensure for foster care and adoption because they did not demonstrate the ability to support the well-being of an LGBTQIA+ child that might be placed with them. The court said in part:

The court concludes it was clearly established, in 2023, that DCF's individualized and discretionary assessment of Plaintiffs' foster license application was not a "generally applicable" policy and thus was subject to strict scrutiny. Under the governing regulations, DCF considers 17 different subjective criteria, all of which must be demonstrated "to the satisfaction of the Department," when deciding on a foster license application. 110 C.M.R. § 7.104(1). One of these requirements, upon which Defendants relied in denying Plaintiffs' application, is "to promote the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of a child placed in his or her care, including supporting and respecting a child's sexual orientation or gender identity."...

 ... [T]he court need not decide, at this stage, whether it was also clearly established that Defendants' conduct would not withstand strict scrutiny analysis under these circumstances.

Suit Challenges Vermont Foster Care Rules on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court by two couples challenging a policy adopted by the state foster care agency relating to sexual orientation, gender identity/ expression (SOGIE). Plaintiffs allege that the policy is inconsistent with their Christian religious beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Wuoti v. Winters, (D VT, filed 6/4/2024) alleges in part:

According to the Department, to meet the “needs of each foster child” under Rule 301 (emphasized), all parents must demonstrate that they can support any hypothetical child’s SOGIE....

All foster families must show that they will unconditionally support and affirm a child’s desire to dress, cut their hair, or wear accessories to express their stated gender identity,,,,

Plaintiffs allege that as applied the policy violates their 1st Amendment free speech rights:

... [T]he Department’s Mandate requires applicants to agree to speak certain words, like inaccurate pronouns, and to engage in certain expressive activities, like pride parades, that express the Department’s preferred views on human sexuality, as a condition for accessing child-welfare services. 

... [T]he Department’s Mandate forbids applicants from expressing certain views, like the Plaintiffs’ religious views on human sexuality, and engaging in certain expressive activities, like attending church, as a condition for accessing child-welfare services....

They also allege that the policy violates their 1st Amendment religious free exercise rights:

... The Wuotis and the Gantts have certain sincerely held religious beliefs about the human body and human sexuality, and they are also religiously motivated to provide foster care and adoption. 

... The Department’s SOGIE Mandate conditions Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain a foster-care license on their willingness to speak and act contrary to these religious beliefs.

The complaint also alleges due process and equal protection claims. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

New Idaho Law Bars Adverse Action Because of Religious Conduct in Adoption, Foster Care, Licensing and State Contracting

On Monday, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 578 (full text) which prohibits state and local governments from treating adversely any adoption or foster care agency that declines to provide services because of a sincerely held religious belief. The new law also provides:

The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person who the state grants custody of a foster or adoptive child wholly or partially on the basis that the person guides, instructs, or raises a child, or intends to guide, instruct, or raise a child, based on or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief. The state government may consider whether a person shares the same religious or faith tradition as a foster or adoptive child when considering placement of the child in order to prioritize placement with a person of the same religious or faith tradition.

The new law goes on to provide that the state cannot deny licensing or the award of a contract to a person because the person believes, maintains policies and procedures, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

Faith-Based Foster Care Agency May Limit Clients to Those with Compatible Religious Beliefs

 In two decisions issued last week, a South Carolina federal district court rejected Establishment Clause challenges to waivers from federal anti-discrimination requirements granted faith-based child placement agencies.  In Rogers v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (D SC, Sept. 29, 2023), plaintiff challenged an Executive Order issued by the governor of South Carolina allowing licensing of religious child placement agencies that worked only with clients who shared their religious beliefs. At issue in the case was the rejection by Miracle Hill Ministries of a foster-parent application submitted by a same-sex couple who belonged to the local Unitarian-Universalist Church. The court rejected plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim because plaintiffs had not identified any state action involved.  It rejected their Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ legal premise is based on the now abandoned framework of the “Lemon Test” by focusing their argument on the third factor in Lemon regarding an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” ... Instead, based on historical practices and understandings which Kennedy requires, Establishment Clause protections are more likely triggered “when the government use[s] the established church to carry out certain civil functions, often by giving ‘the established church a monopoly over a specific function.’” ...

