Texas suffered 235 child-abuse and neglect fatalities in a recent, typical year, according to state statistics. Department of Family and Protective Services workers investigate tens of thousands of possible abuse cases each year.
So, diverting resources to interfere with families’ decisions on transgender medical care, even in a tiny number of cases, is a mistake. Lawmakers may want to address restrictions on medical procedures when they convene next year, but handling cases through DFPS and the specific lens of child abuse isn’t the answer.
Several news outlets recently reported that on Aug. 30, school administrators pulled a 13-year-old transgender boy out of a middle-school class. A report of abuse had been filed, and a DFPS investigator began interviewing the minor about his medical history.
The teen’s mother signed a declaration describing the incident for a lawsuit by LGBTQ allies Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, who are trying to stop state investigations into families who are allowing their children to take cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers.
This all started in February, when Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a nonbinding legal opinion declaring that giving a child cross-sex hormones could be abuse because of their life-altering and often irreversible effects. Citing that opinion, Gov. Greg Abbott then instructed DFPS to investigate any claims of abuse that fit these descriptions.
Litigation had originally prompted a judge to halt investigations of abuse, but in May, the state Supreme Court overturned the injunction. So, DFPS has followed Abbott’s order and investigated a handful of reports.
In any abuse investigation, it makes sense to interview children in school and away from abusers, who are often parents or other family members who live with them.
But it’s the inclusion of transgender medical care in the abuse framework that is a problem. There are an array of opinions, even among medical professionals, about the appropriateness of cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers. But “abuse” is a serious charge that should be limited to parental neglect, causing physical or emotional harm to children, or dangerous or squalid living conditions.
Some unnecessary or harmful medical care certainly could qualify as abusive (see Factitious disorder imposed on another, previously called Munchausen syndrome by proxy). But this issue is too complex and in too much flux to ask state agents to sort it out — especially when they’re overwhelmed with standard abuse cases and a foster system that’s in dire need of repair.
Inevitably, transgender medical care for children will be addressed in the policy arena. Abbott has said to expect so in next year’s legislative session, and he’s signaled his support for a ban on surgical procedures (which are exceedingly rare for children) and perhaps other treatments.
Like all policy on controversial issues, there will be some gray areas, some nuance. But if lawmakers are truly concerned about children receiving hormones and drugs in advance of possible surgical procedures, they can debate restrictions through legislation.
A strict law to stop something only a handful of people might be doing also could be the definition of a legislative overreach.
Had Abbott and Paxton stayed out of it, perhaps the issue would have lost steam. After all, parents make bad, life-altering (but not exactly abusive) decisions on behalf of their children daily. If Republicans really favor parental rights as they say they do in the context of education and other issues, why not let this issue remain within families?
Whatever the legislative outcome, the last thing the DFPS needs to be doing is pulling kids from class and asking them why their parents are letting them take puberty blockers.
Child-abuse investigators and caseworkers have an overflowing workload with kids who need homes or who are suffering significant physical or emotional harm. State agents should remain focused on those kids, and lawmakers should find other ways to address the issue, if at all.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