Plaintiffs identify but misstate three “hallmarks” of “founding-era religious establishments” that “reflect[] ‘forms of coerc[ion]’ regarding ‘religion or its exercise.’”... Stated in full, they are: 1) “the government punished dissenting churches and individuals for their religious exercise,” 2) “the government provided financial support for the established church, often in a way that preferred the established denomination over other churches,” and 3) “the government used the established church to carry out certain civil functions, often by giving the established church a monopoly over a specific function[.]” ...

Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden to show that these “hallmarks” exist here...

In Madonna v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (D SC, Sept. 29, 2023), plaintiff was rejected by Miracle Hill because she did not share its evangelical-Christian beliefs and could not affirm its statement of faith. Rejecting plaintiff's Establishment Clause claims, the court said in part:

Defendants did not compel Maddonna to sign Miracle Hill’s statement or leave her without an adequate alternative to signing it. To the contrary, Maddonna could foster the same children at any of twenty-six other private agencies in the State... or with the State itself....  Accordingly, Maddonna has not shown “a historically disfavored establishmentarian practice” based on a claim of “subtle and indirect pressure.”...

Maddonna’s attempt to implicate an impermissible religious accommodation is foreclosed by Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, an analogous case in which the Supreme Court found the denial of a similar religious accommodation for foster care agencies burdened the Free Exercise Clause.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decisions.

Jewish Couple Denied Child Placement Services by United Methodist Agency Have Standing to Sue

In Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (Aug. 24, 2023), a Tennessee state appellate court reversed a decision of a special 3-judge trial court (see prior posting) and held that a Jewish couple who allege religious discrimination by a state-subsidized United Methodist child-placement agency have standing to sue.  The agency refused to provide the couple with foster care training and a home study because the couple did not share the agency's religious beliefs. A Tennessee statute protects faith-based agencies that refuse to participate in placing a child because of the agency's religious or moral convictions. Subsequently the Department of Children's Services provided the couple directly with the training required. The court said in part:

In the present case, the allegations of the complaint assert that the Couple has been denied and are being denied equal access to stated-funded foster and adoption services because of their Jewish faith. In finding that the Couple lacked standing, the three-judge panel again emphasized that the State was providing the Couple with child placement services. However, when the state makes it more difficult for members of one group than for members of another group to obtain services, the injury in fact “is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.” ...

When a statute subjects a group of people to unequal treatment based upon their religious beliefs, the fact that the statute may allow discrimination against other religious groups does not negate a disfavored group’s standing to challenge the statute....

The court also concluded that six other Tennessee taxpayers who were co-plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to sue. AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Catholic Couple Sues Foster Care Agency For Religious Discrimination [Revised]

 A Catholic couple has filed suit in a Massachusetts federal district court against the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families claiming free exercise and free speech violations. Plaintiffs were denied a foster care license because they would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA.  The complaint (full text) in Burke v. Walsh, (D MA, filed 8/8/2023), alleges in part:

As faithful Catholics, the Burkes believe that all children should be loved and supported, and they would never reject a child placed in their home. They also believe that children should not undergo procedures that attempt to change their God-given sex, and they uphold Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality....

In effect, DCF has interpreted its regulations, which require foster families to “support[] and respect[] a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” 110 CMR 7.104(1)(d), as an absolute bar for Catholics who agree with the Church’s teaching on sex, marriage, and gender.

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

[Note-- this post was erroneously published previously with a title but no text.]

Rejection of Foster Parent Applicants Over Their Views on Homosexuality Violates Australian Equal Opportunity Law

In Hordyk v. Wanslea Family Services, Inc., (WA SAT, Dec. 23, 2022), the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia held that a non-profit family services agency that contracts with the state to arrange foster care for children placed in custody of the state violated Section 62 of the Western Australia Equal Opportunity Act 1984 when it rejected a couple who are members of the Free Reformed Church of Australia as foster parents. According to the court:

4, During the assessment process, the Hordyks revealed, in answer to specific questions asked of them, that they held the view that the Seventh Commandment in the Old Testament of the Bible requires sexual relationships to take place only between a man and woman who are married and that other expressions of human sexuality are sinful. The Hordyks believe that same-sex relationships are sinful and that people who feel same-sex attraction must fight the sin in order to live in conformity with the Commandments. They informed Wanslea that, as a result of their beliefs, in the event that a foster child who had been placed in their care was found kissing a child of the same sex at school, they would tell the child that they were loved but that the behaviour was sinful and needed to be resisted. The Hordyks said they would have to end the placement of a foster child who continued to behave in that way. They qualified that statement by saying that they would not terminate the placement immediately but could not foster that child in the long term.

5.  Following the Hordyks' expression of those views, Wanslea's staff decided not to proceed to a final assessment of the Hordyks' application and instead terminated the assessment process....

Law and Religion Australia reports at greater length on the decision.

Texas Sues HHS To Invalidate Rule on LGBTQ Discrimination by Adoption Agencies

Suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging a rule adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services that prohibits adoption and foster care agencies receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  It also requires them to recognize same-sex marriages.  In 2019, amidst other litigation, the government previously issued a Notice of Nonenforcement of this rule. (See prior posting.) However, that Notice is being challenged in other litigation.  The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Becerra, (SD TX, filed 12/12/22), contends that the rule by its terms does not apply to child placing agencies that contract with state agencies that initially receive federal grants, and that the rule, for numerous reasons, is an invalid exercise of agency authority. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Children's Home Lacks Standing To Challenge Now-Defunct HHS Non-Discrimination Rule

 In Holston United Methodist Home for Children, Inc. v. Becerra, (ED TN, Nov. 18, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court held that a religiously affiliated children's home that places children for foster care or adoption lacks standing to challenge a 2016 anti-discrimination rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the court:

Holston Home requires prospective foster and adoptive parents to affirm a Christian statement of faith and beliefs before they can engage in child-placement activities.... Further, Holston Home does not place children with foster or adoptive parents who are in same-sex relationships or unmarried couples of any biological sex who are romantically cohabitating....

While the challenged rule, promulgated at the end of the Obama Administration, barred such restrictions, HHS policy had undergone successive changes in the Trump and Biden Administrations. These are traced at length in the court's 22-page opinion. In particular the court noted:

Although HHS had not enforced the 2016 Grants Rule since it became effective, on November 19, 2019, HHS published a formal notification in the Federal Register to inform the public that it would not enforce the 2016 Grants Rule after determining that the rulemaking raised “significant concerns about compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act [‘RFA’].”...

Because the 2016 Grants Rule is, for all intents and purposes, defunct pursuant to the Notification of Nonenforcement, Holston Home faces no credible threat of prosecution.... Having also failed to show any history of past enforcement of the 2016 Grants Rule, enforcement warning letters, or a feature of the regulation making it easier or more likely to be enforced, Holston Home lacks standing to bring this lawsuit.

Claims Against Social Worker Who Questioned Foster Parents' Religion Is Dismissed

 In Sarmiento v. Marquez, (ND CA, Nov. 10, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed religious discrimination and retaliation claims against county social work personnel who attempted, ultimately unsuccessfully, to remove a foster child from plaintiffs' care. The court explained:

Plaintiffs contend that, as they were proceeding toward adoption of the child in their care, County social worker Luz Sanclemente asked Sarmiento whether she “[believed] in God,” and whether she “[believed] in Jesus Christ.” ... Plaintiffs allege that defendants thereafter sought to remove the child from their care in “retaliation for not appearing to be Christians.”

However, the court concluded:

Sanclemente’s query into plaintiffs’ beliefs ... did not at all “coerce [them] into acting contrary to their religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on [plaintiffs] to modify [their] behavior and to violate [their] beliefs.” ... Plaintiffs do not identify any action they took differently based on Sanclemente’s questioning. Plaintiffs do not represent that Sanclemente offered a quid pro quo, such as continued custody of the child in exchange for plaintiffs’ conversion to Christianity....

A First Amendment claim for retaliation requires a “substantial causal relationship” between a plaintiff’s “constitutionally protected activity” and “adverse [government] action . . . that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity.”,,,

Here, the [complaint] only speculates that there was a relationship between (1) plaintiffs’ response to Sanclemente that they are not Christians and (2) defendants’ actions to remove the child from plaintiffs’ care....

European Court: Human Rights Convention Violated When French Authorities Failed to Assure Respect for Foster Child's Birth Religion

In Loste v. France, (ECHR, Nov. 3, 2022) (full text in French) (Press Release summary in English), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber judgment held that France's child welfare service violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to assure that a Jehovah's Witness foster family was respecting the Muslim beliefs of its foster child's birth family. The Court's decision also dealt with a separate issue--French authorities' failure to protect the foster child from sexual abuse by her foster father. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Religious Discrimination Claims Against Child Protective Services Meet Procedural Hurdles

In Gautreaux v. Masters, (WD TX, Aug. 29, 2022), a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended that the court dismiss some or all of the free exercise and due process claims brought by foster parents who were accused by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) of child abuse. The opinion describes plaintiffs' allegations:

[DFPS] asked the couple to identify their religion during the application process, and they identified themselves as practicing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.... Gautreaux alleges that DFPS demonstrated "hostility toward the Gautreauxes' religion" at their initial interview, while their follow-up interview "exclusively concerned the Gautreauxes' religious practices and beliefs."...

... DFPS informed Gautreaux that the department had found there was "reason to believe" she had committed the alleged abuse, resulting in Gautreaux being placed on the DFPS central registry "as a child abuser." ... Gautreaux alleges that DFPS's decision was motivated by religious "animus" and that there was no evidence of abuse to support the finding....

Gautreaux alleges that she is unable to practice her religion as a result of her placement on the DFPS central registry. Specifically, Gautreaux alleges that she cannot participate in her "calling" - an assignment made by Church leaders - which is to "teach singing to children in her local church."

In a lengthy opinion, the Magistrate Judge recommended either that all the claims be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine, or alternatively that most of plaintiffs' free exercise claims be dismissed because of 11th Amendment sovereign immunity. Under the alternative recommendation, the court could move ahead on  claims challenging DFPS's policies of considering religious beliefs and practices as a concern in abuse investigations and its disregarding of inconsistent court rulings.

Jewish Couple Lacks Standing To Challenge Tennessee Law Allowing Christian Foster Care Agency To Deny Services

In Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (TN Chanc., June 27, 2022), a Tennessee state 3-judge panel sitting under a special provision of Tennessee law that applies to constitutional challenges, held 2-1 that a Jewish couple who were denied foster-parent training by a state-funded Christian child placement agency lack standing to challenge a Tennessee law permitting faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to refuse to provide services that violate their religious convictions. The standing decision was based on the fact that the state Department of Children's Services ultimately provided training directly to the couple, rather than the couple obtaining it through a private agency. (See prior related posting.) Americans United issued a press release on the case.

Arizona Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Practices Of Faith-Based Adoption Agencies

On Monday, the Arizona legislature sent to the governor for his signature Senate Bill 1399 (full text) which protects adoption and foster care agencies from adverse action when they provide or decline services on the basis of their religious beliefs. It also provides that the state may consider whether a potential foster or adoptive family shares the same religious beliefs or practices as the child being placed. AZ Mirror has extensive reporting on the views of proponents and opponents of the legislation.

In Settlement, Michigan Allows Catholic Charities To Refuse Child Placements With Same-Sex Or Unmarried Couples

In Catholic Charities West Michigan v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MI, March 21, 2022), a Michigan federal district court approved a settlement agreement under which the state of Michigan will allow Catholic Charities, operating under contracts with the state, to refuse to place children for adoption or foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples and refuse to conduct home evaluations for same-sex or unmarried couples. The parties' Agreement says in part:

[A]s a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), the Parties agree that Plaintiff would likely prevail on Count V (Free Exercise) of the Complaint.

The state also agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $250,000. ADF issued a press release announcing the settlement.

Michigan Settles Suit Over Placement Policy Of Catholic Adoption Agency

 A Michigan federal district court this week in Buck v. Hertel,(WD MI, Jan. 26, 2022), issued an Order implementing a settlement agreement between the state of Michigan and St. Vincent Catholic Charities which is a licensed child placement agency placing children for foster care and adoption. The Order provides in part:

MDHHS shall not take any action against St. Vincent’s CPA license or terminate or not renew the Contracts because St. Vincent does not: i. certify or approve a same-sex or unmarried couple as a foster parent or adoptive parent, or ii. conduct a home evaluation for a same-sex or unmarried couple, or iii. place a foster child with a same-sex or unmarried couple for foster care or adoption.

Under the settlement, the state also agreed to pay St. Vincent's attorneys' fees of $550,000. As reported by Fox 47 News, the state agreed to the settlement after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Jewish Couple Challenge Denial Of Services By Christian Foster Care Placement Agency

Suit was filed yesterday in a Tennessee state trial court challenging the state's contracting with a Christian child placement agency that refuses to provide foster parent training to those who do not share its Christian beliefs.  A Jewish couple who were denied services sued, along with several other plaintiffs.  A Tennessee statute enacted in 2020 specifically allows faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to refuse to provide services that violate their religious convictions. The complaint (full text) in Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (TN Chanc. Ct., filed 1/19/2022), alleges that this religious discrimination violates several provisions of the Tennessee state constitution.  Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Child Placement Agency Challenges HHS Non-Discrimination Regulations

Suit was filed yesterday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a Tennessee federal district court by a religious child welfare agency that offers residential and foster care services for abused and neglected children. The suit challenges an HHS regulation that prohibits foster care and adoption programs receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or same-sex marriage status. The regulation expands upon the statutory prohibition on discrimination in such programs on the basis of race, color or national origin. The complaint (full text) in Holston United Methodist Home for Children v. Becerra,(ED TN. filed 12/2/2021), alleges that the regulation exceeds the federal agency's authority and that it violates RFRA and various 1st Amendment rights. The complaint alleges in part:

28. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with persons that do not agree with its Christian statement of faith and beliefs....

30. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with couples who may be romantically cohabitating but not married, or who are couples of the same biological sex.

The Trump Administration had issued waivers of the rule for faith-based agencies, but those waivers were rescinded by the Biden Administration last month. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

HHS Rescinds Trump Era Religious Exemptions For Child Welfare Agencies In Three States

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it is rescinding waivers of non-discrimination requirements issued during the Trump Administration to South Carolina, Texas and Michigan, along with certain child welfare agencies in those states. The waivers allowed faith-based foster care placement agencies to receive federal funds even though they select foster parents on the basis of religion. (See prior posting.) In its release yesterday, HHS summarized the background for its action:

Through these waivers, States and child welfare agencies – including States and organizations that did not make such requests - were granted exemptions from program nondiscrimination requirements in a rule that was not in effect. In taking today's actions, HHS is reestablishing its long-standing Department practice of evaluation of religious exemptions and modifications of program requirements on a case-by-case basis, as needed, and as is required by law—which was unprecedently changed in 2017 by the previous Administration. Today, HHS reaffirms its important commitment to core American values:  HHS will not condone the blanket use of religious exemptions against any person or blank checks to allow discrimination against any persons, importantly including LGBTQ+ persons in taxpayer-funded programs.